More benchmark bullshit, and Linux luser mating calls... (was Re: Linux betas NT in TPC testing, running Oracle8

Jerry <jerrys121DELETE_THIS_BIT_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

: Stephen Edwards wrote:
: >
: > Bill Chess <chess_at_la.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Here's the story:
: > : http://rpmfind.net/veillard/oracle/
: >
: > Hmmm... obviously a "Linux" site.
: >
: > : It's sponsored by more than one company (unlike the Mindcraft study),
: > : but I have to wonder if maybe Oracle deliberately cripples their NT
: > : version somehow.
: >
: > The test is completely bogus. But I'm not suprised in the slightest.
: >
: > "No specific operating system tuning was done, all the default NT services
: > were running, with the default priorities and system parameters."
: >
: > Oh no... not biased in the slightest.</SARCASM>

And notice, when connecting to the URL now, you will see

Connect: Contacting host slashdot.org

in your brower's status bar. So now what? I'm supposed to believe /.? Yeah... __RIGHT!__ Now I'm led to believe that this whole thing was nothing but pure, unrefined bullshit.

: Oh yes you are......why did'nt you quote:

[snip]

Because, anyone who knows anything about WindowsNT knows that it is not ready "out of the box". WindowsNT is ready for an _end user_ out of the box, not networking. As for Linux... well, it's been a long time since I've used it, so frankly, I don't know anymore.

Jesus, you Linux prissies really are a piece of work... the _second_ anyone questions the reliability of a benchmark which turns out results in Linux's favor, you all start bombarding that person with URLs and quotes from places and people who have biases of their own.

Yet there were plenty of people like myself who were ready to reject the Mindcraft results, despite the fact that they pointed in favor to WindowsNT. Why is that? Maybe because people like me are actually willing to accept the truth?

: "The reader will have to keep in mind that no operating system tuning
: was done neither on the NT server nor on the Linux server; the two
: systems were running as they were after a standard installation."

And exactly what constitutes a "standard" installation under Linux? What distribution was being used? I thought Linux needed to be tuned as well? At least, that what the Linux prissies were whinging about when Mindcraft posted its studies... so what? Now it _doesn't_ need tuning? I often wonder if Linux users aren't really just talking out of their asses 90% of the time. Do you people even know _anything_ about the OS you profess to be "experts" with?

: Linux shows a 25x improvement on NT in several tests - how sad for
: NT.... bet MS don't quote this one....

Even if Linux does outperform WindowsNT for some things (and it does), why does that give _you_ an excuse to wave your penis in the air? Has it ever occurred to you that that test may be false, or heavily biased in Linux's favor... no, of course not!

Oh, _GOD_ _FORBID_ that we question Linux's "l33tn355"!...

Pathetic... absolutely pathetic. Yes... I mean you, you twit.

[] "No footnote for you!" -- Footnote Nazi

--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "But something's wrong.  It takes me a moment to pin it down;
|     |  the monitor's different.  Instead of the nice 17' Trinitron,
|_..._|  there's a 15' raster gun in a dirty plastic case." -- Ben in ASR