Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!como.dpie.gov.au!news.gan.net.au!act.news.telstra.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newshub2.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!not-for-mail From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Network Performance Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 06:04:07 -0700 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 46 Message-ID: <33ABD147.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org> References: <slrn5qngmn.ie2.jlc@mass-pc.wpi.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE i386) To: "Jennifer Carmack (don't delete -jeffs)" <jlc@mass-pc.wpi.edu> Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:82175 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:43271 > Since Linux's networking performance is now superior to FreeBSD's, isn't > it about time for the FreeBSD developers to admit that Linux is better and > give up? I constantly hear BSD people say that they have a better TCP/IP > stack than Linux, but we all know in actuality this is no longer true. > Since most other parts of Linux are now superior to BSD as well, and > are constantly improving, you BSD people really need to move into the future. > And the future is Linux. > > I hope you all seriously think about this. Dear [ person who has stolen Jennifer's account and is now seeking to see how much email he can get sent to her / clueless person who actually enjoys the experience of being struck by lightning / intrepid product tester who has posted this message in order to test new summer line of asbestos underclothing under real-world conditions], Thank you for your recent contribution to the USENET flame-bait invitational, cross posted to comp.os.linux.networking and comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc in accordance with the AFUFB submission guidelines. Our judges have reviewed your submission and regret to inform you that your flame bait, while a reasonable example of the genre, simply does not meet the high standards for gratuitious taunting required to make the finals. The judges do, however, feel that your posting is worthy at least of an "honorable mention" and it will be so listed once we publish our tabulation of 1997's winners. Your final score, as measured in the AFUFB "light weight" class: Unverifiable assertions: 5.3 Emotional vs Intellectual bias: 7.1 Vague hand-waving: 4.1 Dubious conclusions: 5.7 Even more dubious citations: 5.2 Usage of "we" to denote opinions of self and tapeworm: 8.3 ------------------------------------ Weighted score: 5.95 Overall, we do feel that your submission shows some promise and we hope that this will not discourage you from entering next year's competition! Sincerely, The AFUFB (Association For Usenet Flame-Bait) judges committee.