Performance shock (BS)

[Tom Adelstein]

On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 18:05 +1000, CB wrote:
> 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.


The outrage with which you replied speaks volumes. The problem with
Linux forums????? What's that about?

Microsoft employs former members of national intelligence agencies to
undermine the companies and organizations it considers a threat. It
operates as the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and in concert with
Bill's father's law firm - Perry, Gates and Ellis. One commentary claims
that Microsoft has demonstrated more influence peddling than anyone
since the Al Capone Era in Chicago.

Three years ago, I wrote an exhaustive investigative piece for
32BitsOnline that got 100's of thousands of reads called : Did Microsoft
Try to Kill UNIX?

You can't find the article anywhere and the references to how they got
into US government procurement have been removed from the their original
URL's like the Open Group.

You don't see anything like that coming out of Linux Forums. You don't
see money going from Microsoft to SCO to the lawyer hired to prosecute
Microsoft by the Justice Department kind of things from Linux people.

But, you did see people mentioning ways to speed up OOo and information
about how to make things work better.

The subject title - Performance Shock - while perhaps not intending to
insult or cause a problem, will get a knee jerk reaction. 

And in the event you are not aware - people in many countries have gone
to jail for not having licensed Microsoft software. I wrote about
several cases of this and people wrote in and commented on it on
LinuxToday (before it became part of Internet.com). -- Members of the
BSA in many countries got themselves appointed as "Special Prosecutors".
Years before, MS gave free software to white box manufacturers in places
like El Salvador, Turkey, Indonesia and on and on. People bought
computers with that software on it. Then, the BSA (Microsoft) ran
campaigns saying people had to pay their license fees or go to jail.
They had billboards with depictions of people handcuffed and escorted
into paddy wagons. The white box guys didn't get so much as a traffic
ticket - but end users in third world countries helped Microsoft makes
its "sales estimates" for several quarters during the tech downturn.

People have lost homes, jobs, families, faced fines, court, arrest - so
big Bill can be the richest man in the world. 

With that in the background of the discussion, I say to you no harm
intended. But, given the response to the comment and the very pointed
shots -- one might conclude a nerve was touched eh.