I'd like to thank Linux for being the sacrificial lamb, and
taking the spotlight away from FreeBSD. That's the thing about
running a hugely popular OS like Linux -- people start to attack
you from all sides. Maybe it's good FreeBSD is less popular?
Even though this is Linux and not FreeBSD, this whole thing about
"NT is better" is starting to worry me. It looks like NT, even
if it is better, is only better in the Networking only
categories. What about other intangibles like stability, uptime,
Sh*t, even if NT is better, where do you all suppose the
networking code came from? Maybe the title of the article should
be "NT beats Linux with Networking code they licensed from
Berkeley". God only knows what other pieces of code MS stole
from other OSes.
FreeBSD might fare better in such tests, but the bottom line is
MS is starting to compare their megabuck software against free
software, especially free UNICES. Tell me which OS has more bang
for the buck?
BTW, I find it funny that MS's IIs server supposedly "beats"
Apache in a lab test, but yet every web site running this
overrated piece of garbage has given me problems at one time or
another, but yet Apache-run web sites that I visited seemed more
reliable. IIs may be faster in a short block of time (as in a
lab test), but try measuring performance of the two over a long
block of time, and see which is more reliable. Again, there has
to be a reason so many web sites run Apache with Linux over
Another thing: the big joke is that NT is supposedly waaay
better, but compare the number of servers MS is using for FTP,
HTTP compared to what WC is running. If NT is so scalable, then
why does MS use >126 servers to run their "super scalable OS and
web server" on? In lab tests NT is better, but in the real
world, Microsoft loses.
So why is MS putting this *in front of our faces? Does it
look I care if NT is better? NT can be 10,000,000 times better
than any UNIX as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not taking out a
loan so I can buy NT.