4 ms·
There is always a well sounding rationale attached to censorship. It also prevents meaningful benchmarks to be published.
by zimbatm 8y ago
There is always a well sounding rationale attached to censorship.
It also prevents meaningful benchmarks to be published.
- walterbell 8y agoAnd it's a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't allow inexperienced benchmarkers to learn how to run meaningful tests.
- kjeetgill 8y agoI'm on the fence about the benchmarks but I think this is a generic broad brush to sweep away the parent's comment given the real concerns they've presented and you've chose to not address. Do you really thing any agreement that involves silence is censorship NDAs included? Sure, it's easy to simply say: sucks to be you! Especially to "community bullies" like Oracle. Even just between semi-competing open source projects benchmarks can be so bad they border on libelous.
- harry8 8y agoOracle has just enough budget to hire someone knowledgeable to engage in the discussion, pointing out the issues and their fixes, possibly even linking the benchmarks that were (in their view) properly performed. One good engineer. Compare with the legal fees required to draft such an appalling, scared and knowingly guilty clause as "you can't talk about how our product performs despite having paid for it." This really needs to be treated with total derision, and utter contempt. It's an approach that has earned that response for it's sheer laziness before even beginning to measure it against any ethical standards. Oracle are just an awful company in every dimension. This, is just like most everything else they do in that it reinforces the reputation they earned for themselves.