[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:24:35 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
> Karel Gardas <address@hidden> writes:
> > Maybe they still think that Arch is just slow... and yes, I'm afraid
> > BK is still clear winner in term of performance when working on the
> > large source trees
> I wonder how true this is, actually; has anyone timed them on
> comparable hardware?
Doesn't it seem that nobody may do so, legally (or at least without
risking legal challenge), other than BitMover and (perhaps, I don't
know one way or the other) their paying customers -- at least not if
they intend to tell us the results for purposes of helping
development.
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: log-buf-len dynamic (fwd), Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Adam Spiers, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?,
Tom Lord <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Momchil Velikov, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24