Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f From: gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: benchmark evaluations Message-ID: <1990Dec12.182926.14306@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: 12 Dec 90 18:29:26 GMT References: <12220@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1990Dec12.070209.3272@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Dec12.140615.27870@cs.utk.edu> Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia Lines: 17 In article <1990Dec12.140615.27870@cs.utk.edu> Dave Sill writes: >The fact that you'd moderate this thread out is evidence that leaving >it unmoderated was the right decision. I have no intention of doing that. The fact that you jump to such conclusions is evidence that any attempt to moderate this group would have to include educating users as to what moderation is for -- clarifying points, preventing duplication, and generally raising the signal to noise ratio. Which would you rather read: 10 postings giving bc benchmark results with no comments, or 1 posting giving 10 sets of results? >Could be. Why doesn't someone keep a table of SPEC results? Go for it. The only source I have of SPEC results is copyrighted, and very incomplete.