-----Original Message----- From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:06 AM To: Mike Barton; debian-user@lists.debian.org Cc: David Wright Subject: Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I suppose you "just forgot" to post an even minor semblance of proof? Please > correct the error and let us all in on it. Better yet why not answer my > "iBCS anyone" post of a few days ago. >Seeing as the modules in -2.0.34 and -2.0.35 compare equal, and that >both they and that in -2.0.33 all contain the string 2.0.33, I'd say >that there's been a slip-up in versions. It's happened before and may >happen again, but really only affect those people who don't compile >their own kernels. Useful information, thanks. >Nobody answered your post probably because they couldn't guess from >"not having any luck" why you couldn't just compile the module along >with whatever kernel version you're using. I included shell output from both an attempt to load the module and an attempt to compile it. >I'm not quite sure what having a view on the report has to do with >capability to answer your question. FWIW I can't see how people >place any faith in "independent" comparisons of products paid for >by one of the parties. Thereagain, the company involved doesn't >even claim that comparisons are amongst the services they provide, >and they place such a strong disclaimer notice at the end that one >wonders about their own faith. The point is the same as that in the Mazda TV commercial that features a racy looking dude blasting through the twisties in a 626. We all know he's doing this on a closed track, under controlled circumstances and that a 626 is hardly a "sports sedan". Similarly, benchmarks and other computer company advertising is all to be taken with a grain of salt.
