Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Nov 2008 22:55 UTC
Editorial Yesterday, a story made its rounds across the internet. It was picked up by many large news websites, and I'm sure it will be quoted by people until eternity. It was published by a large website, looked all fancy, it had multiple pages - it looked like it was really something. However, anyone with even the remotest bit of knowledge knows that the article was a collection of complete and utter bogus.
Permalink for comment 337269
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by MikeekiM
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 14th Nov 2008 03:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by MikeekiM"
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

It tells you EXACTLY what the author says it tells you, was this a major rewrite of OS functionality or was it a minor update.


The difference in the number of threads between releases tells you exactly one thing: the difference in the number of threads. Without some (any) additional context, that tells you next to nothing about the OS(es) as a whole. E.g., I see two incredibly obvious questions that the author of TFA appears to have ignored completely: are they actually the *same* threads? And do they consume equal amounts of resources (individually and/or collectively)?

Granted, I don't agree that the number of threads is totally without significance - but your post (and TFA) overstate that significance to a truly absurd degree.

Reply Parent Score: 2