5 ms·

Direct link to the announce: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/04/msg00013.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/04/msg00..

Direct link to the announce: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/04/msg00013.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/04/msg00.... The Phoronix article doesn't bring anything. The reasons of forfeiting secure boot support can be found in the following bug report: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820036 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=820036 (look at the list of blocked bugs). The main blocker seems to be this one: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=821051 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=821051 (and the root cause seems to be the lack of time from the FTP masters).

loeg 9y ago
A decent amount of Phoronix' content is basically blogspam. Can a moderator update the URL as vbernat has suggested?
- buster 9y ago
  On the other hand: this post is probably on HN because someone read phoronix. So, why not give it credit for bringing such things to the attention of a wider audience? I'm a Debian user for a long time, but i don't subscribe to debian-devel. How else would i know of this?
  - lloeki 9y ago
    IOW one's blogspam is another's curation.
- infodroid 9y ago
  > A decent amount of Phoronix' content is basically blogspam. This has not been true for a long time. Phoronix may have started as an amateur site with dubious content but it has now become a serious resource. These days, it does a good job of (1) highlighting important developments around Linux and (2) providing context and fact-checking for new developments beyond what is provided in primary sources. If you still hold a grudge against Phoronix for its reporting style from ten years ago, please reconsider.
  - madez 9y ago
    I didn't even know Phoronix 10 years ago, and not even 5 years ago, and I understand the critique voiced over it. They often basically just repeat source information and add unwanted opinion, like an overengineered RSS feed merged with a blog. Also, often the link to the source is not given, or not the the link one would expect it to be, which then factually turns to some other Phoronix article. I'm saying this while still looking at Phoronix regularly. I see the potential for a great news site in it, especially considering the benchmarking they do.
    - infodroid 9y ago
      > often basically just repeat source information and add unwanted opinion I don't think this is fair or accurate criticism. There aren't any Phoronix stories that just republish the whole of the source verbatim. And even when quoting the source material, the site adds a great deal of value by identifying the critical excerpt. And the real value isn't usually in the quote itself, but in highlighting the story as a notable development in the first place. Also, I doubt you will find anything resembling the opinionated style of The Register on there. Perhaps what you criticize as being "unwanted opinion" is just some background information or a summary of the source that did not reflect your opinion?
      - madez 9y ago
        Yes, it was too strongly worded. I should have said "sometimes" instead of "often". For example the first paragraph in [1] really doesn't go down well with me. It seems so negative, which I call unwanted opinion. Also the linking policy is not good. If I stumble an interesting development in Phoronix, I want next to take a look at the source myself. I agree that Phoronix creates value, that's why I read it. I don't even know The Register, but the comparison can't make a difference because I have an ideal in mind. [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=KDE-Babe-Music-Player http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=KDE-Babe-...
        infodroid 9y ago

loeg 9y ago

A decent amount of Phoronix' content is basically blogspam. Can a moderator update the URL as vbernat has suggested?

buster 9y ago
On the other hand: this post is probably on HN because someone read phoronix. So, why not give it credit for bringing such things to the attention of a wider audience? I'm a Debian user for a long time, but i don't subscribe to debian-devel. How else would i know of this?
- lloeki 9y ago
  IOW one's blogspam is another's curation.
infodroid 9y ago
> A decent amount of Phoronix' content is basically blogspam. This has not been true for a long time. Phoronix may have started as an amateur site with dubious content but it has now become a serious resource. These days, it does a good job of (1) highlighting important developments around Linux and (2) providing context and fact-checking for new developments beyond what is provided in primary sources. If you still hold a grudge against Phoronix for its reporting style from ten years ago, please reconsider.
- madez 9y ago
  I didn't even know Phoronix 10 years ago, and not even 5 years ago, and I understand the critique voiced over it. They often basically just repeat source information and add unwanted opinion, like an overengineered RSS feed merged with a blog. Also, often the link to the source is not given, or not the the link one would expect it to be, which then factually turns to some other Phoronix article. I'm saying this while still looking at Phoronix regularly. I see the potential for a great news site in it, especially considering the benchmarking they do.
  - infodroid 9y ago
    > often basically just repeat source information and add unwanted opinion I don't think this is fair or accurate criticism. There aren't any Phoronix stories that just republish the whole of the source verbatim. And even when quoting the source material, the site adds a great deal of value by identifying the critical excerpt. And the real value isn't usually in the quote itself, but in highlighting the story as a notable development in the first place. Also, I doubt you will find anything resembling the opinionated style of The Register on there. Perhaps what you criticize as being "unwanted opinion" is just some background information or a summary of the source that did not reflect your opinion?
    - madez 9y ago
      Yes, it was too strongly worded. I should have said "sometimes" instead of "often". For example the first paragraph in [1] really doesn't go down well with me. It seems so negative, which I call unwanted opinion. Also the linking policy is not good. If I stumble an interesting development in Phoronix, I want next to take a look at the source myself. I agree that Phoronix creates value, that's why I read it. I don't even know The Register, but the comparison can't make a difference because I have an ideal in mind. [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=KDE-Babe-Music-Player http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=KDE-Babe-...
      - infodroid 9y ago