RE: MICROSOFT BS FUD
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wright [mailto:d.wright@open.ac.uk]
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 (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.
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.
Reply to: