Home > .NET > Open Source Versus .Net Stacks Open Source Versus .Net Stacks Thom Holwerda 2006-07-10 .NET 19 Comments 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. About The Author Thom Holwerda Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda 19 Comments 2006-07-10 9:11 pm Mitarai JBoss is still the king. 2006-07-10 9:42 pm k.g.stoyanov .NET .sux 2006-07-10 9:42 pm jcinacio 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? 2006-07-10 10:59 pm Milo_Hoffman 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. 2006-07-11 7:42 am kaiwai 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 2006-07-10 10:21 pm snowflake “.NET .sux” It is so good to read informed opinion on this topic. 2006-07-10 11:00 pm Milo_Hoffman 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. 2006-07-10 11:19 pm Nelson 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. 2006-07-10 10:57 pm Milo_Hoffman 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. 2006-07-11 12:31 am smitty 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 2006-07-10 11:31 pm historyb Why do they have to learn to play together? 2006-07-11 2:27 am Johann Chua Because inter-operability is always a good thing? 2006-07-11 3:20 pm historyb maybe not. The sooner MS goes the better 2006-07-11 1:13 am i386 ..doesn’t exist? 2006-07-11 2:45 am ronaldst hahaha Thats what I was looking for too. How ZDnet stays in business is beyond me. 2006-07-11 3:14 am sbenitezb 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. 2006-07-11 10:36 pm bakanekov3 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. 2006-07-11 7:03 am Phuqker 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. 2006-07-12 9:08 pm sbenitezb Well you said it, if you prefer PHP you are biased towards it.