It's still true. Look at this very post, for an example.
Phoronix is just Larabel banging out short blogspam around 3rd party sources and very dubious benchmarks. It's all sloppy and rushed.
If you want to follow important developments around Linux, I would highly recommend LWN.net over Phoronix. The writing is professional, for lack of a better word.
You're just repeating yourself without addressing the points I made. The value in a news site is in summarizing new developments, putting them in context, explaining their impact, performing fact checking.
Phoronix does all of this fairly well. Perhaps the style of writing or length of articles is not to your liking, and that's unfortunate, but that doesn't make the site blogspam.
This article doesn't prove anything at all. The Debian announcement was quite short, and there isn't much more that can be said about it, since most users have Secure Boot disabled anyway.
A significant point of difference with LWN.net is that Phoronix doesn't require a subscription in order to read the content, which makes it appropriate for sharing.
I don't agree with you on several points, but I don't think it would be a good use of either of our time to get into a silly point-by-point rebuttal. I don't think I'd convince you Phoronix is a bad blog dressed up as a news source for ad revenue. Instead, I'll just address the last wrong point:
> A significant point of difference with LWN.net is that Phoronix doesn't require a subscription in order to read the content, which makes it appropriate for sharing.
LWN doesn't require a subscription to read the vast majority of its content. Period.
The only thing you need a subscription for (which can be as low as $3.50/mo for students or anyone else who feels they are low income) is reading the current weekly edition.
In return, there are no ads and you get some high quality journalism. It's difficult for me to explain how much better the writing is than Larabel's.
LWN is a fine resource for original articles about Linux technology, and I am happy to recommend it on that basis.
But as a news provider, it is seriously lacking compared to the alternatives, which have at least half a dozen stories per day and cover a broad range of new developments. If you care to look, it should be obvious just how much LWN misses out.
> LWN doesn't require a subscription to read the vast majority of its content. Period.
This is misleading, though. Perhaps it is true if we count each post on LWN as a piece of content. But a lot of posts on LWN are just noise and not really what most people would consider to be content.
For example, there are daily "Security updates for today" posts consisting of just links, as well as frequent one-sentence announcements about new kernel prepatch releases and stable updates. One wonders whether they are automatically generated.
Such posts provide little value to a general reader compared to a dedicated mailing list digest. They don't even attempt to summarize what changed, or describe the context or impact of the changes.
If you exclude such items then a significant amount of LWN content will require a subscription, maybe more than half, especially stories that go beyond one sentence/paragraph in length.
> Phoronix is just Larabel banging out short blogspam around 3rd party sources and very dubious benchmarks.
It's clear that you have an axe to grind with Phoronix and you are very vocal with your strong personal opinion, but your comments also don't strike me as reasonable.
For instance, Phoronix does distribute its phoronix test suite, and anyone (including you) is free to test and validate their claims. Yet, from all benchmark sites on earth, somehow you single out Phoronix as a site whose benchmarks somehow are "dubious".
Phoronix is also the first site that systematically tested hardware on linux and released benchmarks covering interesting linux-related issues, such as the performance gap in graphics cards resulting from the use of proprietary and FLOSS drivers.
Do you actually have any basis to substantiate your personal assertions, or are you just dedicated to slander Phoronix with baseless assertions?
> are you just dedicated to slander Phoronix with baseless assertions?
If you think anything I've said is slander, you don't have the first clue what slander is.
> Yet, from all benchmark sites on earth, somehow you single out Phoronix as a site whose benchmarks somehow are "dubious".
There may be other bad benchmarking sites I'm not aware of, but they aren't the ones in the article? Not sure why you think this is "singling out."
Here's some excerpts from a discussion of the topic on reddit[0]. I tend to agree with their characterizations of Phoronix' flaws:
> Apart from sensationalist headlines where he (Michael Larabee) tries his hardest to manufacture controversy I also think the benchmarks are the worst aspect of Phoronix as they are typically so poor in their implementations as to be worthless and generally only serves to spread misinformation.
>
> The compiler benchmarks are a joke, only recently has he even started to display the actual compiler options used and not even for all tests, secondly he doesn't even understand how compiler options doesn't correlate and make totally pointless tests of -O2 versus -O2, -O1 vs -O1 etcetera
>
> ...
> The we have the operating system / distro comparisons where he doesn't make a lick of effort to have them use similar settings, for example doing game benchmarks where one system also runs desktop 3d compositing and the other doesn't means that the end results are inconclusive enough to be worthless
> copy-paste articles, especially wine announcements or information from mailing lists, where author just copy-pastes what message said, without apparently having any understanding of his own on the topic. nothing really annoys me more than that - lazy journalism for the advertising dime.
posts without links to original source, or with barely any links. but tons of links leading back to phoronix are sure to be always there.
benchmarks where results visible on the graphs are summed up by some inconclusive filler banter that doesn't really say anything relatable to data represented on them (and sometimes is quite the opposite) .
>
> phoronix is basically total opposite of LWN. nearly zero effort/research goes into each article, beer promotion all the time and extreme amounts of self-referencing links. it's pretty much clickbait all the time, where a single quip from a mailing list can get into a full blown article.
Phoronix is just Larabel banging out short blogspam around 3rd party sources and very dubious benchmarks. It's all sloppy and rushed.
If you want to follow important developments around Linux, I would highly recommend LWN.net over Phoronix. The writing is professional, for lack of a better word.