Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
> Kenneth Scharf <scharkalvin@yahoo.com> writes:
> | There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
> | It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
> | in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE:
> | use of a kerenl with know network bugs, none of apache's optimizations
> | turned on...
> |
> | --- Rick Macdonald <rickm@home.com> wrote:
> | > On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> | >
> | > > Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid
> | > someone off to fix a
> | > > benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually
> | > better than linux.
> | > >
> | > >
> | > http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
> | >
> | > This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or
> | > flawed, or the
> | > configuration not optimal? Or is it true?
>
> You guys need to read your Slashdot (http://slashdot.org). I've heard
> that this particular "benchmark" was commissioned by Microsoft. Anyone
> who pays attention to a benchmark commissioned by one of the
> interested parties deserves what they get.
Well, while I agree with that, this is already being read and believed by
managers and suits. What we need are numbers to the contrary, not "it was
commisioned by Microsoft".
Of course, its not likely that anyone in the free software movement will
be able to verify the results, because they used pretty expensive
machinery. A four processor Xeon as the server, and 144 pentium test
nodes with ethernet switches.
Reply to: