From: "Joe Barr" 

On Sun, 11 May 2003 10:28:38 -0400, Geo. wrote:

> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.11.08.23.32.16006{at}austin.rr.com...
>
>> And that view is much reduced from the one MS is trying to sell.
>
> and from the one you were trying to sell.

Half full or half empty?  I'll settle for a compliant Windows user
recognizing how the benchmark was rigged.


One of the things you should
> have asked the samba guy was why does raid0 suck on linux and is that
> being addressed. Give him a chance to say "yes it's an area that needed
> attention and now it's getting it" so that the linux world understands
> the authors are capable of seeing the problems and addressing them. That
> will convince people it's a good platform far more than knocking MS
> benchmark requirements.

Well, maybe.  Except for two things.  :)

1.  The story was about yet another bogus/rigged/contrived/controlled
"benchmark" from Microsoft, not about software RAID 0
performance.

2.  Jeremy Allison is the head of the Samba development project.  He
doesn't have anything to do with RAID development.

What I should have pointed out in the story is that the maggots in Redmond
are such chickenshit spineless worms that they won't allow objective
benchmarking of their products. After all, they pay Shupak and the others
in MS R&D good money to develop rigged test platforms to deceive the
public.  Don't want all that effort going to waste, you know.

Can you imagine being such a pathetic cowardly wimp?  Demanding their
customers give up their rights to free speech in order to protect their god
damned lies. They are spineless worms, from Richard Shupak to Ballmer to
Gates.


> One of the things I used to really like about NT was that the NT team
> would do just that. They would admit something sucked and get to work on
> fixing it in the next version.
>
> Geo.

--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4