“Is Server 2003 fast? Yes, it’s easily outdistances anything that Microsoft has ever shown us before. And, yes, it’s faster than Linux. It is stable? Based on about two weeks of testing with the final release, I would say that it’s also the most stable Microsoft operating system I’ve ever seen. But then again, I’m not asking it to do much besides basic file/print. The functionality servers that any business needs are largely not there. Ironically, this reminds me of the old claim against Linux that it didn’t have any applications. That was never true of Linux, but it is true of Server 2003.” Read the article at Practical-Tech by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols.
Windows Server 2003: Incompatible, Fast & Confusing
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“Oh please. I’m not disputing that Win2003 *may* be faster than Linux. What I am saying is that the article doesn’t present any concrete evidence to support this assertion.”
The article points you to Veritest’s benchmarks. What do you have to say about what Veritest’s benchmarks had to say? I’ve not seen many people claim that the conclusions presented by Veritest are not valid for any reason other than Microsoft funded the research.
“Also, Microsoft sponsored benchmarks have been proven to be biased several times in the past.”
This is just another ad hominem. Whether or not Microsoft has done this in the past is NOT a rational means of dismissing the Veritest benchmarks.
I could have stolen a bread roll from a shop, and you may have seen me with the bread roll afterwards, as I was being apprehended by the police. After spending a few days in prison, you might have seen me again with a bread roll. This doesn’t mean that I stole the bread roll again – I could have paid for it, and done everything by the book second time round. All history should do is make you extra suspicious – it seems some people are so suspicious of MS that they won’t even consider the possibility of honesty. And this is irrational.
Like I said, the Veritest benchmarks with methodology are available at their website, but there have been people running around here (not necessarily you – I forget who I was originally directing my criticisms at) who have basically been saying, “Veritest has Microsoft funding, therefore whatever Veritest says should be discounted”, regardless of the quality of the benchmarks themselves.
As someone who doesn’t really care that much (I don’t have anything to do with servers, I only have a passing interest), I can tell you that this is not at all a convincing way of convincing anyone thinking with a level head that the conclusions of the benchmarks are not valid.
Another thing I noted earlier was that the Microsoft funded Mindcraft benchmarks were also heavily criticised at the time, but after a second open benchmark was performed confirming the results, and the professionalism of Mindcraft, the Linux crowd went rather silent.
Dismissing a benchmark merely because it was funded by Microsoft is not a rational argument, that alone was my point.
“As for FUD, you’re the only one spreading it. So shut up.”
I’m not sure which FUD you think I have been spreading. All I have been saying is that argumentum ad hominem is not a rational way of countering an argument or statement that has been made. Maybe the Veritest benchmark is worthless. But those who dismiss the benchmark because Microsoft funded it have done absolutely nothing to go anywhere near supporting this hypothesis. Indeed it is those who employ argumentum ad hominem who are spreading FUD.
I guess I am naive expecting to be able to enjoy an honest discussion when Linux v Windows is involved.
I’ve not seen many people claim that the conclusions presented by Veritest are not valid for any reason other than Microsoft funded the research.
I am not a Linux guru but I have seen people complain that the Linux setup chosen was not the optimal one for this purpose and was slightly out of date. Whether these arguments are correct or not can be debated. However, the argument has been made that the comparison was not strictly-speaking fair.
A similar argument has also been made in this thread. Perhaps you missed it.
Yes, I have seen people making those comments as well, and I’m not in a position to be able to judge them one way or another. They could be right, but I’m just a passer by, I don’t know, and I’m not trying to refute what those people have said.
My bitch is with the people who have been posting one liners about Veritest being Microsoft funded, as if that means “case dismissed”. I’m sure you’ve seen more than just a few of those posts as well.
Well one thing is for certain. There will be a service pack for w2k3. One of the fixes will be the ability to run BizTalk, SQL and other programs. Unless they have newer versions for these software ready to deploy.
On another note. IIS6 is not installed by default yet IIS6 is part of the kernel? conflicting statement?? Checking the security patches from Microsoft you tend to note that most their patches are for IE and IIS. So why put these in the kernel??
Another funny note: If we go back about 3 years or so …. Windows was ussually chosen above Linux because of its ease of use. Apps were difficult to install on Linux. Today its difficult to install apps on w2k3 and Linux is a relative breeze.
I can compare the Linux debate to a situation I ran into years ago…
Some guy I worked with was blasting how “easy” MS products were.
Reminds me of this one story:
A kid in my neighborhood told me how easy it was to ride a bike, especially MY BIKE. He got on my bike, managed to mount, slightly pedal and go about a block on my bike then he fell off. Could my easy bike be at fault? Of course! He stomped around yelling at my bike, when really it was his own ego that screwed him up. He went back to the skateboard.
Moral to my story? Well both are means of transportation, and both have about the same learning curve. It’s kind of unfair to compare, and more accurate to get a total rookie in front of a computer to use and see how easy it is to use. It’s just relative to who uses it.
In terms of servers? I do a lot of small business consulting in Los Angeles, CA doing work for other’s clients and my own for 7yrs, never once have I seen a network without at least one MS station… SOMEWHERE. The point? MS isn’t going anywhere soon.
I’m not anti-anything, I just think if someone is going to complain about OS’s and what is superior they should look at what’s surrounding them and think about how they can make what they prefer better instead of pointing out how whats around them sucks.
You all take you job way to seriously. You must really fight with each other on what OS is better? Who fucking cares….some people use Linux….etc….some use Windows…..when it comes down to it….as long as you get paid every week…..whop the Fu#$ cares.
Is it really worth it to fight with each other….get outside…..get a girlfriend or boyfriend whatever it may be…..have a beer….and relax…..life it too short to be fighting over an OS…….if you don’t think so you should look at yourself in the mirror and be like WTF has happened to me.
later all.
Wow, is that..like..totally f##*@$ english and stuff?
considering I just learned english about 8 months ago I think I’m doing well.
you should watch what you say if you know whats good for you.
I agree with the spirit of your original message however I wouldn’t have used such colourful language.
As for what happens in real life, it is about time these anti-Windows fruit cakes actually differentiated between a server OS, their Windows experience – most likely using a 9x series on crappy hardware, and their so-called IT experience.
I’ve sold servers and maintained servers running Linux, FreeBSD and Windows 2000. Neither of them are 100% perfect, however, from my experience, I’ve seen Windows 2000 run for months and months without any issues.
It is interesting that when a person says, “oh, Windows crashes all the time”, they never actually look to see why it is happening. Things just don’t crash because of some “act of god”, they crash for a reason. If these so-called “IT guru’s” had half a brain, they would back-track and locate what is actually causing the issue. Every instance from my experience that the user has complained about a BSOD it is because they have a piece of hardware that is faulty. Yes, operating systems have built in tolerence, however, if the hardware is completely buggered of course weird things are going to happen.
By Yougenie (IP: —.ruh.isu.net.sa) – Posted on 2003-05-01 22:06:23
I think you obviously are ignorant towards the Linux business model. Why are you taking a look at Redhat Linux Advanced server and Windows 2k3?
———————–
I think you obviously are ignorant towards the topic flow of this thread. Why are you butting into a conversation I had with someone else who was trying to compare how Win2k3 Enterprise Server Edition was price-wise to some random iso he downloads for free. You want to compare price compare version of OS that are in the same league.
———————————–
re: dumb vincent
By Bas (IP: —.mxs.adsl.euronet.nl) – Posted on 2003-05-01 22:17:49
>> – Linux is not free. Last I checked RH AS costs 2499.
Last time i checked Linux felt under the GPL. You can built your own RH AS with free products. dumb ass!
>>- Linux cannot power small, medium, or large size business
>> for about 60 dollars a box.
No even cheaper you are right. I use a PI 133 mhz thats is a
proxy,dns,firewall and dhcp server…
>>I really don’t want you using Apples
I hope you never open a xterm on your Apple, such a waste..
———————————————-
Stupid Bas,
So if they build it themselves, the have to also support it themselves. Must be cheap to have an IT dept now a days huh? Ass.
BTW, I’d like to see you run say Yahoo! on your P-133. Don’t think thats going to happen. You really ought to wake up. Businesses don’t want to be their own software designers. Nor do they want to “try” to run all their services on the cheapest ad hoc random pieces of hardware they can find. (I.E. your p-133).
Oh and finally, just to annoy you, I already use the Terminal quite a lot – I and prefer csh over bash any day.