Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

OSS Web Stacks Outperformed by .Net?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the sad-penguin dept.

349

Gimble writes "eWeek has an article up that looks at the performance of portals using open source stacks and comparing them to their MS equivalents. The article's conclusion is that .Net outperforms the open source stacks, mainly because of its tighter integration, but also notes that running the open source stacks on Windows (WAMP) delivered strong performance." From the article: "Based on our forays into user forums for many top open-source enterprise applications, there are many IT managers attempting to run open-source products on Windows servers--attracted, no doubt, to the benefits and efficiencies of using open source without having to become Linux administrators. The results of our WAMP stack tests indicate that these folks might be on to something."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Left out? (5, Insightful)

meburke (736645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697963)

From the article: "The criticism we expect to hear most is of the stacks we left out--including commercial J2EE platforms, such as those available from BEA Systems, IBM, Oracle and Sun Microsystems, as well as the many other database and server platform permutations." I can't believe they came to this conclusion on such little data. They did, however, create a blog to disparate results can be shared.

Short memories (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698120)

MS also had the fastest java runtime back in the day. It isn't suprising that there .net compiler is also very fast.

Re:Short memories (0)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698159)

It helps when you control the OS, browser and everything else. "fastest" could mean "we don't insert extra delays into our plugins".

Also MS Java and Sun Java [the latter being "the standard"] are not 100% compatible. I routinely fight with it at work for our internal HR bs.

Tom

Re:Short memories (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698577)

Please stop with the consipricy theories already. The fact that the AMP part of the stack runs very fast on Windows doesn't seem to matter to you at all, does it?

Re:Left out? (1, Offtopic)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698166)

I have no idea as to why they think these results are applicable for enterprise applications, but left out enterprise J2EE solutions. We run both Oracle and WebLogic (the latter being not entirely our fault, honest!) here in various implementations. We wouldn't even think of using, oh ferinstance, MySQL* for the multi-million object DB's that Oracle (in a RAC config, so it gets to sync everything on-the-fly w/ its partners for HA) chews away at on a daily basis.

*MySQL fans can kindly keep your flames to yourselves, plz - I know Google uses it and whatnot, but they also have a large staff just to maintain and modify it, not to mention the large cluster farms to run it - we don't have those luxuries here. If it's any consolation, MSSQL would be an even worse solution due to the ungodly underlying resource demand that it carries.

Tangents aside, if the "e" in "eWeek" is supposed to stand for "enterprise" (IIRC), then fer hell's sake they shouldn't exclude the mainline enterprise stacks in their benchmarks.

/P

Re:Left out? (4, Interesting)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698203)

They seem to have a generalized poverty of data. Their charts seem absurd to the point of being straw men. I mean, come on - I don't think there's anything seriously wrong enough with Linux that WAMP would have a score of 12 transactions/sec, competing with Windows, whereas LAMP would have a performance of 2. My experience with Windows vs. Linux has always been that they are similar in terms of speed from pure processing tasks to 3d games. Sometimes Windows does a little better, sometimes Linux is better. But they're usually in the same ballpark. The numbers are just too neat. It's like they put up a chart saying that Republicans, Germans, Koreans and Canadians have sex once a month, whereas Democrats, Brazilians, and the British have sex five million times per second.

Moreover, the whole rest of the article is morass of poetic circumlocution. My gut feeling as somebody who works with words a lot is that they're trying to obfuscate something with a giant wall of banal text. I don't know exactly what that is, because I don't feel like reading all of it, but if I had to guess I'd say that the real thing to take away from this article is that anybody can set up .NET and a Windows box, but that it requires a little bit of patience and research to make Linux work properly - research that these people were not willing to do.

Re:Left out? (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698497)

Actually... I thought that the British DO have more sex than the 'Muricuhns because, well... British women are hotter.

WAMP vs LAMP (5, Informative)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697968)

I'm no system administrator, but I have a home box running WAMP (XAMPP on 2003) and it's good enough for my needs. Recently I tried out Ubuntu Server to see what it's about, and I'm tempted to buy a new pc just to run that. When I tried to run mod_python under WAMP it took a whole lot of debugging and configuration (apparently it didn't like the already installed python 2.4), but with Ubuntu it was as simple as apt-getting it.

I would very much like it if I could continue using Windows (because I run other programs that are not available on Linux) but it can't match the simplicity of Ubuntu.

Re:WAMP vs LAMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698019)

I'm no system administrator, but I have a home box running WAMP (XAMPP on 2003) and it's good enough for my needs.

Which means exactly nothing at all in the context of enterprise computing.

Re:WAMP vs LAMP (1)

mrnuxi (982739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698387)

I would very much like it if I could continue using Windows (because I run other programs that are not available on Linux) but it can't match the simplicity of Ubuntu.
Have you considered using virtualization (ala VMWare) to run your Windows install as a guest OS? That's what I'm planning on a new high-end PC I'm getting. It will use VMWare Workstation (http://www.vmware.com/download/ws/eval.html [vmware.com] ) and run CentOs 4 (http://www.centos.org/ [centos.org] ) as the host OS, with various linux and Windows guests.

Re:WAMP vs LAMP (1)

wild_pointer (263802) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698398)

You could just run the Ubuntu Server as a VMWare client on your Windows machine (or vice versa).
I do that all the time for development and it works great if you have enough RAM.

I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (5, Funny)

Clockwurk (577966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697983)

If Linux wins, its a fact.

If M$ wins, its fud and was paid for.

If apple wins, its because of Steve Jobs.

If OS/2 wins, we're trapped in a parallel universe.

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous MadCoe (613739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698053)

I'm afraid you're right, people will attack the test eventhough some anecdotal evidence is enough if used in favour of OSS.
Such a shame if credit is given when credit is due (.net is quite good, so are a lot of other MS products at the moment, maybe people like to use that stuff too) claims made on /. would be much more credible.

Right now you can predict how it's going to be, so the general wisdom on /. will not be any more valuable that the general OSS zealotry...

Such a shame...

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698070)

If M$ wins, its fud and was paid for.

It isn't as if they haven't been caught buying studies before. So the distrust is well justified.

Plain and simple fact is if Microsoft could compete with the usefulness of a solid Linux distro their product would speak for itself. In some cases this is true but in essentially all technical senses Microsoft is just a plain loser.

Most of Microsofts problems is that they don't listen to the customers. I mean sure they listen to Dell, RIAA, MPAA, maybe even IBM and other big wigs. But what about us users? What does WGA give me in terms of a useful feature? What does the bloat that is WMP give me over a simpler mplayer? Why must they invent their own file formats [e.g. Office files, WMV, WMA] that are proprietary instead of using or establishing more open standards? etc, etc, etc.

Everything MSFT does is to benefit the stock holders through locking the "customers" into their system. Use our OS, use our office suite, use our media tools, use our development tools. All the while they ignore any sense of established standards [ISO C99 anyone?] which make interoperability a bitch for Windows users. There is simply no reason why MSFT uses these awful platform dependent libraries. Take DirectX for instance. On any OTHER platform you combine Allegro with OpenGL and have essentially the same thing [just 1/10th the size and in C]. But no, we must use the DX "experience" because somehow the hype makes it shinier!

I know what I'm saying is "no duh", but you seemed to be hinting that MSFT hatred is not warranted. Us "OSS" users don't hate MSFT because it's better. We hate it because it lulls people into a sense of superiority when all it does is move to separate them from their money. It creates nightmares for us who chose to chose.

I mean I can save an OpenOffice document on my Gentoo box and my friend can open it in FreeBSD with OpenOffice [or whatever]. Why can't I save an Office document and open it in Linux? Why can't Office work in Linux anyways? Seems Linux distros have GUIs, widgets, networking, fonts, etc. There really is no technical reason why Office can't work in Windows, oh I know, because MSFT uses it as a reason to buy Windows. /rant

Tom

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (2, Interesting)

db32 (862117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698183)

Listen to Dell, RIAA, MPAA, etc etc....uhm... no they don't. They just don't beat them as mercilessly as the home consumer, because they COULD swing back and do some damage over time.

To Dell/HP/Etc - You must not sell naked or Linux systems or your the price of OEM Windows gets larger. RIAA/MPAA - If you don't do what we like...we won't play with your DRM schemes. Government - If you stop pressuring us we will donate to campaign funds and let you keep using Office.

Go look at MS campaign fund history...right up until the antitrust thing they really didn't give anyone any money, once the antitrust thing kicked off....big dollars to everyone running.

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (1)

stuckinarut (891702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698414)

Everything MSFT does is to benefit the stock holders through locking the "customers" into their system.

Isn't this what buisness is about? Don't get me wrong I abhore some of M$'s tactics but they are in buisness to make money not necessarily please customers. In an ideal world the two go hand in hand but for the vast majority of the non-techie users out there M$ does please them. They can send their gran a birthday letter in word and she can open it on her PC because she has Windows/Office too.

Their lack of standards support is atrocious but it does benefit them or they wouldn't persist in doing it. The technically savvy amongst users all know it's wrong but they'll do it anyway as the remaining majority of users just don't care.

I mean I can save an OpenOffice document on my Gentoo box and my friend can open it in FreeBSD with OpenOffice [or whatever].

That's exactly what we should all be able to do but cui bono? Who benefits from this ability? You as a user of non-M$ products and anyone else you know that doesn't use them. Why does M$ care about you if you don't use their products? You're not making them money so why bother allowing you this ease of use?

Please don't think this is an attack on your point of view, I agree with the sentiment whole heartedly but what your asking for is that M$ be altruistic in it's approach to developing apps and I think Bill saves his altruism for the Gates Foundation. The one hope is that governments are beginning to insist on having open document formats and the goverment IT market is something M$ wants a big slice of. You may just get what you desire but only once it becomes profitable for M$ to do so.

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698460)

"Everything MSFT does is to benefit the stock holders through locking the "customers" into their system.

Isn't this what buisness is about? Don't get me wrong I abhore some of M$'s tactics but they are in buisness to make money not necessarily please customers. In an ideal world the two go hand in hand but for the vast majority of the non-techie users out there M$ does please them. They can send their gran a birthday letter in word and she can open it on her PC because she has Windows/Office too."

But, to get back on topic, this is WHY we distrust any benchmark about Windows winning over Linux. MS has a monetary need to make it look good. Linux has a monetary preference (some preference, but not to the level of MS).

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (2, Insightful)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698429)

It isn't as if they haven't been caught buying studies before. So the distrust is well justified.

The difference being: Linux zealots post cooked results for free, because they just hate Microsoft that much.

Plain and simple fact is if Microsoft could compete with the usefulness of a solid Linux distro their product would speak for itself. In some cases this is true but in essentially all technical senses Microsoft is just a plain loser.

Unfortunately, posting it slashdot doesn't make it true. I've seen multiple shootouts where MS products outperform competing OSS products. In a very technical sense.

What does WGA give me in terms of a useful feature?

If it decreases Windows piracy then it decreases the cost of Windows for everyone who purchases it legally. So not a feature per se, but a price discount.

What does the bloat that is WMP give me over a simpler mplayer?

It (arguably) integrates better with IE than mplayer does with Firefox. At least, judging by the last time I ran mplayer/Firefox on Linux. It also comes installed out-of-the-box on Windows systems. That's a feature you may not value, but lots of novice Windows users do.

Why must they invent their own file formats [e.g. Office files, WMV, WMA] that are proprietary instead of using or establishing more open standards?

Because the standard lacks something they want included. Or, because they don't want to lock themselves in to supporting future aspects of the standard that their customers don't value.

Everything MSFT does is to benefit the stock holders through locking the "customers" into their system.

Newsflash: Everything every publically held company does should be to benefit the stock holders.

Why can't Office work in Linux anyways?

It could, if there was any advantage to Microsoft in porting it. There isn't.

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (5, Insightful)

JacksBrokenCode (921041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698504)

It isn't as if they haven't been caught buying studies before. So the distrust is well justified.

Justified perhaps, but automatically accurate... not necessarily.

Plain and simple fact is if Microsoft could compete with the usefulness of a solid Linux distro their product would speak for itself. In some cases this is true but in essentially all technical senses Microsoft is just a plain loser.

Ok, fanboy.

Most of Microsofts problems is that they don't listen to the customers. I mean sure they listen to Dell, RIAA, MPAA, maybe even IBM and other big wigs. But what about us users? What does WGA give me in terms of a useful feature? What does the bloat that is WMP give me over a simpler mplayer?

So when MS doesn't add new features they are slammed for not innovating enough, and when they do add new features they are slammed for contributing to bloat that you don't want. People bitched about IE6 not having tabs, etc. Firefox came out and MS finally realized it had to update IE so it added a lot of features people were asking for and the most-heard comment on Slashdot after IE7b2 was released was "it's ugly". Face it: Microsoft just can't win.

Why must they invent their own file formats [e.g. Office files, WMV, WMA] that are proprietary instead of using or establishing more open standards? etc, etc, etc. Everything MSFT does is to benefit the stock holders through locking the "customers" into their system. Use our OS, use our office suite, use our media tools, use our development tools. All the while they ignore any sense of established standards [ISO C99 anyone?] which make interoperability a bitch for Windows users. There is simply no reason why MSFT uses these awful platform dependent libraries.

You sorta' answered yourself there.

Take DirectX for instance. On any OTHER platform you combine Allegro with OpenGL and have essentially the same thing [just 1/10th the size and in C]. But no, we must use the DX "experience" because somehow the hype makes it shinier!

Not every product is a winner. MS historically doesn't release every single product as a beta and quietly stop promoting the ones that suck. Instead they release final versions and some fall on their face. No company has a perfect record.

I know what I'm saying is "no duh", but you seemed to be hinting that MSFT hatred is not warranted. Us "OSS" users don't hate MSFT because it's better. We hate it because it lulls people into a sense of superiority when all it does is move to separate them from their money. It creates nightmares for us who chose to chose.

The problem is not that criticism isn't warranted, it's that MS can't win no matter what. If they release a weak or buggy product they get slammed, but if they take too long to release they get slammed. If they don't add new features they get slammed, but if they add new features it's called bloat. If an MS product gets bad reviews the reviewers are being honest, but if they get good reviews the reviewers are obviously being paid. For years MS got slammed for security issues, and they beefed up SP2 and suddenly there were waves of "but it broke my application" complaints. The list goes on.

Microsoft has gotten so big that they are in the impossible position of trying to keep everyone happy. I'm not particularly a Microsoft "fan", but I hate this wanton "Micro$oft is teh suxors!1!" b.s. OSS fanboys need to grow up and realize that Microsoft can't go back in time and correct the sins of the past, and since it is a monopoly it can't just genuinely screw its customers and break every file/application by releasing a new version of Windows that corrects all the problems of the old versions but offers no legacy support. They have a tough balancing act to do and, while they're not perfect, they're getting better.

I mean I can save an OpenOffice document on my Gentoo box and my friend can open it in FreeBSD with OpenOffice [or whatever]. Why can't I save an Office document and open it in Linux? Why can't Office work in Linux anyways? Seems Linux distros have GUIs, widgets, networking, fonts, etc. There really is no technical reason why Office can't work in Windows, oh I know, because MSFT uses it as a reason to buy Windows.

Do you fire off angry missives against Nintendo for not making games for Xbox or PS?

/rant

/rant

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698548)

"Everything MSFT does is to benefit the stock holders..."

They have to by law as do all corporations. There only choice becomes who holds the number two position. The customer or them. The better companies put the customer at number 2 position.

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (1)

sbenitezb (860819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698272)

Perhaps because we know M$ buys all benchmarks and reports, and most Linux benchmarks are unbiased, show real world tests, are unpaid and represent community interest, not companies profit interests.

Re:I'm going to have to use the /. rule of thumb (1)

mausmalone (594185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698493)

Yeah... I love whoever decided to tag this "fud" (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) when in it's actually claiming that performance is good. If you're happy with the performance you get under Linux, then there should be no FUD for you... your set up is fine and runs well. But if you'd like to use Windows, but still AMP, I guess you have a little less to fear on the performance tip.

I use WAMP for development and LAMP for production. The main reason is that the server admins want Linux, but can't provide me with a testing server, so my workstation has to pull double-duty. My workstation is often times much much faster than the production server, but it's almost entirely due to the fact that there's no load on it. I've had no portability or migration issues, save for some weird stuff in GD.

I'd say that overall, with my experiences and the text of the article, I can develop confidently knowing that as long as we stay in an AMP environment my code will function well on either platform. That definitely aleviates a lot of FUD from my day-to-day programming.

Nice thing about OSS (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697989)

This'll now be a high priority - beating .Net speed-wise - in the next few releases, such that by Christmas, we'll see *AMP performance picking up, whereas we have to wait on MS for .Net

Re:Nice thing about OSS (1)

drzhivago (310144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698037)

I don't understand how waiting for a performance release that may (or may not) happen in 6 months is any different than waiting for another release of the .Net framework (which may or may not happen in 6 months as well).

Apparently it's different if it's open source, huh?

Re:Nice thing about OSS (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698143)

If I cared to learn enough about it, I could do it myself. If it was that important to me, I could also offer small donations to speed that process along. It's great for a company that wants an improvement (speed here), is big enough to be willing to pay a bit for it, but isn't big enough to ask MS to do it.

Re:Nice thing about OSS (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698259)

Or you can just use *AMM (Windows/Linux, Apache, MySQL, Mono).

I use a full windows setups (Win 2k/2k3, IIS5/6, SQL Server, .Net) for a few web sites with great results.

I also use a WIMP setup for our inhouse documentation Wiki site (Media Wiki running on Windows/IIS5)

And I use LAMP for my personal web site, primarily because that's what the host offered.

I've never had a problem performance whys with any of them so long as they are properly configured and coded. A poorly coded site will have performance issues whether it's LAMP, WAMP, WIMP or anything else!

-Rick

Re:Nice thing about OSS (2, Funny)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698492)

I also use a WIMP setup

Someone needs to be fired in the marketing department...

Re:Nice thing about OSS (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698546)

Windows, IIS, MySQL, Php

Not that bad of combination for organizations that already maintain a Windows/IIS web configuration. Media Wiki is designed for LAMP, but if you poke it with a stick for a while, it'll run on WIMP.

-Rick

Hits per second ~20 ?? (3, Funny)

Yiliar (603536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698001)

I am amazed that they got Windows 2003 to run on a wrist watch!

Running a web server over an RF port from the wrist watch to a phone scewed the results a bit, but its the only communication mode they had.

The smartphone was the only client they had handy to test with, since the test was carried out on a long flight.

Amazing stuff!

Re:Hits per second ~20 ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698219)

Windows Server 2003 will run on crappy hardware. We got a system donated that had Win 2003 on it (64MB RAM). The box took 1/2 hour just to boot up! I can't remember the processor speed, I think it was something in the 400MHz range. It was a hilarious experience though. 1/2 hour!

Worst... Benchmark.... Ever... (5, Insightful)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698011)

I'm still not exactly sure what they tested. They have vague terms like "Request per Second" and "Throughput", yet they don't actually say what each page that is being requested is actually doing.

For the .NET tests they say they used "Sharepoint". Huh? For what? Considering that Sharepoint is *extremely* complicated and has incredibly rich functionality they should be very clear as to what they used it for.

Not to mention the fact that using a portal application in your tests means that there is really very little way to isolate if it was a poorly written portal application or a crappy framework that the portal application was built on that's causing perf issues.

It is very difficult to test framework vs framework, but this is just about the worst way one could even attempt it.

At absolute best, this compares portal frameworks on various platforms. Even if they were trying to do that, they did a piss poor job.

Re:Worst... Benchmark.... Ever... (1)

mikesmind (689651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698104)

Benchmark studies can have some usefulness in helping you to come up with multiple, viable options. I prefer to pick the "two best" and set up a sandbox in our operating environment to see which alternative works for us. There are so many variables involved that if you can set up a couple pilot projects and compare results, you will be able to determine which alternative is right for your situation. Most companies have a defined system architecture, whether this is intentional or not, that they run their applications under. This alone, will prejudice them toward a few solutions. Changing basic infrastructure takes a certain leap of faith.

MindCraft would be the "worst" so far. (5, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698110)

But this is a very close second place.

#1. NO tuning was done on the LAMP stuff. None at all. They ran the stuff "out of the box".

#2. They didn't write their own app. That means they didn't test the SAME processes on each system.

#3. They didn't bother to find WHERE the differences were. Is it in the IP stack? Is it in the OS? Is it in the scripting language? Is it in the app?

How bad can "research" be and still be published in "eWeek"? There wasn't any research done for that article.

Microsoft has, in the past, taken various short-cuts when IIS was the server and IE was the browser. Is that the case in this "study"? Are the other "stacks" "slower" because they follow the protocols?

You won't know because they'd didn't LOOK for the REASON behind their "results".

At least MindCraft was paid to do poor research.

Re:MindCraft would be the "worst" so far. (1)

conJunk (779958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698371)

exactly... the only way i can think to test something like this would be to line up the industry respected top devs for each framework at hand, guys who look at each other and say things like "yeah, if you need a good .net thing, he's your guy, sure, i could do it, but it wouldn't be as good as my java", and give them all a series of tasks to implement...

something like - an html form with 255 input fields, and then write all that data to your database, then serve it all up in another page performing x, y, and z on the data

then have their testing ap that hits all of those with the same data for a week

Re:MindCraft would be the "worst" so far. (2, Insightful)

dumbo11 (798489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698557)

"#3. They didn't bother to find WHERE the differences were. Is it in the IP stack? Is it in the OS? Is it in the scripting language? Is it in the app?" If there's a 7x difference in performance between linux and Win2k3, then the difference is almost certainly nothing to do with systems themselves, and everything to do with configuring it. LAMP is very susceptible to speed-ups by optimizing the configuration, and if they picked the right 'WAMP' stack it would come pre-optimized without their knowledge?

Benchmarking Strategy Doesn't Matter Here (0)

Petersko (564140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698125)

"At absolute best, this compares portal frameworks on various platforms. Even if they were trying to do that, they did a piss poor job."

No study that concludes Microsoft's product is faster, more efficient or "better" in any way will ever be accepted here because holes can be poked in the methodology of any study. ANY study.

And before you say, "Yeah, but look at the holes in this one!", let me repeat myself. No study will survive in the eyes of people who don't like the results.

Re:Benchmarking Strategy Doesn't Matter Here (2, Funny)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698190)

I agree. In fact, I'm a fan of a lot of Microsoft stuff. (*ducks*) I've developed systems that were blazing fast and were written with .NET.

I'm just saying that, in this case, the benchmark is completely useless. It would be like conducting a drug trial to determine if a particular drug works, but letting the participants also take any other drugs they want in addition to smoking some crack on the weekends.

Re:Benchmarking Strategy Doesn't Matter Here (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698455)

What's a good resource for learning ASP.NET? I'm using classic ASP right now and I know that it will fall by the wayside soon enough... I'm currently stumbling my way through developing a dynamic website and the sooner I can start reimplementing it in ASP.NET the better.

Re:Benchmarking Strategy Doesn't Matter Here (1)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698532)

These are all excellent books.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735619034/ [amazon.com] (ASP.NET 1.x)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201760401/ [amazon.com] (ASP.NET 1.x)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735621764/ [amazon.com] (ASP.NET 2.x)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735621772/ [amazon.com] (ASP.NET 2.x)

Re:Benchmarking Strategy Doesn't Matter Here (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698325)

it does seem like they have never heard of the scientific method at all, only see it fly past; in the hope of making people think its a fair test.

Issue 1: SUSE Enterprise Linux: i ran this at home as a file and web server. even there it performs very very slowly, i can't imagine it as an enterprise server. In the article they say its the closest to a pure LAMP stack one can get. Clearly nonsense as it is deemed to have proprietary software on board. I've recently replaced it with debian sarge, performing the exact same tasks. harder to configure? no, it just doesn't have GUI tools to configure it. eWeek labs clearly don't have anyone who knows anything about linux or they wouldn't have used SLES.

Issue 2: Comparing random portal platforms tells you what about what? thats right... feck all.

Issue 3: eWeek and Ziff Davis are located just north of microsofts anus.

Re:Benchmarking Strategy Doesn't Matter Here (1)

cshirky (9913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698554)

You are correct -- people who don't want to hear the truth won't hear it, no matter how clearly presented. You seem, however, to be drawing a false conclusion from that, which is that the truth doesn't matter. In working social systems, accurate criticism creates effective responses, no matter what the disbelievers do. If the study had been well done and well presented, instead of badly done and badly presented, people who do care about the truth could have set about fixing or imporving any bottlenecks in the OS stack. Considered in that light, the study, as presented, simply punts the question of truth, because it is not described clearly enough either to replicate or react to.

Re:Worst... Benchmark.... Ever... (0, Offtopic)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698197)

Hmm I knew I read this post somewhere before...

http://digg.com/software/eWEEK_Labs_Bakeoff_Linux_ Versus_.Net_Stacks#c2266320 [digg.com]

Gotcha! :-P

Y

PS: I need a life...

Re:Worst... Benchmark.... Ever... (1)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698275)

I added a little... plus, my nick is the same on both sites, so I'm not trying to hide anything! :)

I figure if Slashdot can steal stories from Digg, I can copy my responses back and forth in the forums. :)

Test components too variable (5, Insightful)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698012)

How can you test the performance of a stack and compare it to others when the back end database servers, portal software and web server software is different?

How is the statement that .NET stacks are faster true when it could be the implementation of SQL being faster than MySQL? This test just doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Test components too variable (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698092)

I think you're worried about the opposite effect of what actually happened:

Suppose you have two stacks built of different components, and they benchmark the performance of the stack. (Which is what happened, apparently.)

What they CANNOT say is, "The difference in the stacks' performances is attributable to their different database engines". Because for all we know, it was some other component of the stack that really caused the difference in performance. However, the article didn't make this mistake.

What the article DID say is, "There's a difference in the stacks' performances. We know because we measured it." That IS valid reasoning.

Re:Test components too variable (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698365)

What the article DID say is, "There's a difference in the stacks' performances. We know because we measured it." That IS valid reasoning.

Their methodology certainly wasn't valid. That makes the measurements invalid, which makes the reasoning little more than hard worked for conjecture.

At the very least they should have written software that did the same task for each stack.

Instead, they threw in an unknown variable with the portal software... each doing it's "own thing" and god only knows what that thing is.

And how much different that "thing" is from package to package.

They could have easily created a design spec and put it out via an RFP for submissions to run under each stack if the didn't have the requisite skills in house.

What's more... they should have dedicated the space needed to explain what made the tests valid (what they tested and how) or not run the article.

As it is, the article serves little purpose beyond having a place to stick an advertisement.

Re:Test components too variable (1)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698243)

Well, that's basically the point - their claim is that the higher integration among MS products gives them a greater score, compared to an random selection of OSS components.

Sharepoint however has got a sizeable portion of native code - hence equating Sharepoint performance with .NET's is a bit misleading, IMO. The throughput could also be due to IIS 6's kernel hooks and other assorted tricks.

Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698014)

The article mentions that the Linux test system was "untuned." If this means "out of the box, running a kernel compiled for i386 and without any network tuning" then these results are hardly informative.

Just kidding. We all know Windows cleans Linux's clock.

Re:Not so fast (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698407)

The article mentions that the Linux test system was "untuned." If this means "out of the box, running a kernel compiled for i386 and without any network tuning" then these results are hardly informative.

Well, they don't tell us the overall performance, but they do tell us what a basic install will do. In theory, enterprise linux distributions should be detecting the CPU and installing the proper kernel image/modules/etc. NT manages to configure itself properly no matter what [supported] CPU is in the box.

In fact, although I don't believe it either one of Microsoft's bullet points for selling NT is that it's "self-tuning".

Blame the mexicans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698020)

We saw this coming didn't we? Aren't you glad you're not a fudge packer either? Well let's hope congress doesn't find out.

Retarded (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698026)

The .NET CLR runs compiled bytecode and IIS runs in kernelspace, the only httpd I know running in kernel space on nix is tux (redhat content accelerator) and nobody in their right mind is going to serve dynamic content with that. Did they test PHP with an opcode cache and the CLR running a dynamic language? This isn't even apples and oranges, it's apples and teapots. If I wanted performance, I wouldn't be running either Apache or PHP!

Re:Retarded (2, Informative)

LO0G (606364) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698135)

IIS runs in kernel space? Since when?

The HTTP server component (http.sys) runs in the kernel, but IIS (everything that isn't involved with the HTTP protocol exchange)is in user mode, and has been for a long while.

Re:Retarded (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698390)

Maybe they should have included a graph depicting how much the system gets hosed if something is wrong in the portal software... along with a graph depicting how long it will take a hacker to find the problem code.

Girly man coder (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698031)

If you're getting your ass kicked by .net, you are one girly man coder.

ASP.Net is pretty nice... (4, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698033)

Not to start a war here, but ASP.Net is a pretty damned nice environment to work under... I've used a lot of PHP, Cold Fusion, some JSP, and Classic ASP in the past. ASP.Net is my favorite.. I've been peeking in with Ruby/Rails but just haven't had the time to dive in much. of the above Ruby/Rails is probably the closest competitor on an ease of development/functionality level.

Re:ASP.Net is pretty nice... (1, Insightful)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698090)

It really is - especially v2.0. Master pages, membership API, navigation API, ease of deployment, etc are all seriously excellent features that have saved me quite a bit of time. I don't have time for platform evangelization anymore...I have too much "real work" to get done. I think MS has done a great job understanding this, and stepped up to the plate with some really nice tools to assist. There are always tradeoffs to make, but hey...

Re:ASP.Net is pretty nice... (1, Insightful)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698153)

I have always liked the ease with which you could write components to sit within the ASP.NET pipeline. I believe they changed the name over to Http pipeline now in 2.0. Implement IHttpModule, some config file stuff and you're good. Also, the ease with which you could work with soap extensions was nice also!!

Lets not forget about remoting sinks. Very nice how they used a chain of responsibility pattern.

Re:ASP.Net is pretty nice... (2, Interesting)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698168)

Too true... i came off of struts and tag libraries to .net and it was/is a much better environment. I am not sure what the state of the art is in Java any more but I am glad I switched.

Classic ASP is a horror from hell and I think soured many from using MS web solutions.

Re:ASP.Net is pretty nice... (3, Insightful)

Screwy1138 (976897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698204)

I too have to agree. ASP.Net 1.1 should never have been compared to ASP, they're greatly different things (thank the maker). ASP.Net is a great productivity tool. As a developer who is responsible for putting out web applications quickly, that have extremely low maintenance costs (ASP.Net excels here), as well as maintaining a set of global class libraries that align with business processes, ASP.Net is tops.

Now to talk about 2.0, well, MS really focused on productivity with this release. I'm really happy with the changes and the Atlas toolkit.

And if... (-1, Redundant)

GmAz (916505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698048)

And if the title read "OSS Web Stacks Outperforms .Net" I would bet it would not say anything like this The article's conclusion is that .Net outperforms the open source stacks, mainly because of its tighter integration, but also notes that running the open source stacks on Windows (WAMP) delivered strong performance.". It would say something like The article's conclusion is that OSS Web Stacks outperforms .Net by a large margin. Though we knew this all along because OSS is better than Microsoft. Why are people still using .Net or any Microsoft products.

Re:And if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698089)

> echo $POINT
POINT: Undefined variable.

Re:And if... (1)

blazerw11 (68928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698195)

And if the title read "OSS Web Stacks Outperforms .Net" I would bet it would not say anything like this The article's conclusion is that .Net outperforms the open source stacks, mainly because of its tighter integration, but also notes that running the open source stacks on Windows (WAMP) delivered strong performance.

It is important to note that strong is not stronger and, in fact, could mean weaker. Couldn't it?

Also, in our imaginary world, the article might say: The conclusion is that OSS outperforms the .Net stack, mainly because of a stronger development model, but also notes that running the .Net stacks on OSS is impossible.

Linux still wins (2, Insightful)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698051)

Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm. Shit, that's twice as much as the servers I'd run it on! Grid computing and server farms are very poorly suited to a commercial operating system.

Re:Linux still wins (1)

jam244 (701505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698216)

Basic Support for RHEL AS is $1500 too [redhat.com] , you know, and that's anually. Not taking sides here, but it's simply not true to say "Linux is free" in a commercial environment.

Re:Linux still wins (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698565)

And CentOS, which is nearly an exact clone of RHEL is free. Debian is free. So are most linux distros. So you pick ONE distro out of HUNDREDS and claim that linux is not free????? Do you somehow believe that the ONLY way you can run Linux in a commercial environment is if you run RHEL or other commercial pay distro?

Re:Linux still wins (1)

squidguy (846256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698242)

Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm

I understand (and agree) with your consternation, but your price is 50% more than actual retail for 2003 Standard R2... averages at just over $1000 retail with software assurance if you aren't a volume buyer. Volume buys take this down to around $600-700. If you want Enterprise, then you are paying more like $1400-2200.

Heck, even RHEL costs $$$. Circa $4500 for ES.

If you can run a free distro and get everything needed, than do so. I do for about 15 percent of my systems, but have to host Windows, HPUX & Solaris platforms too.

Re:Linux still wins (3, Informative)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698254)

Ya, I wouldn't want to pay that either. Luckily, Windows doesn't cost that much money.

Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, 32-bit version - $399 Open NL
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $999 (5 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition - $1,199 (10 CALS)
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition - $3,999 (25 CALS)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobu y/licensing/pricing.mspx [microsoft.com]

You can also get licenses for a lot less than retail on eBay, and it's perfectly legal. I've purchased Web Edition for as little as $200, and Enterprise for $1200. There are lots of companies who buy these things in bulk and end up not using them.

In addition, if you're not hosting an external site (customer facing) you can get an Action Pack subscription for about $300 that gives you access to up to 5 licenses for each of these OS's.

See: https://partner.microsoft.com/40016470 [microsoft.com]

Re:Linux still wins (1)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698296)

You don't have to.

You can get the web edition server [microsoft.com] for less than $400 USD [amazon.com] .

I can usually buy two or three of those with the money that I save in development time. Your results might vary, everybody likes something different. If I had to buy 50 of those then I might consider using something like JBOSS or LAMP.

Re:Linux still wins (4, Interesting)

corren (559473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698361)

It's actually much worse than $1500 a box. And I'm a windows guy, I admit it, however licensing for windows products REALLY sucks for a small business that wants to run legit.

Here's the price breakdown for a SINGLE webserver that allows external connections to authenticate (non-domain, say a e-commerce site with user accounts) against a SINGLE SQL 2005 Database. Sql Express is free, however it's not licensed for unlimited users in a production environment.

Web Server (Prices from CDW.com):
  • 1 Copy Windows 2003 R2 (5 CALs): $959.99
  • 1 External Connector License for Windows: $1,969.99
  • Total: $2,929.98
SQL Server:
  • 1 Copy Windows 2003 R2 (5 CALs): $959.99
  • 1 Copy SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition 1 Processor License: $3,819.99
  • Total: $4,779.98
Grand Total for a single web and sql box: $7,709.96.

And don't forget that you'll need SOME hardware to run that OS. Even barebones boxes with no data protection will run you $500 a box.

So, to start a basic e-commerce site on the legit, you're talking roughly $9,000 for windows and $1,000 for Linux/OSS.

TOUGH sell for Microsoft for the little guy.

Re:Linux still wins (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698463)

Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm.

I noticed that there wasn't a graph comparing the cost to run each system as tested, including software costs.

Especially something like... what would it cost to deploy an OSS solution with the same performance as the wamp solution?

What is the cost per transactions per second?

Must be something enterprise customers don't care about...

Integration vs. Cost effectiveness (2)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698060)

I'm actually wondering how the wonderful non-biased folk here at /. are going to interpret these results.

I don't know a damn thing about any of this but it says to me from a layman's point of view that invidually maintained and installed components are just not as efficient as a completely integrated suite of applications, and this is exactly how the ignorant bosses of knowledgeable admins will see it. Though I was interested to see the rise in the use of OSS in the workplace.

I could have gone down the whole "OSS SUX" route but that's a flamewar I'm not starting.

(Today.)

Re:Integration vs. Cost effectiveness (2, Insightful)

Paladin128 (203968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698231)

Actually, I have a preference to individually installed and maintained components.

For instance, if I write my code to run on PHP and MySQL, I can swap out the underlying OS and web server. I could run it on a Linux box, Sun blade server, Dell running Windows, Xserve running OS X server... it's kinda nice.

If I go with .Net 2.0, I'm stuck with Windows 2003 running on x86.

Plus, if each piece is seperate, it's less likely that any one piece will bring the whole OS down. I like being able to SSH to a box and just restart httpd (I'm assuming you can do similar under a Win32 server, just don't have much experience.)

Plus, it's also nice for development. At work, our servers are Red Hat Linux running apache, PHP, and MySQL. My workstation runs XP. I installed Apache, MySQL, and PHP on my XP box to test new versions as I develop them. It's kinda nice having the flexibility of using the very portable OSS stack on Windows (or anything else, for that matter). We've used old Win98 machines, an old G3 towers running OS X.1, laptops running Linux, etc. as test servers.

Re:Integration vs. Cost effectiveness (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698418)

Fair enough, flexibility is a concern too for a lot of people. I also agree about reliability. Windows with .net is all very well, good that it came out on top in speed, but I like Windows (cue idiocy) and even I would say it's not exactly something I would be happy to leave on for 6 months straight.

I can only see .net having the advantage purely on speed, but that's something that people also need. No point taking a Skoda to an F1 race, even if it will make it around without failing.

I will admit to a lot of that going right over my head though, interesting as it was.

Re:Integration vs. Cost effectiveness (2)

Paladin128 (203968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698527)

I'm not convinced .Net has the advantage on speed. The test compared dissimillar codebases, and was light on details. It may be right, but may not.

Where .Net has the advantage is a great IDE and developer tools. Many programmers like this kind of thing. I don't. I'm an old-school emacs guy, but I understand why other people like things all integrated and such.

Re:Integration vs. Cost effectiveness (1)

jelle (14827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698416)

"I'm actually wondering how the wonderful non-biased folk here at /. are going to interpret these results."

You know "we" are not non-biased...

Anyway, I'll just say that my linksys router running Linux can do more than 1 transaction per second on web apps with Python. How these guys can pull off showing that that's the speed they get for an actual server is beyond me...

Actually, it's not... it's e-week... They have always been very MS-centered.

Re:Integration vs. Cost effectiveness (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698485)

I'm actually wondering how the wonderful non-biased folk here at /. are going to interpret these results.

They would probably tell you that the article lacks so much detail as to even care about trying to determine if it means anything.

"performance"? (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698071)

What was the set of measures? For me, "performance" has more to do with uptime, reliability and security. Those are the performance standards I care about.

Holy Throughput! (4, Funny)

blazerw11 (68928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698079)

I'm wondering if the high throughput numbers for the .Net stack were caused by it deliving huge binary files to the client. Ya know, 17MB Active X controls. Anyway, I didn't randomly come up with this conclusion, the article didn't mention the transactions per second for .Net. So, I conclude from ALL of the data that it did one transaction of 17MB*.

*No math was done to come up with the 17MB figure.
Also, no animals were harmed during the writing of this comment.

Re:Holy Throughput! (1)

blazerw11 (68928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698280)

Replying to myself.

The do provide the other numbers [eweek.com] that show the numbers in pretty graphs.

Re:Holy Throughput! (1)

Phillup (317168) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698556)

I didn't randomly come up with this conclusion, the article didn't mention the transactions per second for .Net.

The article also didn't mention that each portal was tested on a system using their minimum specs.

So, the lamp portal ran everything... including the db... on a 386 with 16MB of ram and a modem.

While the wamp stack required three quad processor servers with 16GB RAM and 10K SCSI RAIDS with 4 gig E network cards each.

Point is... the article doesn't mention a lot... hyperbole not withstanding.

With the glaringly obvious differences in the software applications that were being used to test the stacks... one has to wonder what else was different in the test systems.

The article is NOT that conclusive (5, Informative)

MK_CSGuy (953563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698085)

I've read the article before it hit /. and their conclusion is that there is no clear winner. .Net outperforms OSS solutions on some tests and vice-versa. The surprising(*) results are how good WAMP performed in some of the tests (if you really want specifics RTFA). Here is a direct link to the tests [eweek.com] .

* - I've seen similar results in benchmarks of Mono & .Net, i.e. Mono apps with .Net framework vs pure .Net and pure Mono, so although there is no connection between JIT compilers and web servers performance, the trend is there.
Too bad the article haven't touched Mono.

I don't really understand what they are testing? (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698105)

Can someone explain it to me?

I don't think it is FUD, but I do get the impression that they are trying to invent a benchmark that really doesn't make any sense. Different PHP projects can have vastly different performance; and I'm not sure that Plone compares to Sharepoint server. I wouldn't know, though, because I don't use Sharepoint, and I have little/no idea what they did in the test.

Anyone have a closer hunch?

Test Goals? (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698490)

After reading the artical, and I hope there is some more real data somewhere as it's a piece of fluff, what I think they did was take a chunk of different web stacks using portals and compare them. That - to a degree - is fair. If I want to impliment a new setup, the first thing I am going to do is see what everyone else is running & how it works. Duplicating their setup and running a benchmark for web serving is a reasonable way to do that.
Can I run exactly the same benchmark against the different portals - no because the portals themselves are different.
Does the database choice influence the performace - absolutely, but it's not a matter of optimizing here - it's what is common in production.
Does the build of linux/apache effect the results - not so much within the same kernel build - distro choice is not going to make a huge difference.
Does the choice of 'P' effect the results - yes - they say as much by puting in a note that PHP is not designed for performance and better performance could probably be garnered from Zend tech.
The problem that bothered me was that they didn't tune anything. That's part of the test - they used essentially default settings for the whole LAMP/WAMP/WNet stack. That's where I think the major issue is going to be located. Tuning Apache is certainly an art, but the basics are fairly well defined. The configuration needed to run a high volume - dynamic page server is very different from a casual server on a junk box in the basement, and different still from a high volume static page server. This follows through with the SQL server and the script interpreter also - tuning is important to get the type of performance an enterprise is going to need/want.
The artical points out that they feel the major benifit of the WNet stack is the tight integration of the components - and thus the complimentary configurations and expectations of the components. I would like to see 2 more stages for this benchmarking. First, the default vs the tuned performance of the various configurations. Second, a mix & match of the MP components to get an idea of how exactly the various combinations of SQL servers and Script languages interact.

Lies, dammned lies and benchmarks (1)

Mofaluna (949237) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698114)

Different day, same old story [slashdot.org] Makes you wonder when people will finally stop taking these kind of 'studies' serious...

What a farce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698126)

This is an absolutely foolish example of a test. There are so many variables involved that any qualititive interpretration ('Windows stacks perform better') have no basis in the results. The authors openly state that they don't want to do a 'clean room' test and set up a hodge podge of different systems against each other in what amounts to a couple pages read many times (basically a stress test of apache/tomcat versus iis with dynamic pages).

The correct way to do this test is to test each component's time individually with carefully designed tests that translate well among the different platforms, then connecting the components and testing the full work flow time to measure interconnection delay. What is in the article is just a waste of time of the testers, the writers and the readers. Maybe xyz is better than abc, maybe not. Who knows with this test?

Re:What a farce (1)

uioreanu (554486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698182)

I think any test can be criticised; main reasons are usually tainted environments or lack of tuning. What is interesting here is the conclusion, and since the article made it to the slashdot/* crowd, it might probably someday get to IT managers / decision makers

Linux Is Dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698134)

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Linux is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Linux community when IDC confirmed that Linux market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Linux has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Linux is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux. As many of us are already aware, Linux continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Ubuntu is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Ubuntu developers only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Ubuntu is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Debian leader Murdock states that there are 7000 users of Debian. How many users of Ubuntu are there? Let's see. The number of Debian versus Ubuntu posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Ubuntu users. Kubuntu posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Ubuntu posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Kubuntu. A recent article put SUSE at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SUSE users. This is consistent with the number of SUSE Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of SUSE, abysmal sales and so on, SUSE went out of business and was taken over by Novell who sell another troubled OS. Now Ubuntu is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Linux has steadily declined in market share. Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Linux continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Linux is dead.

Fact: Linux is dying

Linux administrators (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698180)

From TFBlurb: "...without having to become a Linux administrator"

Thank $DEITY I did try getting Linux desktops on my home network and shortly after settled for apt-based distros. Linux administration is a breeze compared to windows. Desktop users' life is also good if peripherals are recognized, especially if by OSS drivers. Your mileage may vary cause most of you were familiar with windows in the first place, I came from good old macos. Anyway I don't care to try and convince you with examples. Those who are curious don't need my opinion, and the lazy ones are better of wherever they are.

Back to topic: .net is faster? maybe. That is a reason to revert from open source, not memory hungry, nice to code with stacks to Microsoftland? haha, no. Apart from the main reason (Freedom), the secondary reason (smalltalk on net is not like ruby on rails), if people reverted back to Microsoft Microsoft would revert back to itself in the 90's. Are you sure you want that? [N/N]

Re:Linux administrators (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698337)

Back to topic: .net is faster? maybe. That is a reason to revert from open source, not memory hungry, nice to code with stacks to Microsoftland? haha, no. Apart from the main reason (Freedom), the secondary reason (smalltalk on net is not like ruby on rails), if people reverted back to Microsoft Microsoft would revert back to itself in the 90's. Are you sure you want that? [N/N]

Actually, the general consensus I've seen is that .net is a joy to use, more or less no matter which of the .net-managed languages you're using. On the other hand, your last bit at the end is completely correct and there's tons of reasons not to support Microsoft - supporting Microsoft is supporting computing fascism.

I only skimmed the article (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698198)

...but which 'P' did they use? Did they use mod_perl or mod_python, or just call things as straight CGI scripts? That would certainly kill performance. Did they preload often-used subroutines into the embedded apache stuff?

Like saying 'A Ferrari outperforms a Mini' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698251)

It's like saying that a Ferrari outpeforms a Mini. I'm sure it does, but that doesn't mean everyone is better off with a Ferrari than a Mini.

Don't forget that, besides the software vendor (0)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698273)

...your .Net solution also locks you into x86 chip architectures.

Performance so often comes at the expense of flexibility.

Given a requirement to work nicely across arbitrary hardware platforms with 'Doze, how will you do this? Emulation? Sorry about that performance...

Certainly, if you're starting from scratch, homogeneous is the way to go, but sometimes you're no' so lucky.

Re:Don't forget that, besides the software vendor (1)

Bedouin X (254404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698572)

I wonder how many enterprise projects truly have "a requirement to work nicely across arbitrary hardware platforms." Web apps and services seem to make the platform that code is running on irrelevant. Hence the ado about SOA and such.

stacks? (1, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698336)

Am I the only person who has never heard of the word "stack" in this context?

Wikipedia: stacks [wikipedia.org] - Nope
Google definition of stack [google.com] - Nope.
Urban Dictionary: stack [urbandictionary.com] - Nope.
Dictionary.com - stack [reference.com] - Nope
Google search "IT stack" [google.com] - Only hit is the eweek article.

I think they made up this term.

s/stack/platform/g
or
s/stack/framework/g

Re:stacks? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698432)

Google - lamp stack: 2,450,000 results.

Yes, you're apparently the only one.

Re:stacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698501)

Look at the last item on the wikipedia page.

EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698345)

Isn't it against the M$ EULA to publish performance statistics of any .NET system without Micto$oft's approval? Could that explain the results?

No wonder Linux sucked! (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698377)

For our tests, we ran what is essentially a pure Zope/Plone implementation, with Plone running on a SUSE Enterprise Linux system.

In some benchmarks, Plone was an average performer, sticking close to the middle. This is actually better than we expected, given that the Plone documentation is very upfront about the fact that Plone shouldn't be used alone in a production environment and should be run behind other servers to improve performance.

So, they ran an outward-facing Zope server (after being explicitly told not to) and the performace was lackluster? Go figure. In the real world, they'd run Zope behind an Apache or Squid proxy (as per every installation recommendation I've ever seen) which would immediately boost throughput by an order of magnitude. In short, using Zope to dynamically generate static content instead of caching the results whenever possible is insane, and pretty much no one does it. They also apparently forgot about ZEO, although I'm not sure how you can be savvy enough to get Zope up and populated without knowing about it's built-in clustering.

Apparently they had no interest in any tuning whatsoever, to the point of de-tuning it by installing it in an explicitly unrecommended configuring. And then it lost. Go figure.

Trains and planes (2, Insightful)

oglueck (235089) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698481)

1. They say no word about the problem and the implementation of the solutions. Results may vary depending on the problem.
2. Comparing J2EE/.NET to PHP/Plone is bollocks. Problems that are solved with J2EE/.NET today are so complex that choosing PHP/Plone instead is no option. It's like comparing trains to airplanes.
3. Where are tables, figures and graphs?

Very accurate comparison . . . (1)

izam_oron (942139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698522)

Who knew that a stateless, event-driven constantly running MVC-like framework would outperform scripting languages that had to be reset for each request? It's a good thing they didn't compare stuff such as RoR or Django with FastCGI and page cache, or else ASP.NET wouldn't look as great as it did in this article and eWeek would feel ashamed for still using the obsoleted ASP . . . well, that last one should be valid either way, especially since they WTFA.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?