On 10/11/2010 02:03 PM, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Cook<firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
2010/10/11 Cédric Girard<email@example.com>:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Jeff Cook<firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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?