Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au!news.apana.org.au!cantor.edge.net.au!news.teragen.com.au!news.access.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!not-for-mail From: peterb@hoopoe.psc.edu (Peter Berger) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.sys.sgi.misc Subject: Re: no such thing as a "general user community" Date: 31 Mar 1997 23:15:24 -0500 Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center Lines: 70 Message-ID: <5hq24s$4lr@hoopoe.psc.edu> References: <331BB7DD.28EC@net5.net> <5hp7p3$1qb@fido.asd.sgi.com> <5hpkr6$32u@hoopoe.psc.edu> <5hppl8$9t2@fido.asd.sgi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hoopoe.psc.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38186 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6532 comp.sys.sgi.misc:29571 In article <5hppl8$9t2@fido.asd.sgi.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com> wrote: >Peter Berger (peterb@hoopoe.psc.edu) wrote: >: YOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY WAS UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY BOGUS. > >That's nice. $5 says you didn't read the paper. $10 says you haven't >read any of the papers that reference lmbench. I win the first bet. I don't expect you to pay up any more than I expect you to admit that drawing conclusions about OS-level activities (say, the null syscall) is impossible when one is comparing disparate hardware and software simultaneously. I haven't read any papers that reference lmbench, but then, I'm not terribly interested in it. I wouldn't have taken that bet if offered, but I'll buy you a beer if we ever end up in the same hotel, anyway. >: Larry, the fact that your assumptions turned out to be >: close to reality doesn't really matter. > >That's the best you can do? That's so weak. Let's see, you accuse me >of skewing the data This is a fabrication. Show me where I did this. >, when that turns out to be false, you accuse me of >using wildly differing hardware, This is a fabrication. I accused you of using differing hardware. Period. Because it is important to the question of your methodology. >when that turns out to be false, you >say it doesn't matter. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Larry. >I say it does matter. I didn't bother measuring FreeBSD and Linux on >the same hardware because I really didn't care about FreeBSD vs Linux. >I did include P5@120mhz Linux numbers to have a reasonable comparison >to the P5@133 FreeBSD numbers, but that was for FreeBSD's benefit, so >they could see where to do more work. Yeah, whatever, Larry. Reference Jordan's post for your infantile posturing during your presentation. >The paper, in case you didn't notice, measured intel, sparc, alpha, >rios, parisc, etc. It's hardly an apples to apples comparison, nor was >it intended to be. You're all upset and whining because that's what >you wanted. Well, if you want a comparison of all the free operating >systems on the exact same hardware, be my guest. Go do it. I only want such a comparison to the extent that a gasbag stands in front of an audience of 1000 people and makes such comparisons before he's actually done them. It's obvious to me that this conversation can't go any further. It's also obvious that we have very little respect for each other. So I am officially dropping the matter. You didn't engage in a bunch of ridiculous hyperbole at the conference and everything you ever said or say is ex cathedra and completely correct as far as I'm concerned. Congratulations. -- Pete Berger, Esq. Coordinator, Regional Information Infrastructure Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center peterb@psc.edu http://www.psc.edu/~peterb I don't speak for my employers, nor they for me.