On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Too bad their hardware benchmarks do not match the development news, and too > bad they also feel it necessary to continuously warn about alleged > unsuitability of the Free drivers for production use (when in reality they > just work as long as you pick hardware which is already fully supported, > but their hardware section makes no effort to recommend such hardware). > I don't care how they compare with proprietary modules. I want comparisons > between the different Free drivers and recommendations for the best > hardware when benchmarked using Free drivers. They have no such benchmark. > I disagree, they should not be promoting proprietary software, they should > focus on graphics in Free Software, not with proprietary drivers on an > otherwise Free system. > > But even if they did 2 sections about hardware, one with proprietary drivers > and one with Free drivers, comparing what is comparable (i.e., at this > stage, in most cases, proprietary vs. proprietary and Free vs. Free), > that'd already be an improvement. Of course, if the Free drivers manage to > beat the proprietary ones for comparably-priced hardware, that's always > worth reporting! But they shouldn't be required to to even get mentioned at > all in the benchmarks. In your view, once a site compares the performance of OSS drivers vs. proprietary drivers their results are no longer valid. What about SAMBA performance? Should we ignore sites that compare Linux vs. Windows 2K8 file servers? Should we ban sites that compare VMWare and KVM? Where does it stop? - Gilboa P.S. One correction: Phoronix ran a large number of OSS vs. OSS drivers benchmarks. As far as I know, there are the only ones to do it. (Has anyone @Fedora ever published a Fedora 8 vs Fedora 10 on i810 benchmark?) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
