Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >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
-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
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
Apparently Mindcraft and MS(we don't really know this) has pulled this
act before.
Take a look at the response Netware has when MC did a comparison with
netware.
http://www.novell.com/advantage/nw5/nw5-mindcraftcheck.html
Philip Thiem
--
PENQUIN-LOVER-CODER ALERT: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All win
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.
-Original Message-
From: Kenneth Scharf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 3:21
On 1999-04-14 18:14, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
> Of course, its not likely that anyone in the free software movement will
> be able to verify the results, because they used pretty expensive
> machinery. A four processor Xeon as the server, and 144 pentium test
> nodes with ethernet switches.
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
> | Well, while I agree with that, this is already being read and believed by
> | managers and suits. What we need are numbers to the contrary, not "it was
> | commisioned by Microsoft".
>
> Again, any logical person would conclude that the test was biased
"Christopher J. Morrone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
[snip]
| > You guys need to read your Slashdot (http://slashdot.org). I've heard
| > that this particular "benchmark" was commissioned by Microsoft. Anyone
| > who pays attention to a benchmark commission
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
> Kenneth Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
> | It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
> | in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up
Kenneth Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
| It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
| in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE:
| use of a kerenl with know network b
There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE:
use of a kerenl with know network bugs, none of apache's optimizations
turned on...
-
Rick Macdonald wrote:
>
> > Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a
> > benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux.
> >
> > http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
>
> This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, or the
>
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a
> benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux.
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, o
13 matches
Mail list logo
