Re: Debian/GNU Freebsd (+binary compatablity?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:50:21 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> I shouldn't have even had to have asked the question.
>oh yes. that's right, i forgot. the whole world revolves around you and we
>should read your mind to save you any effort.
No. One should simply cite their sources. It isn't that hard,
especially in this day and age when damned near everything is on the web.
>> Yet you didn't cite any examples to back up your claim. I challenged it and
>it didn't seem like a "challenge" to me. it seemed more like "TELL ME
>WHERE THE INFO IS SO I CAN SCORE AGAINST MY CO_WORKERS!!! DO IT NOW!".
Really now?
>> OK, playing devil's advocate here for a moment. If that is the case,
>> then why do we constantly see FreeBSD breaking records on ftp.cdrom.com
>> while Red Hat, at Comdex, was balancing the load over several, more
>> powerful, machines at a lower threshhold than the max on cdrom.com?
There was my challenge, Craig, you tell me where I mentioned my
coworkers in there. In fact, that was my entire reply to you! That was it
all, right there! My coworkers weren't mentioned until much later.
I think that is a far cry from your assertation of "TELL ME WHERE THE
INFOR IS SO I CAN SCORE AGAINST MY CO_WORKERS!!! DO IT NOW!" In fact, it
seemed quite a civil request.
>and i said at the time in response to yours or someone else's question -
>look in the linux-kernel archives. i recall seeing benchmarks posted a
>couple of years ago.
Wasn't to me, and that was years ago. My cite, IIRC, is July of this
year. It seems to me that years old benchmarks against something quite
recent does not go in favor of your claim, only against.
>you make a huge fuss over one little off-the-cuff remark.
I make a huge fuss because of off-the-cuff remarks from the FreeBSD camp
as well. I would like cold, hard FACTS to cite when we (the Linux camp)
make similar remarks. It is called not stooping to their level.
>my point in my original message was NOT to say linux's networking code
>was better than FreeBSD's.
Whether or not that was your intention, those were your words.
>i don't personally give a damn whether it is or it isn't. my point was to
>highlight the fact that FreeBSD bigots still repeat claims which were
>disproven years ago. i.e. their position is religious, not factual.
And without cites to recent benchmarks or real world examples to counter
FreeBSD's recent real world example your calling them "bigots" and stating
that their position is religious and not factual, is, well, hypocritical.
News flash, Craig, they have *RECENT* facts to back up their claims. In my
eyes, even as a hard core Linux user, it is *YOU* who is being religious,
not factual.
>i made no claim. i reported information that i had encountered several
>years in the past.
It sure looked like a claim at the time. If it were, as you say,
"reporting information that i [sic] had encountered several years in the
past" then wouldn't you have cited the source in the first place?
>i think this list would be a lot more pleasant if you weren't such an
>argumentative SOB. it seems there is hardly any thread that you don't
>feel compelled to rudely, arrogantly(*) and irritatingly create some
>annoying fucking argument over some pedantic trifle. your "contribution"
>to the list is, apart from flames and other worthless crap, negligible.
You mean, this post of yours is an example I should follow?
>in short, your attitude sucks and really gives me (and several other
>people) the shits.
Might I suggest a case of Pepto Bismol, then? I don't care what you
think of my attitude and I'm sure you don't care what I think of yours. But
I am no more apt to leave just because you're now flaming and hollaring
because someone, namely me, made a reasonable request that no one has
fulfilled.
>this is spelt out here in no uncertain terms because you seem incapable
>of taking a hint - STOP PISSING PEOPLE OFF OVER TRIVIALITIES.
Cites sources when you're going to make claims, then.
>DO NOT BOTHER REPLYING.
Sorry, no can do, you made some rather foolish remarks in this message
that needed to be countered.
>Your addresses have been uncommented from my procmail shit-list again.
Good, maybe your blood pressure will drop and you can again think
clearly enough to be reasonable.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
iQA/AwUBNtIHmnpf7K2LbpnFEQKNOgCglAry+MJo+XXNnBkqfAUKf6Jp91cAn24L
VIRashGX02iY4USmRlXUie+p
=TsDR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: