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!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Mindcraft Debacle: Part MCXVI

Hemos posted more than 15 years ago | from the more-fun-with-numbers dept.

Linux 137

Quite a number of people wrote in to alert us to the Salon story about the Mindcraft survey. Andrew Leonard, does a great job of tracing the trail, including the information about how Mindcraft is asking for help from Linus, but is not apparently giving him the information that he needs. Ah, the joys of industry. Mindcraft has agred to re-do the tests, with Linus' help, as aforementioned, but is continuing to be...less then forthcoming about the tests. Meanwhile, Microsoft is trumpeting the original study.

cancel ×

137 comments

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

Microsoft Has No Shame! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913560)

I can't beleive that Microsoft is promoting this study! You'd think they'd have enough sense to bury this thing; pretend it didn't happen, file it in /dev/null. Amazing.

tide71.microsoft.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913561)

WOW!!! I've had strange probings coming from that box!!! Perhaps it's a "secret" anti-linux project within Microsoft? Tide - cleans Linux completely, get it?

That's why they're called MIND CRAFT. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913562)

Tell them what is on your MIND, and they'll CRAFT it?

All OSS big wigs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913563)


I wonder what would happen if every Linux, Apache, and Samba bigwigs and gods decide to tweak the test bed system just so it can get equal tune up treatment like NT. (I think Linus is really pissed at Mindcraft)

I seriously wonder what power would be unleash if these "dream team" actually get down to work redoing the report.

whoaaa......

I am afraid to imagine. I bet the network will be able to withstand Nuclear attack, 20 slashdot peak attack, and still have some power left to stick tongue out at Bill Gate.

I think we ought to write Mindcraft to let Linus et all. tweak the system for fairness.

who care about comparing to NT, I just want to know what awesome thing they will do to the system...

tide*.microsoft.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913564)

I have been seeing tide*.microsoft.com pop up in #LinuxHelp on efnet quite a few times lately. WEIRD

Microsoft *PAYS* Mindcraft to say good things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913565)

FYI, just about all of Mindcraft's revenues come from Microsoft. Microsoft contracts Mindcraft to conduct studies. I doubt Mindcraft would continue to get M$'s business if they told the truth.

What I want to know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913566)

Is why are we screwing around with Mindcraft at all? They have a track record of biased tests and having anything at all to do with them simply lends them credibilty where they should have none.

Instead, why doesn't Redhat take some of those corporate dollars people have been throwing at them and duplicate this test on Linux turf. It would be biased, too, but at least it'll spotlight that numbers can be made to say whatever people want them to. And Redhat, I'm sure, would publish ALL the details of their system set-up.

anonymous speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913567)

From this evidence, could it be that Microsoft rigs the tests, gives the results to Mindcraft, has Mindcraft do a writeup, put their name on it, and and then publish the results?

The Salon article also said that Mindcraft consisted of 2 or 3 people. Wouldn't it be easy for Microsoft to spin off this so-called company and pretend it's independent?

Incoming troll! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913568)

I am afraid this isn't all that unreasonable IMHO...
Look at the USENET thread, you will find that there were not many (public) replies. Also, the Apache was somewhat tuned.
(The hardware was pretty hot, which is usually not good for Linux.)
I don't think M$ support would help much, but at least it would be possible to find someone you could pay to set up a web server and tune it on NT. Linux web consultants are still hard(er) to come by.
Bottom line; A medium qualified person would perhaps be able to set up and tune a NT web server as described. But Linux? Not when people don't reply on USENET. Having Linus Thorvalds and Alan Cox at site is perhaps doable for a benchmark, but not for running a business.
Still: I don't trust benchmarks (especially not the sponsored ones), and Apache is still the most popular web server by far. There is probably a reason for this (apart from it being free).

SGI, Dell, etc. should moderate a competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913569)

Instead of a 'study' by some lab the test should be a competition where identical HW is provided to a Linux group and an NT Group (and IRIX, SunOS, etc if applicable).

The moderator then confirms the HW is identical for test runs and then runs the tests. The moderator probably ought be a HW vendor delivering the multiple OSes for its HW.

Things can only get worse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913570)

Why even bother trying to help Mindcraft produce a "fairer" test. Mindcraft will never allow a benchmark that shows Linux beating the pants off of Win2000 to be released, because that would put them out of business. MS doesn't pay people to make them look bad.

Linus' and Alan's involvement will just allow them to put an official seal of approval on their MS propoganda.

ED MUTH??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913571)

Isn't this the guy who answered the questions concerning VinodV and the Halloween docs (check the notes at Halloween 4)? Why is he again? There's something odd going on.

I can smell an evil plot forming somewhere deep at Redmond's dungeons...

Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913572)

Uhm. Dell is an investor in RedHat. Dell delivered the hardware. RedHat was the Linux distribution used... Instead of letting individual contributors handle this, RedHat and Dell should be able to do something themselves...

Microsoft has done this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913573)

I think you're referring to C2 certification. This is something that is supposed to be required of government machines. It doesn't just certify the software, but the "platform", meaning the software on a particular hardware setup. There were 3 platforms that were certified using NT 3.51. I don't remember what hardware. You are correct though that they were only certified as non-networked machines. If you connect them to a network, then they do not meet the security criteria.

Unfortunately, the C2 certification requirement has not been enforced. It's kind of sickening to watch the government wring its hands and rant about the coming "digital Pearl Harbor" when they have screwed themselves and the rest of us through their own corruption. They pay Microsoft for machines that don't meet their own security standards. How insane is that? As far as I'm concerned, the idiots who chose Microsoft software for the servers should be tossed in jail for treason. They knowingly, or through their own incompetence compromised the security of the our country's computer systems. Even though most of the most secure servers are probably not running Windows, there are enough that crackers can break into all sorts of government installations. If the government is so concerned about security, you'd think they'd start purchasing only securable machines. Just another symptom of a government that can't find its ass with both hands.

Funny, MS doesn't mention ANYTHING about the CPU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913574)

in their propaganda at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews/042199. htm... or that the NT system was tuned, but not the Linux system. It also doesn't mention what Microsoft would charge you for the software licenses and support to tune your system identically to the one used in the test (I suspect it's around $25,000 for the M$ configuration vs. $50 for the Linux? Can you say price/performance?) I find these omissions to be bordering on fraud.

On the other hand, Linux himself says "Linux works best on dual-CPU systems." and "there are still some single-semaphore issues in 2.2" Obviously, scalability to four-way and greater SMP is a weakness of Linux which has not yet been addressed -- probably due to the fact that not very many Linux kernel hackers have access to a $50,000 quad Xeon CPU server! (Yes, Virgina, there ARE some advantages to being a multi-billion dollar company.)

Another question: if you've got the bucks to afford this system, why not by a compably priced system from Sun or SGI that would have blown the doors off of NT in a fair test?

The worst thing about this situation is that it will probably change the priorities of Linux kernel development... Linux should be proactive, not reactive to the latest FUD blowing out of Redmond. Linux was, first and foremost, an OS designed to run efficiently on cheap hardware, and it best serves the needs of it's user community by continuing to make that it's main emphasis. Still, I would expect to see this scalability issue and others at least partially addressed in 2.3.

Microsoft has done this before [Amended Version] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913575)

I think you're referring to C2 certification. This is something that is supposed to be required of government machines. It doesn't just certify the software, but the "platform", meaning the software on a particular hardware setup. There were 3 platforms that were certified using NT 3.51. I don't remember what hardware. You are correct though that they were only certified as non-networked machines. If you connect them to a network, then they do not meet the security criteria.

Microsoft has touted NT 4 as being C2 certified as well. See this story [infoworld.com] about Ed Curry, a Microsoft consultant who tried to blow the whistle on them for this lie. Here is where you can read the summary [ncsc.mil] of the NT certification. Note these lines:

Because the evaluated configuration does not include a network environment, both products are considered stand-alone workstations.

A network configuration of the Windows NT platform is currently pending evaluation agreement.

This implies that NT was supposed to undergo testing in a networked environment. Since certification was never granted in this case, one can assume that either the testing was never done, or NT did not pass the tests.

Unfortunately, the C2 certification requirement has not been enforced. It's kind of sickening to watch the government wring its hands and rant about the coming "digital Pearl Harbor" when they have screwed themselves and the rest of us through their own corruption. They pay Microsoft (and various OEMs) for machines that don't meet their own security standards. How insane is that? As far as I'm concerned, the idiots who chose Microsoft software for the servers should be tossed in jail for treason. They knowingly, or through their own incompetence compromised the security of our country's computer systems. Even though most of the most secure servers are probably not running Windows, there are enough that crackers can break into all sorts of government installations. If the government is so concerned about security, you'd think they'd start purchasing only securable machines. Just another symptom of a government that can't find its ass with both hands.

Correction [by author] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913576)

It was actually Windows NT 3.5 with Service Pack 3 that was evaluated. Not NT 3.51.

Reproduction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913577)

One of the nice things about the Mindcraft report
is that they give a fairly detailed description of
their test setup. It would be nice if someone
could try to reproduce what they Mindcraft observed.

This would allow us to either find the problem
with the Linux setup and fix it, or else it would
point to the tests being rigged. It would also
tend to keep everyone honest.

Microsoft will always be believed.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913578)

Don't make the mistake of lumping all NT people together into the same boat. When I started computing (mumble, mumble) years ago, IBM was the top dog and boatloads of business executives bought IBM... you know why. At least some of us NT admins don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter, the same way as we didn't have much choice about Big Blue.

Techs don't run companies; business people run companies. Continuing to attack NT on a technical level is a voice which won't be heard by the people who make the decisions. If CEOs and CFOs are going to pay attention to something other than MS it won't be because they've been roundly flamed for asking newbie questions in the Linux newsgroups. In this battle I sometimes think that techs are their own worst enemies. MS knows this and also knows that until it changes, Uncle Bill won't have many sleepless nights.

Mike

I am almost an mcse and in ms school but use linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913579)

I use to be a huge and I mean huge NT fan. I told everyone how stable it is and I have never seen unix beofre and the command line and lack of compaidblity with windows95 games turned me off and made me an NT fan untill ms released diredctx 5 and NT couldn't run the nwer games :-(.

I became an ms advocate out of zdnet and fud in newspapers and reading ms website at the time when everyone considered it non biased. THis was deffinely befoer the huge doj trails that showed how hinest ms really was. I read about how stable ms was in the Networking essientials book and course. I got all excited about NT and in the labs when the instructor executed an app and it froze and then he demonstrated the NT taskmanger and unfroze it and explained how ms uses a thing called threads that were borrwed in theunix world so like unix the kernel can stop an app immiedately and free up memory. I was amazed and thought that unix was good for its time and that NT was the wave of the future. IF NT has all the stuff unix has then why move to unix? However I got the NT server cd and tried to install it and it crashed with the bluscreen of death in my isntalltion. I rebooted and because NT was properly installed and startup menu was set to load the roken setup immideately I was screwed. NT would freeze each tiemn I turned the computer on and I inserted a windows95 bootdisk (I still had w95 on my system) and I got the error NTldr not found?? What the ^*())__)%. THis is was a winodws 95 boot disk, how the hell did my computer all of the sudden require ntloader. I had to reformat my whole disk and I lost everything. After this I finally got NT server and workstation to boot and gues what? NO graphics, no compilers no cool tools nothing!! I had nothing expect disk administrator and backup. THATS IT! NT server had more stuff like licsense manager and wins manger and dns manager as well as server manager! BOY THOSE ARE ALOT OF FUN TO PLAY WITH!:-)

I got use to nnot playing games after dierectx5 came out and I figured this was NT. Just right your own games liek the old days. I then read a wired magazine artlve called linux. THe best os that (n)ever was. It talked about how linux was the coolest os ever but its opensource roots made it an unknown future. THis was late 97, early 98. IF finally decided to try it because I could program and it came with mroe tools and maybe unix was not dead. The industry was switching back to unix after NT failed in early 98. I am just finshing my mcse and I can say that all hope is not lost. THe press puts linux in a positive light and bad press about NT is mroe and more previalant. THe NT craze only started 2 and a half years ago when people got all brainwashed about ms through office and ie and thought it was unstopable but after people believed the press hype and tried it, the backlash began and now the press supports the backlash. NT is a great os to put food on the table for beginers with no college degrees like myself but I will stick with linux and hopefully use unix as I move up the corporate ladder.

M$ News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913580)

And if I want unbiased news I come to Slashdot right?

Curiouser and curiouser! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913581)

>

Sturgeon's Law: 80% of everything is crap!

:) /.

Astroturf wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913582)

So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."

The pizza guy says it's $12. Buddah gives hime a $20 asks for his change. The pizza guy says:
"Change must come from within"

Just two points... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913583)

1) There's been a lot of noise about how transparent these 'tests' are - how everyone knows that Mickysoft is cooking the numbers. That isn't actually true. The Linux community, and anyone else who cares to look long and hard at the evidence will know that the numbers are cooked, but no one else will. Big Business and their big IT directors and managers will believe Mickysoft - because they always do. This could be more damaging that we realise.

2) What needs to happen now is for RedHat (or the vendor of whatever Linux they used) to get together with Dell and recreate the test environment as near to the original as they can, documenting the results *and* the configurations.
Take the war to Mickysoft - why let Billy boy get away with murder?

anonymous speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913584)

Maybe they're doing a bit more than rigging tests - perhaps they're testing discrete pieces of Linux and Apache which they're plagarising to include in IIS and NT.....
Maybe....
;)

Horse Feathers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913585)

Setting up Apache is easy; just read the documentation. Any clown that know what a process is, what permissions are and know how to use vi, pico or emacs can configure apache. Fer frigging krissakes; I set it up on Win95 in 10 minutes; and that was harder than on linux.


Microsoft Has No Shame! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913586)

Part of the Salon commentary was regarding the Linux communities reaction of the "Will" character revealed what he was doing. They claimed that he said it would degenerate to flames, insults, etc. The comments I see here reflect that same sort of spirit.
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen much (only a couple) of decent posts trying to comment on the fundamentals. What are the fundamentals?
Simple, its the data that was presented, and what might be wrong with it. Why would Apache crap out with more threads?
I think to address anything else, i.e. the method that they choose to try to get help from the Linux community, is just avoiding the real question. When debates turn to name calling, usually its the side without any merit that initiates it. So if the Linux community really wants to put their best foot forward, then I feel they should respond in a more proper manner.
I read the Salon article, I just printed out the MindCraft results (I have not read them). How many people here read he whole report and tried to assimilate some answers or pertinent questions regarding the hardware/os setup or its problems? How many are just _too_ quick to judge this whole thing as bogus?
I'm not trying to take any position here. I'm just trying to make sure people wise up and try to address the real issues, lest you become labeled zealots like the MacOS crowd!

Microsoft is pumping up Linux. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1913595)

Come on, guys. The writing is on the wall. Microsoft has been pumping up Linux in all sorts of subtle ways. They don't want to be caught actively pumping the software, but DAMN, they're doing just about everything they can otherwise. Drawing media attention? Leaked internal memos? Porting software? Horribly biased tests?

Microsoft has never made such serious mistakes in so short of a period of time with the rest of its competitors.

Microsoft web site. (1)

nlucent (168) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913596)

It would be humorous if microsoft got slashdotted by all of us trying to read theyre anti linux propoganda saying that nt is a better web server.

Linus in the dark? This is just wrong. (1)

whoop (194) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913597)

It's like Alan Cox said in the Salon article, they hope to be able to say something like, "NT beats Linux by 600x with aid from Linus Torvalds himself!!" conveniently not mentioning that it was limited access, not full information, and Linus only able to give guesses and suggestions.

M$ News? (1)

drwiii (434) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913598)

"Microsoft Daily News" [microsoft.com] ? And I thought those weirdos over at The 700 Club [cbn.org] were biased..

Certifications (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913599)

C2 certification is not mandatory for all government systems, only for few of them. However POSIX is required, and this is why Windows NT has POSIX subsystem, even though no one uses it because of its extreme brokenness.

A second test... (3)

Steve Philp (507) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913600)

Can anyone else picture Gates wringing his hands at the pure joy in seeing the results from this round of testing?

"Even with help from the top two Linux minds, namely kernel inventor Linus Torvalds and top lieutenant Alan Cox, Linux was unable to match the performance of the NT machine under test."

If Mindcraft is being as unhelpful in giving information to these two as they were in replying to Usenet posts for help, you're going to see a steaming pile of FUD right in the middle of that report.

Let's face it, the Mindcraft results are going to say EXACTLY what the Microsoft marketing forces want them to say. If the marketing people say there's a perception that Linux is difficult to get support for, you can damn well bet you're going to see forced substantiation of that claim in their report notes.

This second test, if it continues under the same sort of conditions that Salon notes, will NOT be any better than the previous. In fact, given the level of expertise being "consulted" in the new test, this result could hurt the Linux image much, much more.

They should use dual-processor machines this time (2)

Kurt Gray (935) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913601)

The original test used quad-Xeon machines and I'm
sorry but I think that's unrealistic -- how many
shops use quad-Xeon-processor machines for web serving
and file serving? I think dual-PII-processor is the
more common workhorse in this industry, and I'm
pretty confident Linux beats NT on dual-processor
hardware.

They should be testing "typical" hardware
platforms rather than using hardware so maxed-out
that hardly anyone would own such a machine
these days, or at least not for plain-ol'
web serving -- database serving maybe but not
for web serving and file serving -- that's
ridiculous!

...and I think the whole point of Linux is you
can run a pretty fast web server on *cheap*
hardware so you really don't need quad-Xeon
w/ 1 GB of RAM to serve some serious enterprise
level web traffic anyway -- a plain ol' pentium box
will work just fine.

So how about an OPEN test? (1)

TedC (967) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913602)

This sounds like another MS setup to make Linux look bad, and attach Linus and Alan to the "failure" of Linux.

What we need is an open test conducted by a trusted third party. MS can show up with their 50 drones and go head to head against a handful of Linux/Samba/Apache developers.

That would be something to read about, instead of all these bogus benchmarks payed for by Bill.

TedC

MS and the 'net (1)

mackga (990) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913603)

It's really refreshing to see the power of the 'net in rooting out the obviously slanted "truth" that MS would have folks believe. Again, this whole debacle just proves that MS still doesn't "get it" about the Internet/WWW/usenet. When you put something out for mass peer review, it's going to get hammered. Well, MS just got the bejeesus pounded out of it.

You're confused as well. (1)

bkosse (1219) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913605)

RAID 4 is the dog-ass-slow write performance because there is only one parity disk. RAID 5 is striped parity with the pairity bits hitting each disk. It is slightly slower than a single drive for writing, but significantly faster than mirrored drives (the slowest write of all RAID systems).

RAID 5 is the 2nd fastest reading system (losing only RAID 1 across an equal number of disks and, for example, 5 disk RAID 5 is basically equal reading to 4 disk RAID 1).

If you have hardware RAID like these servers, then you're not going to notice anything with write speed.

No. (0)

Matts (1628) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913612)

I don't know where you got your ideas from.



If you're looking for optimal performance you have to a) know what you're doing. and b) compile the packages yourself, including only the options you need.



I also don't know where you got your ideas about RAID. RAID 1 is what you want for higher performance on a web server. RAID 5 shows little thought went into the choice.


perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

No. (1)

Matts (1628) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913613)

I don't know where you got your ideas from.

If you're looking for optimal performance you have to a) know what you're doing. and b) compile the packages yourself, including only the options you need.

I also don't know where you got your ideas about RAID. RAID 1 is what you want for higher performance on a web server. RAID 5 shows little thought went into the choice.

perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

No. (1)

Matts (1628) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913614)

I'd run RAID1 on a real server - in a second.

Perhaps you need to read up some on RAID - RAID1 is the fastest and safest of all the RAID standards. It's what you use if cost is not an issue. For a server, that tends to be the case.

For some good introductory docs on RAID try the Software-RAID mini HOWTO.

Matt.


perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

No. (1)

Matts (1628) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913615)

I think they were aiming with telescopic sights... We managed to get twice the performance they did out of a SINGLE PIII500...

perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

Linus in the dark? This is just wrong. (1)

Da w00t (1789) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913616)

I see mindcraft trying to pull itself out of the ditch it threw itself into by strutting it's stuff about NT beating the pants off of Linux, but I have a comment:

They documented that they did some serious tweaking of the NT server, even so beyond what microsoft suggests for reliabilty. They had to get that information from somewhere, they probally had a MS tech either over their shoulder or on the phone telling them to apply this reg tweak, apply this patch to bind the nic's to each CPU....

Why can't we do the same for linux? Why can't Linus and have direct access to the server that they're supposed to be helping on?

They must be trying very hard to "proove" that NT is "better" then Linux.

grr stoopid html (1)

Da w00t (1789) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913617)

" shoudl work

Build a Linux machine that equals performance (1)

DrDave (2161) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913618)

Instead of trying to beat Microsoft and Mind-benchmark-craft in a stacked environment, we should build and tune a Linux box that provides equal or greater performance with less expensive hardware than the Dell.

Mindcraft did publish the performance of their NT box, so there is a target to aim for.

Don't worry, be happy (1)

Frank Sullivan (2391) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913619)

The reason Mindcraft is calling on Linux and Alan for help is to recover their own lost legitimacy. The mainstream tech media is openly calling the integrity of their work into question. If, as some worry, they try to attach Linus and Alan's names to another rigged test without giving them proper access to the test environment, then they risk being denounced by Linus and Alan themselves... which would almost certainly be reported in ANY press coverage. That would just expose the tests for what they really are - paid FUD.

Your Right, I had an intership with em. (1)

petchema (3684) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913621)

You missed this interview with Linus some time ago where he said (sort of late answer to Tanenbaum's "Linux is obsolete"), mainly, that microkernels were the panacea for researchers only, but that in real world you could have most of microkernel's benefits without the overhead with a monolithic kernel and good code design...

Mindcraft had -0 credibility before this fiasco... (3)

jht (5006) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913622)

Before this Linux testing disaster, Mindcraft had performed similar comparisons between NT4/NetWare 5, NT4/NetWare4.11 and NT4/Solaris. They are, historically, a professional, unbiased testing shop who can accurately perform tests that will produce whatever Microsoft wants - Microsoft seems to be their largest paying benchmark customer. They also did some tests for Netscape, too, "proving" that Netscape blows away NetWare for directory management.

You'd think that if a company pays for tainted benchmarks, they could at least ask Mindcraft to cook the numbers less blatantly.

THe best way to do this test, I think, would be to run the NT benchmarks, then let Linus, Alan, Brian, Andrew, and Dean (I apologize for any gurus I forgot) have their way with the same server for testing. Let the Mindcraft stooges watch. They may just learn something.

Plan (2)

datazone (5048) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913623)

Since RedHat and and other Linux based companies have the most to lose from this, i suggest that they do a test on similar hardware and publish everything that they did, and what results they got.

However waiting for a company to do something is a stupid way to go. I suggest some non-profit linux organization find out how much it will cost to purchase one of these machines, and create a fund where people can contribute money towards its purchase. Then allow folks who know about configuring it contribute information on how to do it. Publish the report, and bam, end of story. The machine could then be used for other linux related things such as hardware for linux developers to work and optimize on, or other such things. The potential for this is great since if its alot of folks will be willing to contribute to it. hell i got $10 bucks to go towards this beast.
and i am sure that the money could be raised from slashdot users alone, much less the entire community, since once the project is started, companies will try to get some press coverage by saying they helped in the project.

Anywho this is my humble opinion, and what do i know?

Testing again, cool! (1)

law (5166) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913624)

I am sure that we will do better, I wonder if they changed the hardware? I am not sure that
with the AMI RAID driver will do much better, but everything else should work.
I don't expect them to change hardware, and to be honest I don't want them to, it's up to us to
be real world too.

Three things I hope they do:

Use kernel 2.2.pre7 patch3, it's a very nice kernel.

More RAM, at least to the two gigabyte limit.

One OS on the drive, and real world raid5, not raid0, this is a server stupid.

The right amount of swap I have wondered and wondered about that one.

A correctly tuned apache server, at least use the .rpm, do not compile unless you really
know what your doing.

SAMBA, use the damn package unless there is a GOOD reason not too.

Get rid of the enterprise edition; server is what most people will buy it's a bit more real world.

And last document better; I would feel better if I new exactly why something failed or not.


No. (1)

law (5166) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913625)

If it was ME that was doing the testing; I WOULD compile, compile, compile.
But it's Mindcraft, I would not want them too.
It's a SERVER!!
Not just a 'Web server' both should be running RAID 5.
Think about it; would you run RAID1 on a real server?
If you do; I don't think I would trust you with my data.

Worried, don't give Mindcraft legitimacy (1)

John Kacur (5703) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913627)

It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.

It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .

Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.

I realize its not up to us to say whether they repeat the test, but it should just be ignored.

Summary: we already debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.

Worried, don't give Mindcraft legitimacy (3)

John Kacur (5703) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913628)

It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.

It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .

Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would trust even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.

Summary: we debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.

"Why No Widelinks" campaign (1)

Nemesys (6004) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913629)

We should start a "why no widelinks" campaign. Most of the MindCraft misconfigurations could be written off as mistakes. The "widelinks = no" setting, contrary to the better performing default, smacks of actual sabotage.

The only story getting out into the media is that Linux was not optimised. What's really going on is that in some areas it was pessimised.

Spread the word!

RAID confusion? (1)

Des Herriott (6508) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913630)

I think you've both got your RAID numbers confused. There's certainly nothing wrong with using RAID 1 on a server.

RAID 0 = concatenation/striping
RAID 1 = mirroring
RAID 5 = distributed parity

RAID 0 by itself provides no redundancy at all, it just combines several physical disks into one larger virtual disk. It can improve performance, especially if striped properly. In fact, RAID 0 on its own reduces redundancy - if one disk goes, you lose the entire volume.

RAID 1 is mirroring, which gives you redundancy, at the cost of extra storage requirements - you need two (or more) 1GB disks to get a 1GB mirrored volume. Mirroring can slightly improve read performance, and slightly disimprove write performance (everything has to be written twice, or more).

A common setup is RAID 0+1, striping and mirroring in combination.

RAID 5 is distributed parity - another form of redundancy. You can combine, say, 4 disks into one volume, with 3 disks worth of data and 1 disk worth of parity information.

RAID 5 is cheaper than 0+1, since it requires less storage. Read performance is fairly good, but here's the catch: write performance is lousy. If it's a write-intensive filesystem, don't use RAID 5.

File a complaint with the FTC... (1)

DarrenR114 (6724) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913634)

Since Microsoft is using a knowingly flawed report (they admitted that the report was flawed in some South African periodical), there are good grounds to hold them responsible for false and misleading advertising. On that basis, everyone who reads this should file a complaint with the FTC at http://www.ftc.gov/ .

Now if we could only get MS-lackey Jerry Pournelle to retire, we might actually get some quality journalism.

MS Publishing is Always Entertaining (1)

Logan (7529) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913635)

Comparing comparable Linux and Windows NT Server-based systems...

How redundant. How does one compare two incomparable systems? I suppose this is the "new" ground Microsoft and Mindcraft are breaking together. :P

logan

addendum. (2)

navindra (7571) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913636)

Furthermore, his Gamasutra profile says that he is a Microsoft Performance Engineer. Now isn't that damning?

More info. (3)

navindra (7571) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913637)

This Will character has been traced even further [dejanews.com] .

We need to get the word out (Responses requested) (1)

Steve Bergman (7667) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913638)

So what do we need to do to head off MS's ability to say:

NT beat Linux by a factor of X with the help of Linus Torvalds himself.

Linus has pretty good media coverage and he could use that. This is such a waste of his time. I think that the Salon article was excellent and should be seeded far and wide to the press. Anyone else have observations on that? Also, any ideas on where it would be best to send pointers would be appreciated. I think it's important that the news of their latest plot be aired *before* the results of the tests are released, after which time we'll just sound like we're whining. Perhaps being in the spotlight will make them less bold in publishing their figures, as well.

Microsoft has done this before (1)

eponymous cohort (8637) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913639)

I forget the name of the security certification, but it's one the US Federal government requires systems that it buys to meet.

Anyway, NT 3.51 met this certification only when NOT CONNECTTED TO A NETWORK. Only NT 3.51 meets it.

Yet MS continues to sell NT 4.0 as meeting the security certification whose name I forget.

They are one of, if not the, most blatently dishonest companies around.

Microsoft's power is not so absolute (1)

eponymous cohort (8637) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913640)

I've met a few people who view Microsoft like that, but most people I've met are more cynical of MS.

They see the constant deadlines being pushed back, MS not delivering on promises, MS getting caught astroturfing in the past, new MS technologies not working as they should, and lately very hyped MS only viri, etc.

MS IS looked at as a safe choice only because we know that they will not be going out of business tommorow (hence: "You can't go wrong buying MS")

MS is going down a slippery slope, W2K(NT5) will make or break the company, if past performance is any indication, NT5 will not live up to its hype.

Your Right, I had an intership with em. (1)

eponymous cohort (8637) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913641)

Of course client server has been dying lately in favor of web/application server solutions.

Sure this is a form of client/server, but the MS c/s server model was fat client, where you install a client program on 500 PCs, that take up 450megs on your PC for a "slim" install or 700megs for a full install, and require 64Meg ram to get by. This had the advantage of locking you into MS technology all around.

I also fail to see how NT is an improvement over VMS. VMS at least was a multi-user OS, and I never saw a VAX go down for anything except a hardware failure.

The big Microsoft crash....WINDOWS 2000! (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913642)

You know it. They are panicking like HELL now. They are damned if they wait, and damned if they release now. They will release it soon, meaning it will be bloated, full of bugs (even more than the previous ones) and most importantly they must slash whole technologies that aren't finished like Intellimirror. And that was the major reason of the update in the first place.

Well, if they had done multiuser correctly in the first place they wouldn't have this problem. But if you start growing your technology tree from a seed called Quick and Dirty OS, what can you expect. :-)

Windows Y2K will be the end of Microsoft's OS dominance, you can count on it. (Still, I don't want them to go completely bankrupt. Age of Empires 2 and that new optical USB mouse look sweet!)

The Mindcrap Affair: good news: Ghandi stage 3... (3)

kzinti (9651) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913643)

There's an old quote, attributed to Ghandi, and often cited in linux advocacy:

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
These four stages of victory map nicely onto what's happened and is happening between Microsoft and Linux:

First they ignore you. Microsoft did this for years, not really surprising anybody.

Then they laugh at you This comes from from all levels, including Gates himself, and mostly takes the form of FUD. Do you really want an OS developed in some guy's garage? Is linux going to be here tomorrow? Linux has no roadmap. Can linux really be well-tested? I consider all this FUD to be a form of laughing at linux; it's really too indirect to be considered fighting.

Then they fight you The Mindcrap Affair places us full-square in stage three. Microsoft is actively fighting, trying to bloody the penguin's nose (beak?). Granted, they're fighting dirty, but they are fighting. And get used to it; we're probably going to see a lot more of this from Microsoft.

So why is this good news? Because it puts linux one step closer to stage four: Then you win. And it won't happen soon enough for me.

--JT

Yeah We have to pay extra for Apache and Samba? (1)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913645)

To conduct its study, Mindcraft compared Windows NT Server 4.0 and Red Hat Linux 5.2, upgraded to Linux 2.2.2 kernel. Both systems ran on a Dell PowerEdge 6300/400 server. Mindcraft equipped the Linux system with Samba 2.0.0 as its SMB file server and Apache 1.3.4 as its Web server. Windows NT Server 4.0 already came embedded with file and print and Web server capabilities. This class of system is what enterprise customers typically use for their enterprise servers.
This seems to imply that Apache and Samba are not-included and cost money. More M$ FUD.
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]

But does the general public know? (1)

Trith (10719) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913646)

When I worked in an NT shop this summer, those MSCEs thought NT was the best thing since sliced bread. They laughed and couldn't believe it when I formatted my drive and installed Linux. They would believe this FUD without ever questing it.

That is unless some mainstream mags like PC Week published a counter explaining it was bogus. I don't think they have...

Anyone know?
Romans 10:9-10 [gospelcom.net]

Your Right, I had an intership with em. (1)

Trith (10719) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913647)

This summer I worked with some MCSEs. They think NT is the greatest thing in the world. When I told them about Linux and critized NT they gave me a book to read. The whole thing was written such that anyone who had not used it would sell their soul to it. It gave the whole background of how Microsoft hired the guys from Digital that made VAX. They had OS experience before so they could learn from their mistakes and make a new OS from the ground up. They talked about the client server based approach and how the kernel follows this design.. blah blah. And of course, they use the scallable, reliable, portable 'It runs on alpha ;)', buzzwords. In fact, those buzzwords are a lot of the NT cert exam. But to get back to the point, they believe it all. "98 is a peice of crap but not NT, here.. read this and you'll see" It's really really sad but sooooo very true.

I do wish all Linuk was mkLinux though. I think the microkernel design is a cool way to do it even if having everything pipelined is a bit faster.


Romans 10:9-10 [gospelcom.net]

I didn't mean that type of client/server (1)

Trith (10719) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913648)

The way M$ doc referes to client/server is the internals of the OS. For instance, the posix layer would pass infomation to the kernel layer.

In this case, posix is client and kernel is server.

Sorry, I forgot to specify before.
Romans 10:9-10 [gospelcom.net]

Re: They should use dual-processor machines (1)

Greg Titus (11738) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913649)

The study is supposed to be directed towards IT professionals and assorted PHBs that are involved in setting future OS direction, coming up with scaling plans, hardware and software budgets for the next budget period, et cetera.

These people are asking (or at least should be): what should I be running six months to a year from now in order to handle the predicted traffic and server load?

Considering how quickly the semi-conductor industry is still moving, I think 1 GB quad-Xeon boxes are going to be more or less the standard new server box in a years time.

Of course, Win NT scales to 4 processors so badly that Microsoft is artificially retarding the development of SMP hardware, so I could easily be wrong and we'll be stuck with 2-way SMP for longer.

For example, there is almost no available Intel hardware bigger than 4-way SMP, even though handling more processors is well understood: Sun's entry-level(!) enterprise server E450 handles up to 8. There is nothing keeping the Intel hardware vendors from building bigger boxes besides the limitations of MS operating systems.

Salon (1)

Athos (11806) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913650)

Wow. A relatively clue-filled news outlet. One that's not geek-centric and can talk to the outside world.

A refreshing change from ZD!

(CmdrTaco: can you get Andrew to do a piece or two for /. ? :) )

A stupid thing to do (1)

nixon (12262) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913652)

Micrsoft so proud of the survey while everybody knows it's fake.

Does everybody know it's a fake?? Microsoft is aiming this type of crap at senior management: People who have limited capacity for critical thinking and would rather have their homework done for them by "independent" reviews.

One would hope that their technical experts would set them straight but unfortunately with senior management, once the mind is set, it's a helluva task to change their mind.

Incoming troll! (1)

Mullen (14656) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913653)

The reason no one replied to his message is that he gave *NO* information on what he was doing. Saying, I have a 4 XEON and I want to run a server is far from enough. Looking at the orginal posting, I did not see any discussion of kind of netcards, how much CGI, or even what kind of business they were doing. They just posted for the token, "We asked for help" don't blame us.
The whole Mindcraft thing is a joke. Linux will never get a far shake from them with MS paying the bills.

All OSS big wigs (1)

phred (14852) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913654)

The people who design planes are not the best ones to ask about flying them.

It's all well and good for Linus and Alan Cox to help tune things for a benchmark. But actually, they are not the best people to do so. The best people to do so are those with domain experience -- that is, people who implement and manage large systems using Linux.

And again, let me warn everyone: benchmarks are a moral hazard.

--------

A stupid thing to do (3)

BiGGO (15018) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913655)

I can't believe the fuss.
Micrsoft so proud of the survey while everybody knows it's fake.
Saying that "NT is for mission critical applications" and is stable, is the stupidest thing ever.
(I wouldnt trust NT to feed my cat, and I don't even have a cat)
People know that they lie, and they become even less credible.

I think they make a joke of themselves, and it's quite funny, too.
In their struggle to survive Linux, they are being fools, and that will cost them costumers.

People are starting to realize what Microsoft is about.
Their crap bloatware is getting on people's nerves,
and the legal tactics are now more understood by the public (thanks to the DoJ).
But more of it, people are sick of being fed lies, and obviously bogus facts.

We don't want fake videotapes and false promises.
I'm glad to see Microsoft like that.
I'm just waiting for the big crash.


---

Astroturf wars (2)

yAm (15181) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913656)

I can believe that Micros~1 wants to believe this. They have this almost mystical ability to wish whatever they want into reality. Except that it looks like they went to the well one too many times and nobody is gonna buy it this time.

Between the overt attempt to fake a "groundswell" of support, the bungled videos in front of the DoJ and now the "benchmarks" that "prove" Linux is inferior to NT (as shown by an "independent" testing lab, no less), the Emperor's new clothes are revealing what Microsoft *really* means...

MS is getting desperate! (1)

Roofus (15591) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913657)

This whole situation is good news for the Linux community. Microsoft is forced to respond to what WE are doing. They're running scared.

anonymous speculation (1)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913658)

Wouldn't it be easy for Microsoft to spin off this so-called company and pretend it's independent

I can verify that Mindcraft is not a Microsoft spinoff. They have been around for over 10 years. They are, however, essentially 'mercenaries'. I cannot say, however, that Microsoft hasn't purchased all or part of Mindcraft, although MS, being under scrutiny from the FTC (as well as the DOJ) would have to divulge any such investment. Their original purpose was doing POSIX compliance validation for OS vendors, however, they have also been doing benchmarking for a long time. At one time their primary customer was IBM (they provided benchmarking numbers for the RS/6000 in its early years).

Your Right, I had an intership with em. (1)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913659)

I also fail to see how NT is an improvement over VMS.

Of course not, it isn't. NT is a half-baked re-implementation of MicroVMS with the bloated Windows GUI sitting on top of it. It isn't an improvement over even old VAX VMS, let alone recent OpenVMS.

VMS at least was a multi-user OS,

NT could be if it wasn't strangulated by the Windows GUI code which is inherently rooted in a single user philosophy.

Personally, I never even liked VMS. It was unecessarily crufty and complex and built from the large monolithic applications philosophy which I was never comfortable with.

I think NT has all the worst aspects of VMS without any of the redeeming qualities. If NT didn't come from Microsoft, it would be dying even quicker than VMS is.

propaganda (1)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913660)

And test results like these help explain why Windows NT Server 4.0 has so much support

Since you didn't state it in quite specific enough terms for the sarcastically challenged to grasp. Here is my read between Microsoft's lines:

The fact that we (Microsoft) have to pay a company like Mindcraft to rig test results shows why NT is losing the war as a web server platform to *nix and Apache.

Microsoft and Mindcraft: Loss of integrity (2)

bunge (16176) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913661)

All these benchmarks have done for me is question the integrity of both Microsoft and Mindcraft.

From now on I will take all claims made by Microsoft with a bigger grain of salt.

Microsoft will survive this debacle, but I'm sure that Mindcraft will take a serious blow. With their integrity questioned, who will take their tests seriously? I don't think that they'll be getting too many customers now.

Here is a suggestion for the Linux community: Someone should start a Linux hardware benchmarking and testing project. The role of this project would be to provide tips for tuning different configurations of computers for different purposes. Maybe they could get VAResearch to loan some hardware for the tests. The project team could challenge people at Microsoft to beat their results in head to head competition with impartial judges.

Funny, MS doesn't mention ANYTHING about the CPU (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913662)

Actually, it was mentioned recently in some blurb about Linus' Comdex speech that his development machine is quad cpu (I don't recall if they mentioned what cpu in particular). But, in general, your point is well taken.

The big crash (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913665)

It may happen sooner than some think.

I read in the business section of this morning's paper that a large investment firm (sorry, I forgot the name) is selling off all of its Microsoft stock, about $280 million worth. Apparently it figures that the stock is about peaked out, and there are better places to put the money.

Plan (1)

Mr Bill (21249) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913666)

The problem is, that the server is only part of the cost. In order to test the server, you will also need 100-200 client machines + all the networking for these machines. This is where things get pricy. And to do a proper benchmark, asking people to SlashDot the machine is not an accurate measure of it's performance.

Worried, don't give Mindcraft legitimacy (1)

Mr Bill (21249) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913667)

It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test

It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox. . .

But words will only take you so far. An MSCE could talk for hours about how great NT is, but that doesn't mean you're going to believe him.

If Linus and Alan have a chance to help in redoing the tests (assuming the tests were done to their satisfaction), then I say go for it.

It seems that maybe there is some fear that Linux may not "blow away" NT like it has been talked about. This wouldn't surprise me, given the oversized hardware the test is being done on. It is already known that Linux has a lot of room for growth in that market.

It is not a bad thing to openly display the shortcomings of Linux. This will spark interest in overcoming these problems (and as the Salon article mentions, the ball is already rolling on this).

But then again, maybe Linux will "blow NT" out of the water. I for one would like to see the results.

M$ "News?" - Hah! (1)

Jburkholder (28127) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913670)

This is almost funny:

"Microsoft was pleased but not surprised by Mindcraft's results concerning the excellent performance of Windows NT Server," said Ed Muth

Well *of course* they're not suprised! This phony crap is so transparent. Next time they should have NT edge out linux by an order of magnitude, not just double or triple, then they could say they were "pleasantly surprised".

Bunch of lying, cheating, conniving, manipulative turds. Makes me want to thow up.

propaganda (1)

JEP (28735) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913671)

From the MS webpage:


"And test results like these help explain why Windows NT Server 4.0 has so much support."


Ah, they speak the truth...

--

Microsoft has done this before (1)

RojCowles (30457) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913673)

Check out this account from a security consultant

http://www.ntsecurity.net/scripts/loader.asp?iD= /news/022499-NT-Insecure.htm

Not sure how biased or fair it is but I thought it
was pretty interesting.

But does the general public? No (1)

Wah (30840) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913674)

That is unless some mainstream mags like PC Week published a counter explaining it was bogus. I don't think they have...

Not gonna happen, they get too much M$ advertising money. Not to mention the fact they own a NETWORK. Linux coverage(+)in the mainstream PC press is still sparse, although you can see media bubbles rising from the riverbed to the mainstream (/. --> Network TV)

Microsoft is pumping up Linux. (2)

xtinct (30851) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913675)

Microsoft has never made such serious mistakes in so short of a period of time with the rest of its competitors.

you weren't paying attention to the doj trial, were you? ;)

Fire with fire (1)

skydryedblue (31098) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913676)

With our custom performance testing service, we work with you to define test goals. Then we put together the necessary tools and do the testing. We report the results back to you in a form that satisfies the test goals...

Why not put together the funds to pay Mindcraft? Commission them to do a real study, publicly announce it, make sure that the hardware is the same and get the best people in both camps to tune their machines. It could be a win for all parties. Except one :)

You may say that Mindcraft is biased, but if you are a paying customer, they have to live up to their promise and guarantees. Of course they could turn down the work, but then you would have the truest indication of their motives. Money should be the same color, no matter who's hands it is coming from.

Fire with fire (1)

remande (31154) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913677)

Microsoft's EULA prevents you from publishing benchmark results on NT without their consent. This is not pure MS evil, either; I've noted that my Netscape license has the same clause. The intent is likely to keep incompetents from testing bogus benchmarks. Linux has no such license.

However, if one simply did the Linux side, then pointed to the already published NT numbers for comparison, this may be doable.

Better yet, don't use the Mindcraft guys at all. Get a machine with the same hardware setup as Mindcraft published, throw Linux on it, tune it, and watch it scream. You or I can't afford the hardware, but dedicated Linux vendors can (several of who advertise here). Better yet, they have motive to refute the results. And they can invite anyone to the tests to examine the setup, in case people complain about impartiality...

No. (1)

remande (31154) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913678)

You don't need optimal performance on the Linux end. Normal performance, non-pessimal performance, can outpace NT. And this is a good thing, because you couldn't get optimal Linux performance out of Mindcraft if they got tech support from Linus himself (which is why he's not buying in).

Sure, you can get optimal performance by compiling from source. You can also shoot yourself in the foot quite badly. I think Mindcraft was aiming for the right big toe.

Curiouser and curiouser! (1)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913681)

So I go and have a quick read of the MS press release cum article and decide I want to send them a polite note telling someone somewhere within the MS organization what I think about this little piece. When I choose the one button on the page which appears it might be a way to communicate, I get a pre-determined choice of options, not one of which has anything to do with replying to the article.

So, I look around a bit and click on a few items looking for a way to contact _anyone_ with a comment about the story and came up with the big zero: Nada, nothing, no way to say "Hi Microsoft, your story on the Mindcraft debacle has a few problems." This is typical MS in that MS doesn't want to hear from MS customers because MS is too busy trying to dictate what said customer should be doing and thinking -- and totally missing the boat all the while.

Justice will be served when MS turns around one day and finds they are missing many millions of customers. Count me in that rapidly growing group.

1 1/2 years of livin' and lovin' Linux!

Hypocrits!!! Look at hotmail! (1)

Madhatter (33678) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913682)

Microsoft obviously does not practice what they preach.
Just look at what their famed hotmail runs on -- netcraft.com [netcraft.com] speaks the truth!
Microsoft is going to pay dearly in the end. Anyone with some sense has seen through this FUD already. Alot of people out there are in bed with Microsoft and take it's lies for gospel. They won't believe anything works but Microsoft and they are doomed for a hell working in help desks for eternity.
Once the new study is run by Mindcraft with the full support of Linux users, Microsoft will be exposed for the fraud they are. Alot of the damage has been done already. Linux is still small and hopefully people realize that when they read Microsoft's news releases.

What about a complaint about Mindcraft? (1)

IIH (33751) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913683)

If you read their performance page, it says that the various systems are at "peak performance"
So, by publishing this report as it was they are *certifing* that linux was running at peak performance
And, several of the changes they made, appeared to even reduce the out of box performance
So, are they *certifing* something that is obviously (and knowingly) false?

Why Linus? (1)

Breace (33955) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913684)

Surprises me that it is Linus who is going to help. Did they only agree if it was Linus himself? If that's the case, do they also require BGate$ to be there?

Huh, got a much better idea, less do a benchmark and let Linus and BGate$ setup their own machine (same hardware of course).
THEN run some tests. :o)

Breace.

Quickie followup...my bad (1)

Nichen (34123) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913685)

Should've finished up the article. It's a shame that Mindcraft is refusing to do a proper test. Apparently the truth will hurt that they rig results. Pity.

Jack

The truth hurts (2)

Nichen (34123) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913686)

The purpose of these tests is to please the customer who commissions them.

I think that pretty much sums up the whole situation. And here Microsoft is trying to tout this result as something valid when the whole Linux community is up in arms over it, the press is outright calling the results a sham, and even Mindcraft is now wanting to redo the tests, most likely to get some respect back. I hate to say it (actually I LOVE to say it) but Microsoft is again making themselves look stupid by demeaning Linux. Hell, I just started running Linux full time after playing around with it for a year, and I have to say I've never been happier with speed, stability, and performance. Let real world examples show Linux is better than NT.

Jack

Microsoft will always be believed.... (1)

bashbrotha (41617) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913693)

The sad thing about this whole thing is that M$ will ALWAYS be believed. I know that most NT sysadmins think that M$ is the absolute truth, and if it comes from them, they better believe it. M$ trumpets that NT is better than linux, and those die-hard NT sysadmin's will believe it (and won't bother trying linux out themselves). Those same die-hards won't believe thousands and thousands of real-world, pro-linux testimony, but yet they'll believe one company... and a lying one at that. Crazy, isn't it?



Todd Gearhart

wasting linus' time. (1)

Detroit (165885) | more than 15 years ago | (#1913696)

these midcraft people are at least nervy. They have the balls to say that they'll redo the tests... if linus helps them. I think that's great, only if they get bill to come and config the nt box.

the tiebreaker could be linus and bill mud wrestling for the title of software king!

d
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>