On 10/11/2010 02:03 PM, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Cook<jeff@deserettechnology.com>wrote:
2010/10/11 Cédric Girard<girard.cedric@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jeff Cook<jeff@deserettechnology.com wrote:
I usually just run gtkperf. I haven't tried PTS yet but it's hard for me to trust anything that comes out of Phoronix.
Please explain ? Phoronix is just really unprofessional and unreliable as a media outlet. They constantly post information that is first of all, absolutely atrociously, sometimes incomprehensibly written, and secondly often inaccurate and misrepresentative. They also use amateur reporting practices and lack standards, as we see with their Steam reporting and sending lots of traffic to Valve FTP servers not intended for public usage (for one example).
Obviously this does not necessarily reflect directly on their software, but I think it's wise to take anything from Phoronix with a grain of salt.
From Jeff
-- Cédric Girard
Thanks for the clarification.
I have no opinion towards them, but just want to add that the their test suite mostly just run other tests (as x11perf or gtkperf) and report the results in a structured way. So I do not think they have actually written any benchmarks (I think?) On gtkperf, anything similar for Qt? Manne