Slashdot Mirror
Java Performance On Ubuntu Vs. Windows Vista
Henckle writes "Phoronix did a comparison of the Java performance between Ubuntu and Windows Vista. They tested both Java and OpenJDK on Ubuntu 8.10 and Java on Windows Vista Premium SP1, all with stock configurations. To no-one's surprise, Ubuntu was faster in a majority of the tests. The two OSs were similar in ray-tracing, and Vista was faster at Java OpenGL due to shortcomings with the Linux graphics driver."
...and when Microsoft have third party support ranging from acquiescence to mindless obedience to the exclusion of all others, complaining that it's a biased disadvantage in a benchmark is a bit rich.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
No, because the OS is closed source you'll always be at the mercy of the license provider to boost performance. Honestly, how much does Microsoft _really_ care about Java performance? Not a hell of a lot.
This is a typical OSS fallacy. "It's open, that means you can fix everything yourself!" Please. 99.9% of people who have an issue with OSS are at the mercy of the maintainer, whose license states that their software comes with no warranty. Much to the contrary, when you pay for a license you have more weight to throw around. Maybe not so much as an individual licensee, but corporations can certainly raise a stink and get issues resolved quickly.
Even the most robust Linux software *is* that way because of support contracts, paid development driven by industry demands.
Similes are like metaphors
Various problems with the Phoronix test methodology have been noted
From the very first paragraph of TFA (Yes, I know this is /. and nobody RTFA, but still) :
Have you ever wondered on what operating system Java works the best? While by no means is it a conclusive multi-platform comparison, for this article we ran a number of Java benchmarks on both Windows Vista Premium and Ubuntu Linux to see how the Java Virtual Machine performance differs.
They are just doing a quick test. Nobody is trying to do a scientifically perfect test.
Now, that aside.
Are these results applicable to both 32 and 64 bit distributions and JDKs?
You're joking, I hope ?~ 64bit Windows ? Are there at enough stable drivers for the thing to be able to at least boot ?~
People have been complaining about insuffisent driver support under Linux, but driver support for 64bits Windows - at least in my experience - is somewhere between catastrophic (Vista 64) and completely inexistant (XP 64 for AMD64).
More seriously :
Most of the "serious" benchmark websites tend to run all benchmarks in 32bits Windows only. Including benchmarks of server oriented hardware (Opteron & Xeon are often pitted one against another running under some 32bit version of Windows).
Not only do I find this a bad practice because it's not representative of the reality out there (most of the server I encounter every day run 64bits Unices - very often 64bits Linux), but now we have a small actual proof that typically server-applications don't run quite the same under Linux and under Windows, thus benchmarking the hardware under both environment might be relevant for all readers running their servers under Linux.
The sad truth is that most "professional" benchmarkers are more used to test high-end enthusiast gamer hardware, which makes more sense to be tested under 32bits Windows. Thus they probably lack the experience. As bad as it is, Phoronix' test suite is a first step toward helping benchmarks under the penguin OS.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Ignoring for the moment this discussion was posted under "developers", and therefore relates to the actual people who CAN fix it themselves, I'll respond more generally.
I'm a developer. That doesn't mean I have the skill set to and muck with the java vm. It also doesn't mean I have time to learn and understand any particular code base to make a fix.
Being at the mercy of "anyone whom you wish to find to fix the problem" (which may or may not include the maintainer) is a lot better than being at the mercy of one entity (the license owner).
Sure, in a perfect world where people gladly donate their time to cater to your particular need . This is an empty argument. Just because, hypothetically, someone can fix it, doesn't mean they will, and in my experience over the year, they won't.
The difference is that with closed source software you HAVE to have a lot of weight to throw around to get it fixed.
It's no different in the OSS world. Most OSS worth anything has funded development by people with weight to throw around. Ubuntu linux is popular because someone had a bunch of money and threw their weight around. The benefit to it being open source is that anyone can use it, but without weight to throw around, unless they are a skilled developer with a lot of time on their hands, they have little to no chance that their particular needs will be catered to.
As far as large corps go, they're MUCH better off with open source software, since they can just throw some money at the problem and get it fixed. If they bought the support contract from a 3rd party, even better.
Is that why most large corps are running Microsoft on the desktop and closed source unix implementations on the back end? You can't hold some non-entity accountable when their open source product fails. The whole "no warranty" clause is a pretty big deal when you're big business. Third party support can't cover that.
Similes are like metaphors