| |||||||||||||
Another source of infoAnother source of infoPosted Feb 6, 2012 13:40 UTC (Mon) by dbnichol (subscriber, #39622)In reply to: Another source of info by ebirdie Parent article: The end of LinuxDevices?
It may be worth noting that many people actually involved in the Linux graphics software stack think that Phoronix is garbage and that the purpose of its content is mostly to drive page hits. I don't think you'd see kernel folks talking the same way about lwn.
(Log in to post comments)
Another source of info Posted Feb 6, 2012 16:35 UTC (Mon) by cmorgan (guest, #71980) [Link]
I've always though Phoronix did a good job with their testing and reviews. Do the Linux graphics guys not like the results or methodology? I've found the reviews and testing pretty thorough and most of them are automated so they can be run across dozens of kernels/distributions.
Another source of info Posted Feb 6, 2012 16:44 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
I think it's mostly the breathless, sensationalist headlines, the awful ads heaped everywhere, and the fact that it takes 15 clicks to read any single article.
Phoronix's content has been good but its presentation is a little tough to swallow.
Another source of info Posted Feb 6, 2012 17:26 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
Mostly, that Phoronix rather quickly seizes on random development discussions and makes them ridiculously visible while still in progress. It becomes difficult to have speculative discussions on mailing lists when a random comment from a developer at $FOO_ORG of "Could we consider doing $BAR; what might it take to do so?" becomes a headline "$FOO_ORG planning to do $BAR!", frothing up throngs of angry and uninformed users (and uninformed managers of the developers having the discussion).
In some cases Phoronix has useful reporting, but it frequently includes a heavy dose of speculation and sensationalism.
Another source of info Posted Feb 6, 2012 17:58 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yet it's quite often useful.
I've stopped following several mailing lists because Phoronix usually reports interesting news from them.
And their benchmarks are quite interesting in themselves. It'd be great if kernel developers could read them as well.
Another source of info Posted Feb 6, 2012 18:26 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] Yet it's quite often useful.I agree, and I said the same thing. I've stopped following several mailing lists because Phoronix usually reports interesting news from them.I don't trust the quality of their reporting enough to do that. I expect them to report on whatever generates the most noise, while ignoring other interesting threads. By contrast, LWN's reporting *has* made it nearly unnecessary to read LKML, but LWN has demonstrated a much better filter for interestingness, and LWN doesn't feel the need to apply sensationalism or otherwise kick hornet's nests. And their benchmarks are quite interesting in themselves. It'd be great if kernel developers could read them as well.That I'll agree with. While Phoronix's reporting about regressions (in performance, power usage, or otherwise) contains more than the average amount of sensationalism, at least there it serves a good cause. That said, I think the work by kernel developers on regression handling serves the same function without the drama.
|
|||||||||||||