Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Jul 2006 20:36 UTC
.NET (dotGNU too) Open-source and .Net zealots can both take away positives from eWEEK Labs testing of various application stacks, but a mix-and-match approach wins the day. Bottom line: Open source and .Net better learn to play nice.
Order by: Score:
...
by Mitarai on Mon 10th Jul 2006 21:11 UTC
Mitarai
Member since:
2005-07-28

JBoss is still the king.

Reply Score: 1

v .NET
by k.g.stoyanov on Mon 10th Jul 2006 21:42 UTC
"IT Stack Tests"
by jcinacio on Mon 10th Jul 2006 21:42 UTC
jcinacio
Member since:
2006-03-12

read: benchmarks.

It could be me, but they don't make much sense.
Anyway, i'v learnt no to trust benchmarks over time, simply because they can say whatever you want them to.

on a side note: why the "linux" to "Open-Source" translation on OSnews? is it more politically correct?

Reply Score: 2

RE: "IT Stack Tests"
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 10th Jul 2006 22:59 UTC in reply to ""IT Stack Tests""
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

ummmm, you didn't read it did you. They were testing open source apps like Pyhon,PHP, Apache, which can run on just about any platform in the world, and even in their own tests here they too them for a spin on windows.


Linux has zero to do with this article.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: "IT Stack Tests"
by kaiwai on Tue 11th Jul 2006 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE: "IT Stack Tests""
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

ummmm, you didn't read it did you. They were testing open source apps like Pyhon,PHP, Apache, which can run on just about any platform in the world, and even in their own tests here they too them for a spin on windows.

Too bad they didn't do a benchmark with Zope, the Python based application server.

Edited 2006-07-11 07:45

Reply Score: 1

Why?
by snowflake on Mon 10th Jul 2006 22:21 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

".NET .sux"

It is so good to read informed opinion on this topic.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why?
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 10th Jul 2006 23:00 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, it is pithy to the point, and a huge number of people will agree with it... so I will give the commentor that credit.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Why?
by Nelson on Mon 10th Jul 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sure, but it's also good to explain your position if you wish to potentially have others agree with it who don't initially share the same opinion.

Reply Score: 1

What the F&#K?
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 10th Jul 2006 22:57 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

They call this a "benchmark"????

They tested DIFFERENT code/applications/databases on each platform.


What a bunch of tards...could they not fine ONE guy in the whole publication that could write some quick routines that do the same thing in all the platforms?


Man, the things that pass for "journalism" these days is just unbelievable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What the F&#K?
by smitty on Tue 11th Jul 2006 00:31 UTC in reply to "What the F&#K?"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

As they said in the article (did you even read it?) they had two choices.

1. Use common code/apps/dbs for each platform to see what the general performance is like in the real world. Negative: They would be testing the app instead of the platform.

2. Write their own code/apps/dbs for each platform. Negative: They would be testing how good they were at porting each app rather than the platform.

Either way they would have had people complaining.

Edited 2006-07-11 00:31

Reply Score: 2

The question no ask...
by historyb on Mon 10th Jul 2006 23:31 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do they have to learn to play together?

Reply Score: 1

RE: The question no ask...
by Johann Chua on Tue 11th Jul 2006 02:27 UTC in reply to "The question no ask..."
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Because inter-operability is always a good thing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The question no ask...
by historyb on Tue 11th Jul 2006 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: The question no ask..."
historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

maybe not. The sooner MS goes the better

Reply Score: 1

Mono
by i386 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 01:13 UTC
i386
Member since:
2006-07-11

..doesn't exist?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mono
by ronaldst on Tue 11th Jul 2006 02:45 UTC in reply to "Mono"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

hahaha

Thats what I was looking for too.

How ZDnet stays in business is beyond me.

Reply Score: 2

Biased benchmark
by sbenitezb on Tue 11th Jul 2006 03:14 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

Mmmm... appears to be a little bias towards Windows here. Not impresive if you see eWeek is using Windows & ASP in their own site. Sure their labs made up this benchmark to fit their way.

This is a common pattern.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Biased benchmark
by bakanekov3 on Tue 11th Jul 2006 22:36 UTC in reply to "Biased benchmark"
bakanekov3 Member since:
2005-07-06

So all the sites using PHP must obviously be biased towards PHP, right? And those running Java must be biased towards Java? Oh wait, OSnews uses PHP, it must be biased!!1one

Or maybe that's what their developers prefered to use, or worse, forced to use.

Reply Score: 1

ASP vs ASP.NET
by Phuqker on Tue 11th Jul 2006 07:03 UTC
Phuqker
Member since:
2005-07-17

Interesting, but one thing that bothered my pedantic ass is "Active Server Pages." They talked about .NET and they talked about ASP, so I can only assume what they tested was ASP.NET and not ASP. The two technologies (ASP and ASP.NET) are so profoundly different that I dislike it when people confuse the two, particularly in a technical article.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Biased benchmark
by sbenitezb on Wed 12th Jul 2006 21:08 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

Well you said it, if you prefer PHP you are biased towards it.

Reply Score: 1