User talk:68.101.104.193
I am replying to the following (ERRONEOUS) statement:
"The following statement unfortunately exemplifies G-Wan's representation on the internet; no detached and organized effort has been made to present the features and notability of G-Wan to independent and impartial sources of publication."
In the article, there IS an independent review of G-WAN capabilities as compared to half a dozen other servers.
Here is the link for the ones who did not bother to read the article before trashing it:
http://nbonvin.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/serving-small-static-files-which-server-to-use/
Nicolas Bonvin, the author of this review, is not only "independent and impartial", he is an undisputed specialist of distributed and scalable architectures.
So, in the light of this, the real question is:
Why G-WAN "critics" feel the need to resort to plain lies to have a point?
Maybe because the naked truth does not have any impact.
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.
We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.
