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.
Thread beginning with comment 337197
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

My my, going all fancy pants there!

But you still pulled the whole lean/mean thing out of your butt. Responsiveness/better boot times do not equal performance just because you know a fancy Latin abbreviation.

Reply Parent Score: -2

stln Member since:

Well, let's just say then that in the eyes of some people, including the author of the article and me, there was the expectation that the kernel was going to be 'optimized'.

Which it isn't.

You, I and the author agree that it isn't.

You and I (and the author) disagree that such an optimization was to be expected.

Anyways, this discussion is much more relevant to me than deciding if memory footprint and thread count is a valuable indication of the 'likeness' of two kernels.

Hence my 'missing the point'.

Can we leave it at that?

Reply Parent Score: 3