Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 17:20 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Permalink for comment 435392
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-10
I was about to ask the same question. Long time ago, Phoronix did some good performance comparisons. Recently, basically they post a number of charts and describe them without offering any interpretation or analysis. I see a bar with 1210 and another at 1211, and they diligently describe what I can already see (ie. "In this test the difference between X and Y is negligible") Of course, you can read those kind of sentences in most tests, but they also offer some content, unlike phoronix "tests" that are basically a series of graphs and 90% redundancy in between.
Worse still, they stopped providing necessary background information to interpret those charts. So apart from the redundancy of their "articles" the graphs themselves are completely useless. Providing a benchmarking tool is all fine, but then once they finished working on their phoronix suite, their "tests" became little more than advertisements. Usually they just claim "we used the defaults" - but a casual reader has no way of knowing what those defaults are without installing each OS than digging deeply in settings. Once they compared a number of distroes, among them Arch, saying they used the default install of Arch - which is kind of ridiculous seeing how Arch has no defaults at all (no default drivers, no default sound systems, no DE, etc..)
I found their recent "tests" basically worthless (you know, it does matter what mount options you use when testing filesystems)and I removed them from my bookmarks (I used to read them quite often before). Looking at graphs that are basically useless and reading their redundant descriptions is such a waste of time. Not to mention their sensationalist headlines that drive me up the wall (LOOK WE FOUND A HUGE LINUX CATASTROPHE!!! - or something like that testing a BETA kernel).