We don't have to rig our benchmarks to make it work!
Linux runs faster on my K5-PR166 w/64 megs of RAM than it does on the dual PII-233 w/128 megs of RAM at work.
Whether MS likes it or not, we're here and we're not going anywhere. It can't buy Linux or slash prices and run us out of business. Even if Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe, etc. go under, Linux will still be here. We don't have to keep adding flashy eye candy and use slick marketing and lies to sell our product.
The hardware chosen certainly won't give Linux an advantage, whether it be the four processor box, or the low end system (although it looks like Linux would have a better chance on the low end box). Apache sure isn't gonna kick butt as a high performace web server (which isn't what it was designed for anyway). Of course, I wouldn't expect Microsoft to pick hardware that would give an advantage to anything but NT.
Unfortunately, the "Linux Community" has made a whole lot of noise about the original Mindcraft benchmark and its problems. I fear that in doing so we have played right into Microsoft's hands.
This benchmark business has already made so much noise that I've had people who have a hard time figuring out the Start Menu in 9x/NT asking about Linux, NT, etc. Microsoft is certainly doing all they can do to make sure the world knows that the "Linux Community" has disparaged the original benchmark. Now, they're raisin' a ruckus because we haven't (seemingly) done much to respond to their challenge.
I think (and I'm probably not 100% right, I may even be wrong) that the "Linux Community" only has two options now: 1. Accept Microsoft's challenge (however we're supposed to do that) and have as many experts on tuning, etc., on hand as possible to make sure Linux gets as much of a fair shake is possible given the hardware. 2. Do nothing and let Microsoft trumpet to the press that the "Linux Community" didn't have the balls to accept their challenge because Linux really was inferior to NT (which we know good and well it isn't).
Seems to me that our best bet is to accept the challenge and take our beating like a man, if that's what it comes down to. Of course, if Linux loses, MS will plaster the numbers on every bulletin board and window on this side of the Milky Way, but at least it will be a well tuned Linux running against a well tuned NT, which is much more than can be said about the previous benchmark. Even if Linux does lose, it's not the end of the world for us, even though MS will work to make sure it is. They can't kill us, and what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger. If this turns out to be a failure for Linux, then we can learn from what went wrong and work to improve performance in whatever areas it is necessary to improve performance in.
And yes, I intend to help, as soon as I'm competent enought to do so. In the mean time, I'm learning.
Now for a question: I was under the impression that NT pretty much choked on more than two processors. Am I mistaken? I know we've got an NT box with two PII (233s, I think) and 128 megs of RAM and it's slower than molasses).
On the other hand, I've always thought of Linux as a fun OS. Yeah, BeOS is pretty cool, but I'd rather play with Linux. I think it's the ability to tinker with the source code that attracts me.
In fact, I was just telling my supervisor how much fun Linux is. I even came in on my day of to upgrade a kernel -- off the clock! (I sure wouldn't volunteer to install an NT Service Pack this way, though . ..)
Of course, we all are entitled to our own opinion. If you think BeOS or MacOS or whatever is fun, more power to ya!
The library I work for still has a single CD-ROM server that runs Warp 4. Up until the beginning of last semester, we had 10 other boxes with Warp 4 and a single 386 running Warp 3 (!). Unfortunately, most have been migrated to 9x/NT (My supervisor is a Microsoft bigot . ..)
The CD-ROM server is incredibly stable. It hasn't been rebooted in months . . . the last time we powered it down, it was just to move it to a new location. Plus, it runs more effeciently than NT does on comparable hardware.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd rather use Linux in most cases. But, it's a darn sight better than NT. I'm sick and tired of rebooting our NT boxes when all 128 megs of RAM are used up with nothing to speak of going on. At least I've managed to bring in a single Linux box . . .
So, if Nietzsche says it, it must be true? How is blindly following what Nietzsche says (or any other philosopher, for that matter) any different your being "weak-willed" or "needing others to think for them"?
Slashdot Mirror
Linux runs faster on my K5-PR166 w/64 megs of RAM than it does on the dual PII-233 w/128 megs of RAM at work.
Whether MS likes it or not, we're here and we're not going anywhere. It can't buy Linux or slash prices and run us out of business. Even if Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe, etc. go under, Linux will still be here. We don't have to keep adding flashy eye candy and use slick marketing and lies to sell our product.
The hardware chosen certainly won't give Linux an advantage, whether it be the four processor box, or the low end system (although it looks like Linux would have a better chance on the low end box). Apache sure isn't gonna kick butt as a high performace web server (which isn't what it was designed for anyway). Of course, I wouldn't expect Microsoft to pick hardware that would give an advantage to anything but NT.
Unfortunately, the "Linux Community" has made a whole lot of noise about the original Mindcraft benchmark and its problems. I fear that in doing so we have played right into Microsoft's hands.
This benchmark business has already made so much noise that I've had people who have a hard time figuring out the Start Menu in 9x/NT asking about Linux, NT, etc. Microsoft is certainly doing all they can do to make sure the world knows that the "Linux Community" has disparaged the original benchmark. Now, they're raisin' a ruckus because we haven't (seemingly) done much to respond to their challenge.
I think (and I'm probably not 100% right, I may even be wrong) that the "Linux Community" only has two options now:
1. Accept Microsoft's challenge (however we're supposed to do that) and have as many experts on tuning, etc., on hand as possible to make sure Linux gets as much of a fair shake is possible given the hardware.
2. Do nothing and let Microsoft trumpet to the press that the "Linux Community" didn't have the balls to accept their challenge because Linux really was inferior to NT (which we know good and well it isn't).
Seems to me that our best bet is to accept the challenge and take our beating like a man, if that's what it comes down to. Of course, if Linux loses, MS will plaster the numbers on every bulletin board and window on this side of the Milky Way, but at least it will be a well tuned Linux running against a well tuned NT, which is much more than can be said about the previous benchmark. Even if Linux does lose, it's not the end of the world for us, even though MS will work to make sure it is. They can't kill us, and what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger. If this turns out to be a failure for Linux, then we can learn from what went wrong and work to improve performance in whatever areas it is necessary to improve performance in.
And yes, I intend to help, as soon as I'm competent enought to do so. In the mean time, I'm learning.
Now for a question: I was under the impression that NT pretty much choked on more than two processors. Am I mistaken? I know we've got an NT box with two PII (233s, I think) and 128 megs of RAM and it's slower than molasses).
On the other hand, I've always thought of Linux as a fun OS. Yeah, BeOS is pretty cool, but I'd rather play with Linux. I think it's the ability to tinker with the source code that attracts me.
.)
In fact, I was just telling my supervisor how much fun Linux is. I even came in on my day of to upgrade a kernel -- off the clock! (I sure wouldn't volunteer to install an NT Service Pack this way, though . .
Of course, we all are entitled to our own opinion. If you think BeOS or MacOS or whatever is fun, more power to ya!
The library I work for still has a single CD-ROM server that runs Warp 4. Up until the beginning of last semester, we had 10 other boxes with Warp 4 and a single 386 running Warp 3 (!). Unfortunately, most have been migrated to 9x/NT (My supervisor is a Microsoft bigot . . .)
The CD-ROM server is incredibly stable. It hasn't been rebooted in months . . . the last time we powered it down, it was just to move it to a new location. Plus, it runs more effeciently than NT does on comparable hardware.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd rather use Linux in most cases. But, it's a darn sight better than NT. I'm sick and tired of rebooting our NT boxes when all 128 megs of RAM are used up with nothing to speak of going on. At least I've managed to bring in a single Linux box . . .
So, if Nietzsche says it, it must be true? How is blindly following what Nietzsche says (or any other philosopher, for that matter) any different your being "weak-willed" or "needing others to think for them"?