Slashdot Mirror

I loved the discontinued Intel mp3 player before it died, fairly happy with my Bantam BA350. One tip, watch out for sweat dripping down the headphone wire.

Huh? My ReplayTV 3030 is very easy to use., and it's cheaper in the long run. I bought it for $500 two years ago. A comparable Tivo was $400 back then, so at $10/mo, that Tivo after 2 years was ~$600, while the Replay is still $400.

You must have gotten a really good deal, since the 3030 still lists at $599. Even reviews from that time period listed it at $599. So with a $400 Tivo, the difference between the two is $200, which (suprise!) is the same as a lifetime subscription to Tivo was.

What I don't think you realize is that you can get lifetime subscriptions for the tivo. You don't always have to pay month-to-month.

chabotc@reviewboard.com, don't you think you have better things to do than post nonsensical drivel to Slashdot? Like writing some original material?

They've changed a few sentences here and there, but it is pretty much all the information, in the same order, from the original article.
http://www.reviewboard.com/Section/Cover/E10k
such blatent thievery, I truly hope everyone will boycott this shady, fly by night organization, they do NOT deserve your hits.

You got this information from a Reviewboard article ahahaha and that one was DEFINITELY not copied! posted this article early yesterday. Nice of you to notice Tim and post it on /.

Simple. I was pissed and I wanted to be right. I had no clue what really happened as I couldn't get ahold of Chris, so I manipulated our system with a few 'update mytable set date where id =''s and swore up and down it was false. Why? Because I've known Chris for ten years and absolutely knew he'd never do something like that. I was wrong to do it, but I wanted to drive home the fact that he didn't steal an article. When people started emailing me with solid information I thought "I shouldn't have done what I just did" but it was too late at that point. Bottom line is I was wrong to back Chris up in that matter, I couldn't get ahold of him and I tried to cover his ass. For the record, Philip Ferreira does not own Reviewboard.com a lot of you info posting trolls have issues reading anything except the article in question. I'm the admin/tech/billing contact for the domain because I'm the editor. The domain itself is actually registered to the previous owner of the site, and the site is held by a corporation now (Reviewboard.com, LLC) which I am not a stockholder or owner of. Another thing you should know, is while I may be in charge here, I'm 24 years old, and I don't have all of the correct answers when it comes to doing things. I handled this very poorly, and chances are at some future date I might mishandle something else. However from this point on, all I can do is try to handle it with class, and attempt to find out all the details instead of being so defensive about something like this. I still don't agree with the posting of information (however dated it might be (as we aren't even in that state anymore)), I especially don't agree with moderators mod'ing personal information up (shows lack of character in my opinion). But I'll let it slide because perhaps this time I deserve it due to my roll in this. In summeray and For the record: I had no idea or clue prior to the emails I got from /. community that this article was a copy of another article. 2) There were enough differences in the article to make any reasonable person doubt an email from an outside organization, claiming the contrary. 3)I did make the wrong decision and attempt to cover Chris's butt. When I found out that it was indeed true, I actually called Chris up at 4:30am his time and screamed, then he told me that it was a user submission and things began to fall into place. 4) When I did find out for sure that it was not Chris's article we took the article down. I set Chris on writing our own version of the article, for two reasons. 1) Because we had the content there, and I didn't want to not have it and have to definalize the section again for lack of content. 2) I wanted to show people that we could review this system with equal intensity (As you can plainly see in Chris's original Review of the E450. I hope this clears this matter up for good. Ataridatacenter is owed our most sincere appology, which I want to take this opportunity to give him (I'm very sorry AD, I really didn't believe that this could happen given who was involved). -Kind Regards

... but AtariDatacenter may be right. I'm posting only because I have an established history on Slashdot and absolutely zero connection to AtariDatacenter or redir.

Consider this a neutral third party observation to document something before it can be changed.

From http://www.reviewboard.com/Section/Cover/E4500, paragraph two:

The Sun E4500 is not a cheap machine, base configuration usually comes in at around $75k and when configured to suit its usual purpose (enterprise class transaction servers) the bill sometimes tops $100k.

From http://www.epinions.com/enth-review-5999-27A4508B- 39906C31-prod5, paragraph 1:

The Sun E4500 is not a cheap machine, base configuration usually comes in at around $75k and when configured to suit its usual purpose (enterprise class transaction servers) the bill sometimes tops $100k.

The Epinions date is listed as Aug 8 2000. No date was available for the reviewboard article. The Epinions author (nightfall) is not the same author as the disputed E10000 article (jmccorm).

The latter article on RB seems as though it's being modified as I write this -- the META tag (which could mean anything) is stamped ten minutes ago. In fact, the article is no longer listed on their site! It was obviously there if I found it. Fortunately, I grabbed a snapshot of the articles and I have them posted here:

The latter article on RB seems as though it's being modified as I write this -- the META tag (which could mean anything) is stamped ten minutes ago. In fact, the article is no longer listed on their site! It was obviously there if I found it. Fortunately, I grabbed a snapshot of the articles and I have them posted here:

If you go to Google and search on phrases from the ReviewBoard article that are likely to be unique to the article, e.g. "E10k frame is capable of holding", how many hits do you get? Zero. This suggests that the article is too new to have been indexed by Google.

However, redir asserts that he has reliable information that the ReviewBoard article was written in way back in March and therefore couldn't have been copied from AD's epinions piece from a few days ago, as AD claims.

If the RB article is actually nine months old, why hasn't Google indexed it yet? Certainly, Google combs RB more frequently than once every nine months. For example, here is a RB article posted in March, and it's in Google: Search on "sprint pcs makes me think", taken from the article's opening line. Google returns the article as the first hit. (Following hits come from rb.chabotc.com.)

In summary:

• Redir claims that the article is nine months old.
• Google indexes RB more frequently than once every nine months.
• The article hasn't been indexed by Google.

This evidence is highly suggestive that AD is correct and redir is not.

I wondered about the 480Mhz CPUs too cuz I've never heard of them. Really made me curious since we lose a 400 just about every week due to "e-cache writeback parity error" and there's never been a mention of "try the 480's" in any meetings or from our Sun reps to my knowledge. I asked a couple guys at werk and noone knew anything about 'em.

Has anyone tried to contact the epinions.com authors of the 450 and 4500 reviews? This E450 epinion (posted June 27, 2000) is quite similar to the reviewboard E450 posting. Likewise, this E4500 epinion (Aug 8, 2000) might as well be reviewboard's E4500 post. I believe both epinions were posted at times when the reviewboard posts were supposed to be unavailable.

I wondered about the 480Mhz CPUs too cuz I've never heard of them. Really made me curious since we lose a 400 just about every week due to "e-cache writeback parity error" and there's never been a mention of "try the 480's" in any meetings or from our Sun reps to my knowledge. I asked a couple guys at werk and noone knew anything about 'em.

Has anyone tried to contact the epinions.com authors of the 450 and 4500 reviews? This E450 epinion (posted June 27, 2000) is quite similar to the reviewboard E450 posting. Likewise, this E4500 epinion (Aug 8, 2000) might as well be reviewboard's E4500 post. I believe both epinions were posted at times when the reviewboard posts were supposed to be unavailable.

Epinions Review vs Reviewboard Review. The "CIO/CTO" paragraph was a good example.

BTW, has anyone else noticed how redir, the person who originally submitted the article, is so vigirous in defending the authenticity of the reviews? Amazing for someone who just found a really interesting article and then submitted it.

All the sudden, this ends up as a review with a different author at another web site? What the HELL is going on? If you have questions, please EMAIL ME. jmccorm@galstar.com

This REALLY PISSES ME OFF! MY article pre-dates theirs. Hell, I should know. I wrote it in the middle of the night. And I don't see any date on their publication. I'm assuming it was published today or yesterday. I demand credit for my work. Hell, this is worth an article.

Even though my company owns several E10K machines, I do most of my work on a E450. So that's what I read up on. Check out this blurb from http://www.reviewboard.com/Section/Cover/SunE450

All in all these tests have shown us that the Linux software/Sun hardware is a very viable solution, usefull specialy when you run a Linux based shop, while still requiring the I/O performance and stability the Sun hardware can provide you. Most customers however will likely stick to the Sun Solaris platform, but its allways good to have options.

Now all I need to do is get one of these for the house. *Shaking Piggybank* Well, it'll be a while I guess.

Steven