From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 04:13:47 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKFk-0005Z6-27; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:13:44 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 04:33:51 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKZ9-0007Ms-9J; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:33:47 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 04:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 04:53:44 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKsQ-00003i-85; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:53:42 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 04:53:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 05:19:17 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVLH7-0006jk-Hg; Tue, 10 May 2005 05:19:13 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 05:18:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 05:50:03 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVLkv-0000Er-IA; Tue, 10 May 2005 05:50:01 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 05:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 06:15:05 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVM99-00074E-6v; Tue, 10 May 2005 06:15:03 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 06:14:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 06:32:18 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVMPd-0008Ti-BH; Tue, 10 May 2005 06:32:05 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 06:31:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 07:42:43 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVNVl-0001mR-V2; Tue, 10 May 2005 07:42:30 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 07:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 09:17:02 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVOzD-0003bR-KW; Tue, 10 May 2005 09:16:59 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 09:16:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 11:37:51 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVRBU-0004Hs-Un; Tue, 10 May 2005 11:37:48 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 11:36:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 15:09:01 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVUTr-0004a6-Vi; Tue, 10 May 2005 15:09:00 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 15:07:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Tue May 10 20:36:00 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVZaG-0004ve-BK; Tue, 10 May 2005 20:35:56 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Tue, 10 May 2005 20:34:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Wed May 11 02:46:53 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVfND-0008Uj-8Q; Wed, 11 May 2005 02:46:51 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Wed, 11 May 2005 02:45:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Wed May 11 08:59:31 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVlBn-00026A-8U; Wed, 11 May 2005 08:59:27 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Wed, 11 May 2005 08:58:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DVKEL-0005YR-Vs for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Tue, 10 May 2005 04:12:18 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.245.7.45.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.245.7.45] helo=ldd.net) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DVKEG-0002Rw-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Mon, 09 May 2005 19:12:13 -0700 Message-ID: <42800ED5.8040503@ldd.net> Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:31:01 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows 2003 Really Does Outperform Linux! HUMORIX WORLD HEADQUARTERS -- For years, the Blartner Group and various other prestigious research firms have issued benchmarks claiming that Linux is inferior to Windows. Naturally, we at Humorix have always been skeptical. But while scraping the bottom of the barrel for story ideas last week, we decided to see if we could duplicate any of these benchmarks on our own. It turned out to be a lot harder than we thought, but we finally concocted a scenario in which Windows outshines Linux. First, the Humorix Vast Research Center & Basement of Doom(tm) wanted to try a fair, head-to-head matchup between two computers with identical specs. Obviously, a leading-edge company such as Blartner would immediately skip this worthless step in one of their benchmarks, but we wanted to cover all of our bases. Using every measurement tool we could find, the machine running the latest version of Red Hat and Apache simply outperformed the machine running the latest service pack of Windows and IIS. Even after tweaking the settings to handicap Linux -- such as downgrading to an unstable 2.1 kernel -- we still couldn't make Windows look good. Next, we installed our secret weapon on the Linux box: killrandom(3). Every few seconds, this daemon randomly picks a victim process to kill, thereby simulating the Windows experience. Even with killrandom running at full blast, the Linux machine still achieved respectable performance. Frustrated by our lack of success, we finally moved to the "nuclear option": setting the number of allowed IIS and Apache users to zero. We then performed a simulation of the Slashdot Effect on both machines. The Windows machine was able to serve an amazing 2179 "Server Too Busy" error messages in one second. Meanwhile, Linux and Apache only managed to generate a meager 1673 such error pages. "Windows is very good at doing nothing fast," joked one of the Humorix lab assistants during the benchmark study/keg party. Additional research also showed that Windows and IIS were able to return 42% more 404 File Not Found errors than Linux and Apache in the same time period. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve the same success when serving pages with a status code of 200. Nevertheless, the staff of Humorix has conclusively demonstrated that Windows is capable of outperforming Linux. So, Microsoft, when do we get our bribe... er, research grant? -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Sun May 15 02:07:41 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DX6fP-0000Af-RX; Sun, 15 May 2005 02:07:35 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Sun, 15 May 2005 02:06:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.181]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DX0ml-0001gA-Tu for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 19:50:48 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.244.159.252.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.244.159.252] helo=thecaperock.com) by epic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DX0mh-0002vN-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 10:50:44 -0700 Message-ID: <428638E2.3050200@thecaperock.com> Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 12:44:02 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Registrygate Coverup Revealed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@thecaperock.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Registrygate Coverup Revealed By Michele Petrovsky, petrovsky.m [at] comcast [dot] net REDMOND, WA -- The Humorix Vast Spy Network(tm) has just received word of the most shocking coverup by Microsoft to hit our radar since last week. An internal Microsoft memo, discovered taped to the inside of a Papa John's pizza box (double cheese, double pepperoni, and mushroom), reveals a truth that Linux-heads and other intelligent lifeforms have long suspected: The Windows Registry doesn't exist. There is no organized, tiered, manageable representation of Windows' resources and environment. There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- at the heart of Windows. The memo in question reveals the ugly truth that Microsoft has kept hidden for over a decade. Late in 1994, during the "still alpha after all these years" phase of Windows 95 development, a clandestine operator identified only as the Tuxinator, who was at that time employed as a Rigged Demo Development Engineer Architect in the 32-Bits-or-Bust Bureau at Microsoft, planted a single insidious command into the Stamp-'Em-Out-o-matic CD burner that Redmond then used to produce all distributions of its nascent OS. The details of that command, shocking though they are, make up only the shell of this plot. At its kernel is an even more appalling, and even more closely guarded, instruction set. The command that made Windows what it is today, the memo reveals, is: rm -f registry.txt 2 >> /dev/null The even uglier (or more beautiful, depending on your point of view) truth? The Tuxinator, during his last full day of MicroSerfdom, executed this command on a 386 running Slackware 0.01. That, of course, is the secret that Microsoft doesn't want you to go to today -- that it used Linux as its development platform, and switched R&D to Windows only after the Tuxinator's inspired hack. Which, when you think about it, explains a lot. -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/ From humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Sun May 15 20:14:37 2005 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=humbolt) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DXNdL-0002oc-T5; Sun, 15 May 2005 20:14:35 +0200 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list humorix); Sun, 15 May 2005 20:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.182]) by humbolt.nl.linux.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1DXNbv-0002jj-JU for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 20:13:07 +0200 Received: from dialup-4.244.123.103.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net ([4.244.123.103] helo=ldd.net) by sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DXNbr-0003SD-00 for humorix@mail.nl.linux.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 11:13:04 -0700 Message-ID: <428757C5.3000005@ldd.net> Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 09:08:05 -0500 From: James Baughn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20031015 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: humorix@mail.nl.linux.org Subject: [humorix] Windows vs. Linux: An Unbiased Review Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on humbolt.nl.linux.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_99, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Approved-By: jbaughn@ldd.net X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org Errors-to: humorix-bounce@nl.linux.org X-original-sender: jbaughn@ldd.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: humorix-l@nl.linux.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: humorix Windows vs. Linux: An Unbiased Review A Review by Cody "EEDOK" Hollis-Perdue mr [dot] eedok [at] gmail [dot] com After hearing all of the hype about Linux, I decided to give it a try. That was my first mistake. I soon realized that Linux has more flavors than you can shake a stick at. I asked a computer savvy friend which was best, and he chuckled and said "Try OpenBSD." He told me that "OpenBSD is the most secure operating system that civilians can legally use," so I decided to install it and see how it compared with Windows. * ACQUISITION: To get OpenBSD, I had to go to their website and choose between so many disks. I eventually settled on the 3.6 ISO and burned it to a CD. The whole time I felt like a dirty criminal. Windows, on the other hand, was much less painful, as there were only two versions to choose from: Windows XP Home Cheapskate Edition and Windows XP Professional Enhanced Deluxe Plus! Edition. I chose smartly and took the Professional Edition, paying the cashier only $400 for it. The process was simple and I left the store feeling like an upstanding citizen. Winner: Windows * INSTALLATION: I'll start with Windows. To put Windows on your computer is relatively straightforward: You hit ENTER a few times to agree to wipe out your existing data and sell your soul. Then you enter your serial number, make a typo, and have to try again about 5-6 times. Later, the install will suddenly crash without explanation and you repeat the process. Overall, it takes only about 3 hours. If Windows had a title screen before the install, it would be much like OpenBSD 3.6: Welcome to Hell on Earth. The installation lures you into thinking all is going well until it hits you with OpenBSD's most reliable security method: the Dumb Sysadmin Prevention System. In short, OpenBSD's install is so hard that you need to be genius to complete it, thus eliminating the cause of the majority of security issues -- dumb sysadmins. I must say it works rather well. The OpenBSD install seems simple at first. But after blindly hitting ENTER a few dozen times, you reach fdisk. What is fdisk, you ask? At first glance, it looks a tool that allows you to preserve some of your hard drive's data, while making it possible to have multiple operating systems co-exist peacefully. Hardly. The ugly truth is that fdisk is a hell-spawned minion that will ravage your brain, cause general mayhem, and make you want to replace the word "fuck" with "fdisk" as the F-word of choice in your cursing vocabulary. Once through the complete hell of fdisk, you think the madness is over. Not so fast. Next comes the devil himself known as disklabel, to wreak even more havoc on your puny existence. This program serves no purpose other than to cause general confusion while suddenly forcing your installation to fail (although, unlink Windows, it does provide a reason for the failure). If, by some miracle, you are able to emerge intact from fdisk and disklabel, the rest of the install is a piece of cake -- but you'll never be the same again. Winner: Windows * FIRST BOOT: During the Windows first boot, you are prompted to set up things like networking, automatic updates and such, which is all just a ploy to send your personal information to Microsoft. Soon you reach an appealing desktop environment, designed by blind children (God bless Microsoft for allowing disabled children the opportunity to work on their products). The OpenBSD first boot takes you to a cold black-and-white command line, with no support for a mouse or windows. (Apparently, you can obtain an archaic desktop by using something called "X". Or so the rumor goes.) Winner: Windows * BOOTUP SPEED: OpenBSD boots up really quickly. In fact, it's so fast I can't get up and grab a cup of coffee before it finishes. Windows, however, loads slow enough to do this... and I really like my coffee. Winner: Windows * INCLUDED PROGRAMS - Web browser: OpenBSD comes with a text based browser called lynx, which is limited in functionality. Windows comes with Internet Explorer. Let's face it: Internet Explorer is a hunk of crap. Winner: OpenBSD - Text editor: Windows comes with Notepad, a great easy-to-use text editor. So what if the file size is limited to 32 KB? That's all you need. OpenBSD comes with vi, another hell-spawned weapon of evil which causes mayhem and kills kittens every time a user attempts to do something productive with it. Using vi is about as pleasant as a trip to the dentist for back-to-back root canals, without anesthetics. It should come as no surprise that vi is part of OpenBSD's Dumb Sysadmin Prevention System, making it nearly impossible for mortals to cause damage by recklessly editing system configuration files. Winner: Windows - Graphics editing: Windows comes with Paint, the almighty graphic editors of the graphics gods and goddesses. Enough said. Winner: Windows - Multimedia: Windows has Windows Movie Maker, Windows Sound recorder, Windows Media Player and more. OpenBSD has ???? and ????. It isn't very functional at doing anything. Winner: Windows - Games: Windows comes with top quality games, such as Solitaire and Minesweeper, whereas OpenBSD comes with things like fortune, banner and hack. Winner: Too close to call * UPTIME: My Windows computer stays on until I go to bed, when I shut it off. My OpenBSD box stays on for days and days on end, because I can't figure out how to turn the damn thing off! Winner: Windows * OVERALL: After my intensive testing of one install of OpenBSD, I can conclude without a doubt that Linux is not ready for the desktop. Maybe if they added some blush or other cosmetics, it might fare better. Everyone should know that Windows is the only real operating system out there and will be the only one to gain acceptance from anyone. Now, if only Internet Explorer went through the same quality control as the other programs like Paint and Solitaire... [Editor's Note: The author is not affiliated with Sys-Con.] -- Humorix: Linux and Open Source(nontm) on a lighter note Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/humorix/ Web site: http://www.i-want-a-website.com/about-linux/