New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I agree. We need that source code published on Gitlab (or Github). Humanity must learn from this and evolve.
Frankly, that's largely BS. One can analyse the mechanisms of binaries, plus I will definitely not give in, bow down and publish my source code just because some demand so. I did once and max 1 (a single one) of all those who demanded that I open source even just downloaded it, let alone looking at it.
To put three points very clearly: Nobody here, nobody has any rights to demand the source code of my work. Plus I get pi__ed off quickly (meanwhile) when someone really "thinks" that he who has invested zero work, zero knowledge, zero experience, zero efforts has some kind of right on my work. And that's doesn't change a single nanometer by molesting me and trying to push me using diverse methods, incl. some really nasty ones.
Second point: I wrote vpsbenchmark for me, my own needs. It was already friendly to make the binary available (for free).
Third point: What makes you think that I care about you or someone liking my program or not? I already know quite a few persons and providers who do like it. What makes you think that your liking or not my work given away for free carries more weight than my work? Recalibrate your world view; it's pretty bent it seems to me.
Besides, this thread wasn't about a fair comparison or about an "objective review". It was about a few guys trying to discredit me and my work with baseless allegations.
You like my program? Use it, it's available for free. You do not like it? Don't use it and chose another benchmark software, no problem.
Finally: Bullshit! AFAIK nobody so far used freely available and common tools to honestly examine my software - and you want to tell me that they'd invest more in investing the source code? Ridiculous. Plus, this is round two; in round one AFAIK f_cking nobody looked at the source after I had published it.
I ilke open source software as much as everyone - but unlike some I do not think that someone has to provide his source code.
That's some @Maounique shit right there. You can just ignore this thread, you know that?
If that is what you think, you are absolutely totally free to create an open source benchmark and have it on Gitlab or Github.
But kindly respect my right to do and publish or not or only in parts of my work the way I like.
OK. Great. Don't publish your work, don't publish your source code, don't publish anything. But also please do not forget that you still use the source code of others, from Linux to *BSD, from kernel to bash, from apt-get to different software. Respect.
With this in mind, I can not trust @jsg benchmarks either. The title "Server Review King" is overrated in such scenarios, because the reviewer here uses something built only by him, and for him, as he himself recognized in previous comment. All benchmarks done using "vpsbenchmark" are therefore done for him, and just for him alone, making said benchmarks irrelevant for this community, as they are not open-source and can't be debated upon. So far, all we have is just the trust in this member (creator), but a trust which proves to be insufficient for a proper debate founded on what determines facts, and not just effects of a closed and unknown process.
As such, with all due respect for @jsg - I question the title of @jsg - considering it irrelevant, simply because an irrelevant closed-source software is being used for his benchmarks. For the title to have it's true meaning to me, I kindly request @jsg to post all his benchmarks done using a well-known and open-source software (not "vpsbenchmark"), something like YABS, as suggested in this thread.
Thank you for your understanding @jsg and with all due respect, this is my view. I respect your opinion, but I do not respect a closed-source software, and I must leave it at that.
EDIT: @stevewatson301 - thank you for opening this thread. It's a great reading for cranking numbers.
It wasn't about other people, it was about you creating an open source benchmark and having it on Gitlab or Github.
Why on earth should your personal rules have any significance for me? Why should my work and my efforts be somehow subject to your rules like e.g. "We need that source code published on Gitlab (or Github). Humanity must learn from this and evolve."?
Besides, why "we"? "Why not I, default, need ..."? Who is that "we" that you speak for and on what basis? And who with the authority to decide for us all said that "we need that ..."?
If you or anyone feels to need an open source benchmark you are free to create one or, if you can't do that, you can pick one of the available open source benchmark scripts/programs - why should your need be an obligation for me? Funny btw, that demands for something being or becoming open source almost always mean or at least really implies "for free of course!". Did you ever even think about the possibility to pay for open source? Because, you see. open source doesn't somehow create itself automagically, nope, it's created by people who (hopefully) have the necessary knowledge and experience and who are investing efforts and work ... yet you expect, even demand that you are somehow entitled to the fruits of their work for free and with full source?
Besides you ignore a significant a part of the true story which is that I created vpsbench for my own use but was and am generous enough to share it for free. Plus you forget that the "we want the source!" crowd actually did get what they asked for - and then bloody ignored it. Evidently they did not need it, they merely virtue signaled and engaged in a bit of missionizing with their belief system.
No, f_ck you trying to force your belief system on me and trying to pressure me and to paint me as a bad guy who uses open source himself but doesn't share his stuff, yada yada!
The people you try to use against me did on their own free will what they felt right. They suggest and politely ask others to also open source their code but unlike you they don't try to pressure others.
Plus: they did share - and so did I more than once, incl. vpsbench v1 - how about you? Can you point me to your public gitlab or github account with your open source software, and I mean not just some scripts?
Or is this just yet another case of "I demand ... and others shall do the work"? It smells like it.
It's simple: you do as you see fit and I do as I see fit, and that's it. Beyond that we can suggest in a polite and friendly way to consider other options, but neither you nor I has the right to demand from others to share their work for free and open source.
Same applies on you. Why do you use "we", "us" in your posts? why do you not say I, jsg... like you said for default ?
IF I really did demand anything as "we" then that was wrong and I have no problem to apologize.
But well noted, my statement was about someone demanding as "we" that someone else does some work or takes a different path, etc.
I asked about Gitlab or Github because they are popular for sharing an open source code. You may use something else if you like.
Hold your horses baby! I did not create a rule from it. I only asked kindly. You refused, and I respect your decision.
The others (or "we") means the world. People shared their codes on Gitlab or Github because they want to share with others, or we. They share it with "me" too, but I don't like to consider myself that important, I consider the good of others more important.
This is exactly my point. I use YABS.
This is not my point. I do not force you to do anything.
No. I asked. People like to help one another. It's not all about money. If your mind is stuck in money and profits... we are obviously not on the same page.
You created for your use and I am happy you use it. But your own use is irrelevant for my own use.
OK. Thank you for your insult. I hereby take all my respects back from you. Thank you for caring about my personal belief in open-source. I hope you do not have the same feeling towards creators of other open-source software.
I did not pressure you. I did not blackmail you. I simply stated my personal opinion, and I stand by it. If you don't want to share, so be it. There is no point in arguing about it.
Thank you for your sharing. I only have some scripts. I am not a programmer. However, this does not mean I did not do my share of voluntary work in other fields. I refuse to justify myself here, because after that "f_ck you", I don't give a rat's ass about your trust in me, or your opinion at this point.
I fully and totally agree.
It just not about demanding, you use words like "we", "us" when it suits you like you did many times on hostsolution thread alone but when other people use same "we" you try to isolate them by raising this question.
Anyway from your own 'quantor' (math) you should stop using words like we or us from now on.
https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3255326/#Comment_3255326
More gate keeping. Even if they did share "just some scripts", it's a contribution to open source.
What makes Nim special enough to be part of this real software category? That it's compiled? Well, it has to be compiled to another language before then being compiled to machine code, so perhaps that's an abstraction too far and Nim isn't 'serious' enough (of course it is; any language is).
Benchmarks, as we all know, are 'at that moment', the second they are run the results are no longer valid although they may show similar results if they are run again and again or over time.
Empty node, full node, empty and poorly configured node or even 'specially prepared for reviews' node all impact on results.
On here and other similar forums benchmarking is such an important tool. Everywhere else it isn't.
I don't benchmark, well rarely but I don't get up hung on the results. Honestly, I don't even understand most of what I could be bothered to read here.
However intended though, I do get the purpose of this thread even if appearing otherwise.
Despite my lack of knowledge in this area, it is not so poor that as soon I saw the Contabo results I knew right away there was no way the average user would see those results.
That all said, will the script @jsg built do its job? No idea. What I can say is that the vast majority on here don't care for his benchmarks or the results, they are too long and unfamiliar for most. That is not a snipe at @jsg so much, more a snipe at the vast majority.
Even on his past benchmarks, it doesn't take long before 'Anyone got a YABS?'.
That is all people here really want, YABS or bench.sh, whatever. Why? It's quick, it's easy, it's familiar and they have a view based on that few lines of results without needing any other explanation.
Bottom line, it makes little difference what anyone thinks of @jsg benchmarks, everyone or mostly everyone will want YABS instead. Just the way it is, right or wrong.
Which debate, exactly? This was brought to jsg's attention years ago and ignored entirely. What is your point of you posting in this thread? Need everything repeated for you again and again?
@default
My goal wasn't to attack or to insult you but to clearly repel what I perceived as an attempt to pressure me and abusing allegations, belief systems, missionizing, etc.
You see, I respect - and to a large degree share - your belief that there should be open source software, and I did and do live it (share source code). But not in this case. I might have been "softly nudged" towards sharing the source code, but not after all the vile I experienced here, driven by a few users. Won't happen.
Any more willy nilly rules that I'm supposed to obey to? How about generally banning the use of the word "we" and being at it banning some numbers too? Idiot!
It wasn't me who introduced Nim to the game. Plus, what I meant was a not trivial amount of work of a not trivial complexity and requiring not trivial experience. Maybe my way to put it wasn't the best, but frankly at this point I don't care anymore. I was patient and polite long enough, highly likely too long. Now I hit back.
No-f_cking-body complained about the total lack of decency and fairness towards me,they pretended to not see that this thing was meant and performed as an extremely unfair and biased hit and witch hunt against me and my work.
@Lee
I can accept your position. I always said that if someone doesn't like my benchmark program they are free to just ignore it and use whatever they please. But this thread is about discrediting me and my work and in a very biased (from the get go) and unfair way.
translation from jsg: fuck y'all
I'm not sure why he tries that anyway, he doesn't have a degree in Software Engineering and he hasn't worked on anything big enough or important enough to understand bugs are unavoidable and the role QA plays in testing. His attitude towards him not making any errors nor that testing finds issues is a big career experience giveaway.
Titles, in this case, "Server Review King," put a giant bullseye on an individual. Like a moth to flame, folks relish the opportunity to disprove the creditability of the title holder. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is a fact of life.
No. This thread is related to your benchmarks, not to you as a person, nor to your work in real life. You received this spotlight because of the title "Server Review King" in this community; so man up and accept the criticism pointed at the throne (closed-source software) of a king in such democratic environment.
That is a poor argument. Just because software runs on Linux or *BSD does not in any way morally burden the author to release his source code or license it in any particular way. The authors of those licenses and the software you cited agree with me.
(Obviously, if the code is extended from an existing GPL and distributed, that is a different case, but that's irrelevant here).
It clearly isn't. But publishing a benchmarking tool and not publishing the code for it is kind of odd in my opinion. You can't possibly have a commercial or trade secret motive, and publishing a tool that produces an output without letting people see how that output is calculating is kind of black box. If I bought some kind of air quality measuring tool, I could at least check other brands of the same kind of tool to see if they're all in spec...with a benchmark, I can't, which makes me want to examine the code. I think with this kind of tool, the desire to look under the hood is natural because it's kind of a "mechanic's tool" rather than an application where I can tell if it's working properly or not based on what it does.
There are the other usual reasons - trusting that the author isn't doing something shifty (not an accusation just a typical human concern), feedback to improve or a way to learn from the code, etc.
I bolded in my opinion because it's just that.
maybe you should rather seek professional medical help instead of attacking the whole world again and denying the obvious facts that have just been pointed out in your false king pseudo "benchmark", with out of ass scores
it is exactly like the Hostsolutions scam thread where for weeks/months you helped the scammer (who provided you with free machines) and you attacked his victims
Isn't he already?
No. It's not like HostSolutions. The fact that someone here gets a free service, does not mean that he is not allowed to benchmark using his own software.
The discussion here is about a free closed-source benchmarking software. HostSolutions was a whole provider who disappointed paying customers. These are totally different things, completely unrelated.
The thing is I can respond to jsg's latest comments, but it would quickly become a 10 page dissertation if I were to really go into what his comments are about.
To get a rough idea of what the average LETer might know about, and how I can simplify my explanation while keeping it accessible to the interested parties (except for the subject of this thread, who's a know-it-all), I'd like to ask a simple question:
How many of you have heard and know about these terms?
Calling conventions
Thunk functions
Executable sections
Global Offsets Table
Don't look at Google, you can just reply to this thread with a yes or no.
tl;dr - @jsg is smart as fuck, but he's not a peoples person -- he means well.
I was not using that as an argument. I just gave an example of many projects who share the source codes of many software he likely uses. In this case @jsg does not wish to share the source code, and this is his decision which he clearly stated. It is what it is, or "as is".
This is why @poisson should have been asked to be the LET resident tester. Uses YABS, tests over a period, publishes results, compares them and provides an easy to view representation. And he actually has a background in running tests and compiling results. Oh, and he's not hostile to feedback. What a dropped ball on that one.
This is a serious question: I'm trying to avoid writing a 10 page dissertation as a response and would rather keep it short. I know no one's probably taking it seriously, but then it would quickly turn to a discussion of whether to believe the BS from yours truly, or from the subject of this thread.
And it's absolutely fine to say "no", I'll adjust my response to best cater people even if you've never heard of these things.
Calling conventions - YES
Thunk functions - NO
Executable sections - YES
Global Offsets Table - NO
Whoa nice, I don't have to write that long ass dissertation anymore. I do kind of have to look into the claims that jsg makes about fio but am somewhat short of time, so maybe the ETA for my response is, again, Monday (TM).