Performance shock (BS)

[CB]

On 4/24/05, Tom Adelstein <adelste at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> I just accidentally saw the contents of this post and I could not
> believe what I saw.
> 
> I've been testing desktops for over two years and one half years now and
> to say that Microsoft Windows runs faster than Linux one the same
> configurations is just wrong.
> 
> If in fact you are experiencing such an aberrant behavior, then you know
> how to tune Windows and don't know how to configure Linux.
> 
> Otherwise, this thread is a Microsoft disinformation effort. Either way,
> it's despicable. If you don't know enough about Linux to tune up Open
> Office, then you need to do you homework.
> 
> Also, if you're running lots of services -- as in server mode -- compare
> the performance of Linux to Windows 2000 server running the same number
> of services.
> 
> No way Windows on a comparable platform outperforms Linux. I've proven
> it hundreds of times.
> 

OK. I'm out. I hesitated about asking this question straightforwardly
because I've observed that asking mildly critical-sounding questions
in linux forums almost always generates torrents of abuse. Admittedly,
in this case everyone except you has been constructive, but your
revolting post is enough. I'm unsubscribing right away because I'm
just sick of this kind of crap that makes open, honest,
straightforward communication about technology (technology! not war or
rape or starvation!) just impossible.

You call someone *despicable* because they ask a question that doesn't
match your experiences/prejudices. What fucking world have you
experienced -- anything at all beyond porn and computers? "Despicable"
can appropriately be said of child-abusers, not people who ask
questions about a piece of technology you favour.

Specifically, factually, really, I was referring to *untuned* fresh
installs on both Ubuntu and Win 2003 Server. Stock installs with
minimal services running. All I did on both was install a couple of
apps (and SP1  on the Win partition). I'm not even making any general
statements about the performance of Linux "vs" (your kind of term, I
guess) Windows (you'd know it by Windoze or Winblows, no doubt); this
was just a comment on desktop responsiveness. Or am I lying? A
Microsoft stoolie? What? Why?

Before finishing with you, let me tell you two small things. 

One. I have been diligently installing Ubuntu on friends' computers
now for the past year, because I like it and like it's underlying
ethics, and believe these friends should get off the Microsoft
monopoly bandwagon if they can. In many cases I've had to work hard to
persuade these friends to try linux again, because they've been burned
by trying it, having problems, and then asking questions in forums and
mailing lists. There they meet you and your clones, get abused, have
no source of help, so reinstall Windows. You and people like you are
driving ordinary users away.

Two. My main reason for seriously making attempts to migrate all my
computer-based work away from Microsoft's OS's is this. I worked in a
heavily MS-based business, consisting mainly of a very large WinNT &
Win2k server centre (3000+ servers). I observed time and again how MS
uses its power to distort and corrupt the IT business. The final straw
for me was when I witnessed them bribe the company I worked in to keep
quiet about a security problem we found. This was a very serious
issue, exposing tens of thousands of private customer records on
competitors' servers to easy access across the net. MS persuaded this
company not to pull a product that was based on the vulnerable
technology, and stopped us from warning competitors that their
information was exposed. I felt dirty working there, blew the whistle
anonymously (though, interestingly, the press wasn't interested), and
quit. The point is that I have no reason to favour Microsoft, would
never do any form of business with them, and don't need to be told by
some grossly ignorant prejudiced juvenile that a question I ask in
good faith derives from some 'Microsoft disinformation effort'. Fuck
you.