There is one element of all this which I think needs to be considered. How much effort is needed to set up an NT-based system compared to a Linux-based system? I see this aspect as being analogous to the old arguments over which programming language to use, when the simple, undemanding, jobs can be done more effectively in a language such as BASIC, rather than C. Quick to write and slow to run can still be viable for one-off problems.
Is it possible that Microsoft provides the easiest answer for the naive user?
What seems to be needed to do this properly, rather than get the biased results which Mindcraft produced, is to have bother a range of hardware and a range of administrators. That sort of approach is pretty standard experimental design, as any qualfied statistician can tell you. Have a Linux guru set up an NT system, and an NT guru set up a Linux system, and do the same with more ordinary people.
There are also the obvious long-term aspects. Does the lower cost of setting up a system correlate with the long-term system administration costs? If Linux takes more work to set up, but runs more reliably, that should make a difference to the pointy-hair faction. Or does it get blocked by rules on office expenditure, as the poor blighter administering the NT box gets lost in the general office costs, while the extra initial cost of setting up Linux triggers all sorts of barriers?
Though we shouldn't forget the cost of the NT software.
I suspect that a lot of the extra long-term costs of NT servers get lost in the background noise. But that may be where the true advantages of Linux, and other Unix-like operating systems, can be found.
Physical access to the machine can blow open any security, short of encrypted storage of data. Just as a trivial instance of how simple it can be, SuSE Linux distributions include all you need to set up Linux to run from a parallel-port Zip Drive, so as long as you can run a boot floppy and connect to the parallel port, you can have root access to any file system on the machine that you have the drivers for.
What's really bad about this is not that Microsoft can get a rating for Windows NT, but that they don't seem to realise how limited it is.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft uses the data from this test to promote the sales of Windows NT, they are using lies to advertise their product.
If they allow the press to use this report to compare their product to Linux, they are allowing lies to be used to promote their product.
If they allow Mindcraft to publish a false report, they are allowing lies to be used to promote their product.
It doesn't matter who paid Mindcraft. Microsoft may not have broken any law on truth in advertising, but they're not being honest.
That is far more important than whether Linux or NT is better, or whether or not the Linux community does as much to promote Linux.
There is one element of all this which I think needs to be considered. How much effort is needed to set up an NT-based system compared to a Linux-based system? I see this aspect as being analogous to the old arguments over which programming language to use, when the simple, undemanding, jobs can be done more effectively in a language such as BASIC, rather than C. Quick to write and slow to run can still be viable for one-off problems.
Is it possible that Microsoft provides the easiest answer for the naive user?
What seems to be needed to do this properly, rather than get the biased results which Mindcraft produced, is to have bother a range of hardware and a range of administrators. That sort of approach is pretty standard experimental design, as any qualfied statistician can tell you. Have a Linux guru set up an NT system, and an NT guru set up a Linux system, and do the same with more ordinary people.
There are also the obvious long-term aspects. Does the lower cost of setting up a system correlate with the long-term system administration costs? If Linux takes more work to set up, but runs more reliably, that should make a difference to the pointy-hair faction. Or does it get blocked by rules on office expenditure, as the poor blighter administering the NT box gets lost in the general office costs, while the extra initial cost of setting up Linux triggers all sorts of barriers?
Though we shouldn't forget the cost of the NT software.
I suspect that a lot of the extra long-term costs of NT servers get lost in the background noise. But that may be where the true advantages of Linux, and other Unix-like operating systems, can be found.
Physical access to the machine can blow open any security, short of encrypted storage of data. Just as a trivial instance of how simple it can be, SuSE Linux distributions include all you need to set up Linux to run from a parallel-port Zip Drive, so as long as you can run a boot floppy and connect to the parallel port, you can have root access to any file system on the machine that you have the drivers for.
What's really bad about this is not that Microsoft can get a rating for Windows NT, but that they don't seem to realise how limited it is.