On April 30, 2003 10:36 pm, Mark Patterson wrote:

> Maybe the advantage of Linux will be lost with Win 2003 Server.
> According to this article, Win 2003 Server is faster than Linux:
>
> http://www.practical-tech.com/infrastructure/i04292003.htm
>
> But the point of that article is that a whole lot of stuff stops
> running on 2003. Does FB run on it?
>

Very often when people do performance analysis, you need to look at
whether this was done professionally, or not, and under what conditions.
For example if it was done professionally, then the results would
naturally be skewed towards what the people paying for it, wanted it to
say. Without reading the report, and possibly obtaining a lot of
information not in the report, then it can be tough to say.

For example, what daemons were running, was RH running in GUI mode or
console mode, was the computer using a lot of hardware that has immature
drivers, how were the machines tuned. Take a Linux box, tune it well
using hardware with mature drivers, and no GUI. How does it perform
against the same box running Win2003? Who knows, but more importantly
who really cares?

Most corporate purchases have a fixed budget, not a specific hardware
platform to run on. If I can put $4500 in licence fees into faster
hardware, or professional tuning, then who really cares whether on a
given platform it runs faster.

Paul S