--- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "William L. Thomson Jr."
<support@o...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 16:08, dantrams wrote:
> >
> > The comment that Windows is slower because it has a display is

also

> > somewhat contrived; I don't believe the Windows shell is even

running

> > if a user is not logged on (all that is displayed is a login

screen),

> > and even with the shell running, CPU utilization hovers around

1%, at

> > most.
>
> Yes, but it's still using memory, and other services are still

running.

> I guarantee it.
>
> No windows machine machine at idle will use the resources that a

stand

> alone linux server will.
>

Ok, I'll give on this point (that an idle Windows machine has more
services
running than a stripped Linux machine), but if we're talking about a
fraction of 1% of the CPU resources difference between the two OS's
at idle,
how does that translate into a significant performance gain for Linux?

> > At BorConn a few years ago, I asked the IB developers if there

was

> > any significant difference in speed between Solaris, Linux and
> > Windows on the same hardware -- they told me there wasn't.
>
> Were these the same ones who took IB open source and then brought it
> back. From what I understand most of the main people behind

InterBase

> and now Firebird are no longer with Borland.

Most or all of the IB engineers that were at Borland when Bill Karwin
and Paul Beach and the others resigned are still with Interbase
today (Charlie Caro, Siriam, etc).

>
> I would ask them. If you do not take their word then take no ones.

I did -- I gave you their response which you apparently disregard.

>
> By the way did the Borland guys show you any benchmarks to prove

their

> theory? Were they there to sell or push Borland products? They want

to

> sell products, and I doubt those were the ones actually making the
> product.
>

They did not show me any benchmarks either. They have an agenda (to
sell
Interbase regardless of the platform), as do you (to put down MS).
In
both cases, I take the claims with a grain of salt.

> > There may be valid advantages to run Linux instead of Windows as

a DB

> > server, but I think we need evidence and not just gut feeling.
>
> For me the evidence was in front of my face in real world apps. I

have

> nothing to gain by spending my time to convince you and others.

I run a mix of Windows and Linux in my office. My personal
experience is
mostly with Windows. I'm open to switching platforms based on a
measurable
gain; for my purposes, cost is not as much of an issue so the fact
that Linux
is free and runs in 32 MB is not significant.

Dan