On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 00:01 -0700, Alishams Hassam wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Bob Ham <r...@settrans.net> wrote: > > I wouldn't worry too much about Phoronix. Their reporting is always > > sub-par. And moveover, people know their reporting is sub-par. They > > seem to be like a tabloid newspaper: they're not so concerned about the > > accuracy of their reporting so long as you read the site. They'll quite > > happily publish deliberately inflammatory articles to boost their > > readership. > > > I agree that certainly there articles that are shit. However they also > have many good articles and many examples of exemplary reporting.
I must say I'm quite surprised by this. I would love to ask for examples of what you consider to be an examplary article on the site. However, I think it's probably best if we just agree to disagree :-) > In > this case, I would say the article is sub-par, however it is just as > much our fault as Phoronix's. Again I'm going to have to disagree; I think it's all Phoronix's fault :-) > My goal with collecting these 'good > reasons' is that when future articles are published, the writer won't > have to dig through the mailing lists and bug developers for good > points. You mean they won't have to.. do their job? :-) > If Phoronix publishes another article bashing the GTA04 after we have > made our case easy to represent, I will agree with your conclusion ;) I'll hold you to you to that :-) But I wouldn't worry about "if". Given Phoronix's usual modus operandi, you can rest assured that a string of negative, similarly sub-par articles will now ensue. -- Bob Ham <r...@settrans.net> for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community