I didn't randomly come up with this conclusion, the article didn't mention the transactions per second for.Net.
The article also didn't mention that each portal was tested on a system using their minimum specs.
So, the lamp portal ran everything... including the db... on a 386 with 16MB of ram and a modem.
While the wamp stack required three quad processor servers with 16GB RAM and 10K SCSI RAIDS with 4 gig E network cards each.
Point is... the article doesn't mention a lot... hyperbole not withstanding.
With the glaringly obvious differences in the software applications that were being used to test the stacks... one has to wonder what else was different in the test systems.
Maybe they should have included a graph depicting how much the system gets hosed if something is wrong in the portal software... along with a graph depicting how long it will take a hacker to find the problem code.
What the article DID say is, "There's a difference in the stacks' performances. We know because we measured it." That IS valid reasoning.
Their methodology certainly wasn't valid. That makes the measurements invalid, which makes the reasoning little more than hard worked for conjecture.
At the very least they should have written software that did the same task for each stack.
Instead, they threw in an unknown variable with the portal software... each doing it's "own thing" and god only knows what that thing is.
And how much different that "thing" is from package to package.
They could have easily created a design spec and put it out via an RFP for submissions to run under each stack if the didn't have the requisite skills in house.
What's more... they should have dedicated the space needed to explain what made the tests valid (what they tested and how) or not run the article.
As it is, the article serves little purpose beyond having a place to stick an advertisement.
If I could choose to have only certain channels (each seperately priced) then I think I could personally cut down on my cable bill significantly.
IMHO, that isn't granular enough.
I'd rather pay for the shows I like and let the rest of the shit die a horrible death.
There isn't any single channel available where I'm interested in more than 10 percent of the programming... and I see no reason to prop up the 90 percent of crap that they offer by paying for the entire channel.
One of the big problems tho is that a large portion of the ads are time sensitive. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense when I wait six or so months to watch the show...
Complete waste of time to see an add for something "next weekend" when it was aired but is six months ago when I watch the show.
And really, I don't need tampons or a new push up bra either... no matter how "interesting" the ads.
In the end, the real problem is that they are using buckshot advertising and hoping to hit something.
I'm not "something".
You want to sell me a product, then make an informative web page and make sure google can find it. And don't forget the forums to discuss problems and get customer feedback. Nothing turns me off like a contact page with only a number to an automated phone system...
When I want to buy what you are selling, I'll go online and research the alternatives.
As it is... all I use advertising for is to construct my "shit list" of products and companies that annoy me.
Rarely does someone or something on my shit list get rewarded...
Everything starts looking like FOX? or PBS... (pick your poison)
I'd prefer a model that supported shows I watched. Not some "group think" version of what someone thinks I should watch... or would watch if I was a typical Nascar & Beer reality show moron. (nothing against beer btw)
No matter which media channel you prefer you'll get bias, it is better to have one you can at least give feedback to.
I consider not watching the commercials to be feedback.
They aren't listening tho...
As far as I'm concerned, I paid for the right to watch the show when I paid my cable bill. They are the ones misinterpreting the relationship... not me.
I see no reason to "pay" again by watching commercials.
What these channels need to do is implement technology with the cable companies to be paid for the shows that are "consumed".
But... that would most likely require a-la-carte programming and pricing... something the cable companies are vehemently against.
Their problem... not mine.
FWIW, about 75 percent of what I watch these days arrives via NetFlix. I can wait a season or two to start watching a show... and don't have to even deal with fast forwarding thru commercials at that point.
And I don't have to deal with the show being put in re-run mode for six weeks while the media mavens try to figure out if the show will continue or not.
I hate investing time in a series... get *really* hooked... and then have the dumbshit in charge cancel it.
So... I don't watch shows that are on season one any more. I wait for them to show up on NetFlix... watch at my own pace... and pick it up in season two, with a good "buffer" of shows to survive the re-run season... mostly.
If a show is really good, like FireFly, I'll watch it on DVD... and see all of the shows... not just the ones "they" decided to air. Even if it was only one season long. But I make the decision to do so *after* it comes out on DVD... not when it is being aired.
Actually, in my neighborhood, they sent around an officer to advise people on how to save money on their insurance, pointing out stuff like window security, deadbolt strength, just general stuff. Things you wouldn't necessarily think of.
The law of unintentional consequences dictates that in order to fulfil your wishes... you will have to upgrade to the latest version of Windows to run that configuration software.
(and yes... there are better ways to do it, but this is an industry pawning over the droppings of an 800 pound gorilla)
But, as a resident of Idaho... it is more of an "arms race" against the neighbors than the government.
I can probably get away with protecting myself against a neighbor gone bad. But, there is little chance, IMHO, of protecting myself against a government gone bad.
Just look around the world at the many "bad governments"... and then look at the amount of weapons available to the citizens to "correct" the situation.
Read the software license you agreed to when you installed most any software.
Just wondering... does the license apply if the software is pirated?
I mean, isn't the customer signaling their intent to pay zero for the product and basically saying "I don't intend to follow your license. If I push this little button will you install for me anyway?"
Seems to me that the software industry is trying to show "intent to consent" to the license where no such thing exists.
I know that the ONLY reason that I push the button is that is what I have to do to install it.
Seems to me that a "contract" or "license" has to be agreed upon BEFORE accepting payment for the product to be legal... not afterwards.
Especially since everyone already knows that there will be a new iPod next year... just like every year since it came out. (Same goes with the rest of their products)
So, nobody waits for the next one*. If they did... they'd never get one!
In that respect... I'd have to say this to Apple: Nicely played.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't randomly come up with this conclusion, the article didn't mention the transactions per second for .Net.
The article also didn't mention that each portal was tested on a system using their minimum specs.
So, the lamp portal ran everything... including the db... on a 386 with 16MB of ram and a modem.
While the wamp stack required three quad processor servers with 16GB RAM and 10K SCSI RAIDS with 4 gig E network cards each.
Point is... the article doesn't mention a lot... hyperbole not withstanding.
With the glaringly obvious differences in the software applications that were being used to test the stacks... one has to wonder what else was different in the test systems.
I'm actually wondering how the wonderful non-biased folk here at /. are going to interpret these results.
They would probably tell you that the article lacks so much detail as to even care about trying to determine if it means anything.
Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm.
I noticed that there wasn't a graph comparing the cost to run each system as tested, including software costs.
Especially something like... what would it cost to deploy an OSS solution with the same performance as the wamp solution?
What is the cost per transactions per second?
Must be something enterprise customers don't care about...
Maybe they should have included a graph depicting how much the system gets hosed if something is wrong in the portal software... along with a graph depicting how long it will take a hacker to find the problem code.
What the article DID say is, "There's a difference in the stacks' performances. We know because we measured it." That IS valid reasoning.
Their methodology certainly wasn't valid. That makes the measurements invalid, which makes the reasoning little more than hard worked for conjecture.
At the very least they should have written software that did the same task for each stack.
Instead, they threw in an unknown variable with the portal software... each doing it's "own thing" and god only knows what that thing is.
And how much different that "thing" is from package to package.
They could have easily created a design spec and put it out via an RFP for submissions to run under each stack if the didn't have the requisite skills in house.
What's more... they should have dedicated the space needed to explain what made the tests valid (what they tested and how) or not run the article.
As it is, the article serves little purpose beyond having a place to stick an advertisement.
If I could choose to have only certain channels (each seperately priced) then I think I could personally cut down on my cable bill significantly.
IMHO, that isn't granular enough.
I'd rather pay for the shows I like and let the rest of the shit die a horrible death.
There isn't any single channel available where I'm interested in more than 10 percent of the programming... and I see no reason to prop up the 90 percent of crap that they offer by paying for the entire channel.
You make advertisements people want to watch.
Yep. I watch all the mac ads. Funny shit.
One of the big problems tho is that a large portion of the ads are time sensitive. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense when I wait six or so months to watch the show...
Complete waste of time to see an add for something "next weekend" when it was aired but is six months ago when I watch the show.
And really, I don't need tampons or a new push up bra either... no matter how "interesting" the ads.
In the end, the real problem is that they are using buckshot advertising and hoping to hit something.
I'm not "something".
You want to sell me a product, then make an informative web page and make sure google can find it. And don't forget the forums to discuss problems and get customer feedback. Nothing turns me off like a contact page with only a number to an automated phone system...
When I want to buy what you are selling, I'll go online and research the alternatives.
As it is... all I use advertising for is to construct my "shit list" of products and companies that annoy me.
Rarely does someone or something on my shit list get rewarded...
What is wrong with government funded media
Everything starts looking like FOX? or PBS... (pick your poison)
I'd prefer a model that supported shows I watched. Not some "group think" version of what someone thinks I should watch... or would watch if I was a typical Nascar & Beer reality show moron. (nothing against beer btw)
No matter which media channel you prefer you'll get bias, it is better to have one you can at least give feedback to.
I consider not watching the commercials to be feedback.
They aren't listening tho...
As far as I'm concerned, I paid for the right to watch the show when I paid my cable bill. They are the ones misinterpreting the relationship... not me.
I see no reason to "pay" again by watching commercials.
What these channels need to do is implement technology with the cable companies to be paid for the shows that are "consumed".
But... that would most likely require a-la-carte programming and pricing... something the cable companies are vehemently against.
Their problem... not mine.
FWIW, about 75 percent of what I watch these days arrives via NetFlix. I can wait a season or two to start watching a show... and don't have to even deal with fast forwarding thru commercials at that point.
And I don't have to deal with the show being put in re-run mode for six weeks while the media mavens try to figure out if the show will continue or not.
I hate investing time in a series... get *really* hooked... and then have the dumbshit in charge cancel it.
So... I don't watch shows that are on season one any more. I wait for them to show up on NetFlix... watch at my own pace... and pick it up in season two, with a good "buffer" of shows to survive the re-run season... mostly.
If a show is really good, like FireFly, I'll watch it on DVD... and see all of the shows... not just the ones "they" decided to air. Even if it was only one season long. But I make the decision to do so *after* it comes out on DVD... not when it is being aired.
eBay doesn't have a monopoly on payments.
It has a monopoly on auctions.
Surely you mean online auctions...
Most are linksys or netgear or whatever routers, still set to the default channel, ssid and password.
You don't actually think they will be trying passwords do you?
They'll see that linksys / netgear router with it's default password as "secured" and move on. (because it asks for a password)
In truth... their efforts are not of much use for the purpose of securing networks.
So... they are incompetent for the task... or this isn't the real task they are trying to accomplish.
Actually, in my neighborhood, they sent around an officer to advise people on how to save money on their insurance, pointing out stuff like window security, deadbolt strength, just general stuff. Things you wouldn't necessarily think of.
Hm... they sent a cop to look around eh?
How "nice" of them...
Careful what you ask for.
The law of unintentional consequences dictates that in order to fulfil your wishes... you will have to upgrade to the latest version of Windows to run that configuration software.
(and yes... there are better ways to do it, but this is an industry pawning over the droppings of an 800 pound gorilla)
A disclaimer: I own guns.
... and then look at the amount of weapons available to the citizens to "correct" the situation.
But, as a resident of Idaho... it is more of an "arms race" against the neighbors than the government.
I can probably get away with protecting myself against a neighbor gone bad. But, there is little chance, IMHO, of protecting myself against a government gone bad.
Just look around the world at the many "bad governments"
Isn't happening.
This guy would be dead now if he had pulled a gun on the cops.
Pretend they are a good thing all you want, but a gun is worthless against tyrany.
Read the software license you agreed to when you installed most any software.
Just wondering... does the license apply if the software is pirated?
I mean, isn't the customer signaling their intent to pay zero for the product and basically saying "I don't intend to follow your license. If I push this little button will you install for me anyway?"
Seems to me that the software industry is trying to show "intent to consent" to the license where no such thing exists.
I know that the ONLY reason that I push the button is that is what I have to do to install it.
Seems to me that a "contract" or "license" has to be agreed upon BEFORE accepting payment for the product to be legal... not afterwards.
When I installed the Windows Vista Beta, there was a segment in the EULA expressly saying that you can't copy the fonts
Easy to figure out why...
Perhaps the "facts" are different when it is your wallet the money is coming out of...
Because they are a publicly traded company and need to improve shareholder value by keeping costs low?
Just guessing...
(and no, the extra cost for an MS solution isn't in licensing their own tech... it is all about maintenance and support)
I just don't understand why he (and it is a he, trust me) insists on using "partner" instead of just calling a spade and spade.
Because he lives in a repressed society that doesn't allow him to call his partner his husband?
It is quite appropriate that some people claim their morals come from words engraved in stone.
Kinda like their stone age thinking...
That, or you don't understand what the word "mostly" means.
Shit, if they could, Jeri Ryan would have had 80% of the slashdot userbase thrown in the shitcan in 1997.
80 percent? What is wrong with the other 18 percent?
Hell, I'd want some of that even if I was a chick! (the 2 percent crowd)
Please explain how you lose freedom when the police examine library records? How does loss of privacy = loss of freedom?
Oh the irony there Mr. Anonymous Coward...
And why even mention that ONE SOURCE says it's better than iTunes, if you don't have any details?
Actually, that was the point of the article before it got edited.
What they were trying to say is that, of all the testers, ONE of them thought it was better than iTunes.
The MS spin machine took care of the rest...
Especially since everyone already knows that there will be a new iPod next year... just like every year since it came out. (Same goes with the rest of their products)
So, nobody waits for the next one*. If they did... they'd never get one!
In that respect... I'd have to say this to Apple: Nicely played.
*for the most part
3 3/4. Friends convince you to just buy a Mac where things don't "just break" like that.
;-)
What was step 4 again?