Embedded Systems Study Rebutted

Gabba writes "LinuxDevices.com has a rebuttal to the Microsoft-funded report purporting to show Windows nearly 4X more efficient than Linux for developing embedded systems. The rebuttal shows the study to be full of flaws in both design and execution."

Comments

Shock!

[Chicane-UK]

The rebuttal shows the study to be full of flaws in both design and execution.

I'm not being funny here, but since when did anyone ever pay attention to Microsoft backed or funded tests such as this? They'd hardly be backing this comparative benchmarks and reviews only for their product to get slated. Every time I read a 'Windows 2003 Server is 2.3x cheaper than Linux!' type story (where they end up comparing to something like Solaris which.. duh.. isn't Linux!) it just bugs the heck out of me.

I'd much rather cast my attention to impartial, un-biased sites such as /. for fair reviews of items provided by stores they have no relation to.. now where can I order a Zero Blaster again? :D

And yes, I am just joking around before I get flamed to hell and back ;)

maybe 4x more efficient but

[joeflies]

after seeing ozzy trying out the iDrive on his BMW, I would guess it may not be more usable or more reliable

Re:The magic of studies

[wik]

> by-enlarge

You've been reading too many spams. The correct expression is "by and large". :-)

Re:Yeah...

[allanj]

One of the problems with windows is the inability to strip out stuff you don't need.

I don't know what Windows version you're talking about here, but it most certainly is NOT recent Windows XP Embedded (as in Embedded XP SP1 - I assume you're sufficiently on-topic to be talking about embedded Windows stuff). You can mix and match your own XP configuration, and have it contain just the pieces you need.

Don't need no steeenkin' GUI? Unselect it.

Don't need no steeenkin' webserver? Unselect it.

Don't need no steeenkin' Ethernet support? Unselect it.

The list could go on for miles - it really works quite well. There's a target designer tool where just about anything is optional, and the database for that tool is HUGE. Module inter-dependencies are handled automatically, and the size of the target image easily available. You could argue that MS would need that tool, since no-one can figure out how their dependencies work anyway (and I'd agree with you :-), but that's besides the point. The point is that it's SOOOO easy to select/unselect options.

And no, I'm not affiliated with MS in any way - I've just actually USED Embedded XP, and that brings a somewhat different view on things.

Re:The magic of studies

[pstemari]

Nice troll, but it doesn't fly. There are in fact objective criteria for evalating experimental and statistical methodology, even though both coal companies and the "alternative medicine" crowd wish it weren't so.

Re:The magic of studies

[jbottero]

What's the name of that new Linux guy at M$? This is the kind of stuff he needs to address. Microsoft can NOT now afford to be spewing out "whitpapers" that can go right to the shreader.

Look, there is no "brain drain" at Microsoft, they DO have some smart people working for them. So why do they produce frilly lady fluff like this? If Microsoft wants to survive, they will need to work ALONG SIDE linux, have a reallistic approach to compeating with Linux, not just shitting out paper after paper that even marginal techies like me laugh at.

Re:The magic of studies

[fermion]

Perhaps, but in this case the methodology is flawed, and one needs to read no further than the first several paragraphs to see this.

As clearly point out in the rebuttal, this was a statistical study and as such must follow precise rules to considered valid. First, any sample must be random. The study was not random but self-selective as the names were drawn from a web site registry. Second, the poll question must be made public to insure that they were not leading. Without these two criteria met, we must assume that survey is flawed.

The problems mount when one reads that the data analysis methodology is not given. We can in fact live without know the specific data, but without the methods we must assume that the analyst crunched the data until they discovered the answer they wanted. This is a classic method of lying with statistics.

The nail in the coffin, even if we assume the analysts are honest in all other respects, is that we do not know how the result were normalized. All we know is that for the projects developed by the Linux people cost four times as much as the projects developed by the windows developers. Were the Linux projects 4 times as hard? Did the Linux projects return four times the revenue? Were the Linux projects more costly research based projects while the Windows projects merely applications of work already completed? Were the differences in the way the various companies costed the projects.

All the other stuff is just in the rebuttal is just a rational of why Linux development is probably just as good as Windows development. The fact is that the study has all the classic signs of a mercenary statistician massaging data to generate a predetermined answer. People wonder why kids are so stupid now. It is because companies like MS want to keep them stupid so they will believe these bogus studies.