Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Quoting Mike Barton (mike@dad.state.vt.us):
> 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.
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'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.
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Reply to: