variant

found this BS whilst browsing for linux news:

http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/Pr.../nt4vlinux.asp

i clicked one of the sources of information they are quoteing and on the site it clearly said: "Mistakes were made as the linux distrobution tested was not fully optimised, however we have not changed the published results as so many websites have linked to them"

Anyone with broad server experience: is there any truth in the performance claims made by microsoft on this page?

__________________
Proud to be a GNU/Gentoo Linux user!

Dolda2000

Also, this was from 1999. Linux has made enormous progress since then. However, much of it seems to be pure lies. I'm not exactly sure what Linux 2.2 looked like, but I know absolutely sure that it supported asynchronous I/O. It also claims that Linux has no commitment of providing backwards binary compatibility, and that there is no support for centralized user databases, both of which which is clearly lies. Linux has always maintained backwards binary compatibility, and both NIS and Kerberos have provided single sign-on capabilities long before Winbloze even existed.
They also state some things about Winbloze that are really bad publicity when you think it through. For example, they guarantee 99.9% uptime, which makes about 90 seconds downtime (about 1 reboot) per day. They also compare MS support to the peer-to-peer support of the community, of which at least I have found the latter much, much better.

Hellmasker

thats a very old report.. and has a lot of stuff that i serously doubt

eg. the comparison about windows r&d budget vs "developers adding features when they feel like it"

Its kind atrue but the linux developers are no doubt far more motivated than anyone in MS

genlee

I bet NIS is older then most of the people on this board. I like the part where they say poor java support. If they consider sun's implementation of java poor, what is good to them? Surely it isn't their vm as I never seen one crash so many times. especially back in 99. Its also funny how they say linux is more prone to security bugs, I wonder what OS is keeping all those worms running around the net. One thing microsoft does right is keep the security mailing list very busy. Without them, the lists would be boring since you don't get many crticial exploits from unix/linux/novell.

slant6

One can guess that it's fairly biased considering M$ funded the project.

Personally, I can see how Windows File Sharing on NT may outperform Samba on Linux, but there is just no way that a finely tuned Apache server on Linux could loose to MS IIS. IIS has to be the worst web server on the planet.

Here's what Eric Raymond has to say about the benchmark:
http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/23/1316228.shtml

l_Kriss

from http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/ente...9904221410.asp

I remeber calling MS Norway, telling my serial number, only to get a grumpy reply that sounded something like "We won't give you support. The company that sold you that PC gives."

Hah, they say they have good support?!
Also, this is quite fun! Computer Randomly Plays Classical Music

__________________
The official hackles UNIX geek hierarch!

variant

L0L!#@$%

microsoft.com quote:

"Microsoft provides third-party contact information to help you find technical support. This contact information may change without notice. Microsoft does not guarantee the accuracy of this third-party contact information."

annother microsoft quote:

"With open-source systems you have to post on news groups or surf the Web to get support. Even then, you do not get any guarantees on the kind of support you are getting."

lmfao good post Kriss

__________________
Proud to be a GNU/Gentoo Linux user!