Red Hat/Apache Slower Than Windows Server 2003? 628
phantomfive writes "In a recent test by a company called Veritest, Windows 2003 web server performs up to 300% higher throughput than Red Hat Linux running with Apache. Veritest used webbench to do there testing. Since the test was commisioned by Microsoft, is this just more FUD from a company with a long history? Or are the results valid this time? The study can be found here."
Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wish, just ONCE that somebody would do a fair evaluation, without an agenda to forward. But I guess that'll never happen. We all have bias...but surely we could at least attempt to get above that?
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so. If it were, there would be far less support for Open Source projects. Fortunately, as FOSS has demonstrated, large numbers of human beings are quite capable of being motivated by interesting problems and the knowledge that thier work will benefit everyone else.
Be cynical if you like, but every day you use Linux or Open Office; every day you see a website served by Apache; know that it's because some people value contribution to society enough to donate their time and creative energies.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
Surprisingly (controversially?) enough, some EULAs forbid public criticism - I wonder if such clauses would ever be found valid in court, I seriously hope not - judges should declare void in whole any EULA that includes any anticonstitutional demands.
Now that I think about it, I seem to remember that M$ used to include a non-comparison clause in many of its products' EULAs, this "licensed comparison" tells me it probably still does.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:4, Funny)
I have a different approach. (Score:4, Interesting)
#1. Each team gets X dollars and no restrictions on what it can buy. After all, that should be how businesses run their shops. We aren't comparing hardware, but total systems.
#2. Each team must purchase the software off the shelf.
#3. No team is allowed to recompile anything or to use any drivers, etc not available from a public server for the past 12 months. This might sound like a bad deal for Linux, but it will also stop Microsoft from re-writing the drivers. Again, most companies do not have access to that level of expertise so that won't be allowed.
#4. Each tweak or configuration setting must be documented and a reference for it shown on a public website or manual. Again, businesses only know what they can read.
#5. At the end of the competition, the other teams will critique each team's configuration. We've all seen the "tests" where Windows is running on a RAID 0 array which is beyond stupid for real production work.
That way, each team can deploy the best system they can think of for the test. I'm sure you all remember MindCraft and their massive single server "test" for webservers when anyone else would have run multiple cheaper servers and gotten higher throughput.
So, a test in run and the Windows team buys the biggest single system they can afford for the money. While the Linux team fields a dozen boxes booting from CD and one storage box.
Which system would be "better"?
Which system would be faster? Would that be the same answer under different loads?
Which system would be easier to maintain?
Which system would have higher uptime?
Which system would be easier to scale up?
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
This report was written in April 2003, according to the first page. They used the most recent version of RedHat available to them.
This report may be two years out of date, but I can't see any signs of bias in its production.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
Strange, they have a press release [lionbridge.com] on their website dated April 6, 2005 about the report being commissioned by Microsoft. Either Microsoft got ripped off by recycling an old report, or one of those dates is wrong.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Informative)
Different report. That press release talks about Windows Server 2003 vs. RHEL 3.0 -- Microsoft must have asked them to produce a newer version of the report
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Interesting)
Posted by Zonk on Saturday May 07, @06:20
from the who-doesn't-love-some-delicious-fud dept.
phantomfive writes "In a recent test by a company called Veritest, Windows 2003 web server performs up to 300% higher throughput than Red Hat Linux running with Apache. Veritest used webbench to do there testing. Since the test was commisioned by Microsoft, is this just more FUD from a company with a long history? Or are the results
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3)
like noatime (Score:4, Informative)
noatime disables the update of the "last accesS" field of files, and improves the performance a lot for some workloads. If you check the latest article about the kernel.org servers, they found that they reduced the system load to the half by just using this option
This analisys is biased. Who cares, anyway?
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway here is the trick. First off IIS used ASP which does not use a mod interface like cgi scripts which means the engine can run in IIS itself. This makes IIS very fast.
We have the same thing as ASP in the FOSS world called PHP. Zend is fast because the engine also runs in the same space as apache.
Or I have seen in older 1999 benchmarks that MS will just use a static html to show how fast there platform is and ignore
Figures (Score:3, Informative)
They shut off access logging in IIS. As far as I could see, they left logging on for Red Hat. This means that lots of disk writes were being generated on Linux but not on Windows. As http request volume goes up in their tests, the RAID write-cache could eventually fill up (only under Linux), at which point the webserver starts blocking while waiting for disk I/O to complete.
Figures that right after submitting this I see that they turned off access logging in Apache. Doh!
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Funny)
I have the ideal road for the test in mind.
Now all I need is for someone to loan me a Formula 1 race car for the test.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:4, Funny)
Well BAR Honda have a couple they won't be needing for a few weeks [formula1.com]... Perhaps you should ask them.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
sure there's a chance I'm wrong, but for me weighing the CHANCE of better performance from Windows against the CERTAINTY that they have lied about their product (or been completely incompetant) is a no-brainer.
and that's not considering costs (remember guys, using linux always requires an old, slow mainframe to be factored into the TOC!)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
I've reached the point where I completely ignore all the studies and benchmarks like this, from both sides. It is, quite simply, far too easy to set the constraints and metrics up so as to make sure you come out ahead. What's worse, it has become absolutely standard practice to do so. Studies have become completely useless because you can guarantee that they've been cooked one way or another.
Jedidiah.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Apache is the right server for static pages and simple CGIs though. It has so many modules and settings that the code path from filesystem to socket has to be much longer than necessary and longer than the feature-limited competition. They should try a simple server li
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to load any of those modules if you don't want to. Thereby simplifying the code path...
That's why they choose to make them modules rather than baking them into the application itself.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Insightful)
I like it. (Score:3, Funny)
Of course this is completely irrelevant to real world usage scenarios. What we need is another data point from the other end of the spectrum. It can be like one of those reality shows. You rope four teams of ordinary folk right of the street, hand each team identical base (no OS) servers, only each team gets a different operating system
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Each would team would get(windows and linux):
$5,000 in cash with which to buy hardware and software. All purchases must carry a receipt and all parts must run to spec. No overclocking.
Garunteed 5 9's power.
Each Team's computer will be housed in the same independant facility maintained by Sponsor.
The contest can last no longer than a year. Each team will be able to maintain their own server throughout the competition.
The scoring will be simple. You won't lose points for having down time. Your score is simply the number server pages(the kind to be determined) you've properly served before your first moment of downtime. So if your server crashes before the year is over, the number of pages served up to that point is your score.
Maybe someone has an idea for what a good server is to run.
Re:I like it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you could be dealing with luck. You happen to get a bad batch of RAM and your server crashes? Sucks for you. The other guy wins. Somebody decides to get the other team to win via DDOS? Sucks. Other team wins. Random lightening strike? You see the problem?
Plus it makes stability the ultimate concern rather than (possibly) throughput, which is clearly a benchmark in favor of Linux, since the OS itself is simply better designed (if for no other reason than because they r
not identical servers, identical BUDGETS (Score:3, Insightful)
The budget has to buy software, hardware and setup labor.
This eliminates the problem of "that hardware favors Microsoft" or "that team had better engineers". It all comes down to money and value.
Of course the competition would need to state up f
Re:You are exactly right !! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
I remember installing CentOS-3, based on RHEL3, on a server and having terribly slow disk performance with my raid adaptor. Running "yum update" to get the current patches yielded about a 10x speedup. Yet the Windows server gets a dozen or so undocumented registry tweaks.
In the SSL comparison, they're using the fastest (though slightly less secure) choice of encryption algorithms in IIS and the slowest in Apache. They're comparing RC4+MD5 to 3DES+SHA1.
And they decided to include ISAPI in the benchmarks without including the apache equivalent. All they test in apache is CGI. So again it's IIS's fastest option versus Apache's slowest option.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
1) The algorithms used in SSL are listed on page 33 of the pdf linked to. Both linux setups use 3DES+SHA1 and windows uses RC4+MD5 (as parent said).
2) This [hn.edu.cn] page (found via google) has a table comparing ciphers about 2/3 of the way down. RC4 appears to be about 2-3 times faster than 3DES.
3) This [ottawa.on.ca] email contains a comparison between MD5 and SHA1. MD5 appears to be 2.5 - 5 times faster than SHA1.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as someone who has quite some experience in cryptographic algorithms, I back up parent and grand parent. The benchmark is completely biased in that Veritest really ends up comparing 3DES+SHA1 with RC4+MD5. This unacceptable, I invite slashdoters to complain to Veritest:
Veritest1001 Aviation Parkway, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel 919-380-2800
Fax 919-380-2899
E-Mail: info@veritest.com
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Informative)
openssl speed rc4 md5 des-ede3 sha1
(Get OpenSSL here [shininglightpro.com] if you are using Windows). You will see that the first two algorithms are much faster, especially for larger blocks.
I say this shootout is rigged.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Informative)
I found another flaw on that same page.
VeriTest also write that Windows 2003 was using RSA key exchange and Red Hat was using Diffie-Hellman (DH).
But DH [wikipedia.org] is vulnerable to a Man-in-the-Middle attack so SSL uses RSA to perform the authentication.
So Red Hat is doing RSA and DH, whereas Windows is doing only RSA!
Using
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a microsft OS user by nature. I switched to using Apache on my Windows server because of features it lacked, and now I'm never turning back.
"I am Darkain... and I'm a coder"
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Any other options will mean no study and no money.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if the automobile industry did it?
-b
Re:Just like the samba benchmark (Score:4, Insightful)
Three hundred percent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:2)
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been in IT for about 17 years. I've seen MS destroy "the little guy" time and time again, with thier power and yet with all that power, money and developer base, deliver garbage year after year, to this day.
Then I compare them with offerings like Mac OS X, the BSD's and Linux and wonder, how on Earth someone can say, "I like Microsoft".
Seriously now, what is there to like about them?
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:3, Funny)
Well paid microsoft employee.
Re:Three hundred percent? (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people would say "if you don't like that, don't use MS spanners". Fine. Done deal! :)
Just a little way down the metaphorical road, there's a shop that sells spanners at a fraction of the price that MS does. They may not be as pretty, and for some jobs they aren't quite as exact - but they've been getting better for years and the difference is scarcely noticeable these days. And if you can do without the fancy packaging, you can go online and get that same tool free..
And it's then yours to use legally, wherever and however you wish - so long as you don't try and claim you designed it.
So the question is: by what criteria do you evaluate best? None free software, security holes, forced upgrades... with many people these things carry a hefty negative.
Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Informative)
However, this might be more an effect of the underlying operating system than the actual server program. I haven't seen a comparison of Win32 Apache versus IIS, so I don't know.
Re:Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:2)
s/press release/troll
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:5, Insightful)
The only benchmark by MS which I might trust is one saying Windows is slower and/or worse than Linux. Somehow, I never saw any of those.
objectively? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's learned behavior. We've seen so many fact-warping MS-sponsored studies, astroturfing campaigns, dissembling regarding the nature of their monopoly, and other aggressive PR that it's no wonder people are more than a littl
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:4, Interesting)
a) they use a slower kind of encryption on the apache side, which makes apache seem slower.
b) they use a 2003 version of Red Hat with a 2.6 kernal whereas Linux is now up to a newer version.
c) they make other tuning decisions for the RH they do use in order to slow it down, and to speed Microsoft up.
In short, the test is rigged so that MS wins and Linux loses. It is that simple.
Re:"...the test was commisioned by Microsoft" (Score:3, Informative)
Trolls used to put long strings in which would stretch the page way over.
Learn how to use HTML links; like ImmortalFumbles [pandora.be] that, which you code like
<a href="http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physi cs/ImmortalFumbles.html">ImmortalFumbles</a>
(Slashdot will iinsert spaces in this of course.)
Also, your original URL had a trailing
*ahem* (Score:2, Informative)
Ahem... from the Article (Score:5, Informative)
At least they're up-front about it these days.
Other Veritest-Microsoft fun:
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/fact
http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/veritest.as
In short, this is a company paid by Microsoft to make reports/whitepapers that make Microsoft look good. Nothing wrong with that as long as everyone's aware
Exactly what did the test CGI with? (Score:2, Insightful)
I run both at work (Score:2, Interesting)
It's sad. If the same people writing 2k3 were writing products like Exchange, we wouldn't have a need for the Linux server.
IIS is always faster. (Score:5, Funny)
Faster to get rooted.
Faster to get used as a warez server.
Nothing new here.
Re:IIS is always faster. (Score:2, Funny)
But why would you believe that? I mean it's not like it's easy to find out..
Re:IIS is always faster. (Score:5, Informative)
You're shooting for a Funny mod, right? The biggest "advancement" in IIS 6 is that instead of IIS 5.X that that ran 100% in user-mode, IIS 6.X runs as a kernel module [certcities.com]
Which is a cute trick for gaining performance at the expense of security (kinda like the various Linux kernel-web-servers like khttpd)."But why would you believe that? I mean it's not like it's easy to find out.."
Indeed you are correct that it's not easy to find out. Leading security sites all report that it is NOT more secure as you allege. For example, the current rating of IIS 6report from Secunia, (one of the top couple security companies [slashdot.org] as opposed to merely your anecdotal rumor:
In contrast, Apache 2.X has the much better rating: "Apache 2.0.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Less critical"Re:IIS is always faster. (Score:3, Informative)
See so theres more to securing your box than turning off one tool, you have to know how to look up the issues which you can do easly on Apache's site right here: http://httpd.apache.org/bug_report.html [apache.org] and its linked right o
Not just faster, lower cost of 0wnersh1p too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Fair testing... (Score:2, Informative)
Swings and roundabouts (Score:5, Funny)
One question... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Why did they bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
Is Apache/Linux the "end-all-be-all, there is nothing that can be better so let's stop trying" type of quality?
Are the guys who work at Microsoft a bunch of idiots that anyone can out-program?
I'm sure IIS is better at some things, maybe more things, maybe less.
Who cares! I don't think stats like these are why anyone chooses Apache/Linux over IIS/Windows.
Re:Let's be reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's be reasonable (Score:4, Informative)
Apache was never optimized for serving lots of small, static files so I can easily believe it falling behind in some benchmarks, but not 300%.
It doesn't take much computer to saturate a lot of bandwidth, which is why most people don't care, but big sites will often have a Zeus (or similar) server set up for serving images precisely because Apache isn't as good for that. But you've got to be huge before you get to that point.
Dynamic content put Apache where it is. It has the support, the tools, the libraries, and the widespread expertise to do dynamic content pretty damn well. It's not better than everyone at everything there either, but it's a very good solution for most cases.
Re:Let's be reasonable (Score:4, Informative)
It could be. However, this test is severely flawed in that they performed registry level optimisations to the Windows setup, yet equivalent optimisations that are well documented for Linux were not performed. Therefore, we don't know.
Re:Let's be reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Use identical hardware...
2. Use the default un-optimized settings...
3. Hand tune using experts on the software under test...
4. Rerun the identical tests...
5. Ensure that clients used to test server software are identically configured.
That would be being reasonable...
Heavy Sigh (Score:2)
Re:Heavy Sigh (Score:2)
And now, ladies and gentlemen... (Score:3, Funny)
Config:
Linux: Latest Redhat running on Opteron 4GHz
Windows: Windows 3.1 running on a Pentium 100.
And the winner is...?[/sarcasm]
To para(dy)-phrase (Score:5, Funny)
This reliable Expensive test paid for by Microsoft to show how much better windows 2003 server is(the payment came with a clause stating such).
News? (Score:2)
While sheer performance isn't really what sells RHEL boxes, I'd be very interested to see a proper test of Win2k3 vs RHEL 4 on identical hardware...
This is new? (Score:5, Informative)
Yester-year's News Today! (Score:5, Funny)
Sheesh -- with such outdated news, I almost felt like I was reading the newspaper or something.
Old test by veritest was flawed. Linuxworld (Score:5, Interesting)
What about Norton? (Score:3, Insightful)
This bull reminds me of those advertisements for weight loss.
BEFORE................AFTER
Stick stomach out....Suck stomach in
White......................Tanned
No cosmetics..........New facial
Front shot...............Side shot
Grubby clothes........New fashions
My personal imperical data..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I use tvlistings2.zap2it.com which has ASP, and while I think they've gotten far better in the recent past, even 4 or 5 months ago, it would routinely lose my channel line up and if I'd try to log in to reset the cookie it would claim my login account doesn't exist. I'd follow their suggestion and try recreating the account and it said it was already in use. But I can't log in because it doesn't exist, but I can't recreate it because it already exists, but I can't log in because it doesn't exist.......
Anyway, I notice time and time again how sites that churn out ASP pages have typically slower response times compared to ones that have PHP or straight static HTML. For anyone who wonders how I determine that, I go to load a web page, and I wait for it to load. If it starts taking a while and I mean a really long while, I look at the URL and more often than not, I'll see it has a reference to an ASP. Maybe the "oh it's another one of those stupid IIS servers" makes it stick out in my mind more than "wait, this one is slow. I don't really know what's running it but it's crap", but if I had to put money on it, I'd say the IIS servers are generally slower.
I don't run a web server, I could, but I don't. Managing web servers would not be a job I'd want to do. Almost all of my web server experience is on the visitor side and without any kind of overtly blatant bias from any sources (like the kind of "windows crashes therefore windows is evil and anything dealing with windows is also evil") to affect my opinion, I'd have to say that I personally experience a more significant lack of performance and reliability visiting web sites that run IIS than other sites that don't appear to run it. So to me, a report like this is microsoft's ever so polite way of trying to stick an uncomfortably large tube up my ass and then proceeding to blow smoke through the opening.
Let's settle this for once and for all (Score:5, Insightful)
People keep saying, 'When are we going to get a real benchmark?" Well, why don't we roll our own? Seriously.
Here's my idea:
Slashdot has strong zealot^H^H^H^H^H^Hsupporters for both Microsoft and Linux. Let's have a contest to select the best qualified from each side, have them work in teams on identical hardware. Let them make any changes, tweaks or optimisations they can dream up. Then, let 'em rip.
I'm dead serious about this, by the way. Let's get off this endless roundabout and for once make a clear comparison.
For bonus points, once the first contest is finished, we should take the two servers, leave them exposed to the Internet and see which one gets 0wned first. 8^)
Re:Let's settle this for once and for all (Score:3, Funny)
Unfair comparison, CGI vs. ISAPI (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft argue that Apache is slower because CGI is slower. They say that it needs to spawn a new process for each request, which is correct.
But how many years have mod_perl and mod_php been around now? Does anyone actually use CGI on Apache this decade?
Perhaps a more fair comparison would have compared CGI on IIS with CGI on Apache. And I'm pretty sure that for various reasons (spawning processes is slower on Win32 than on Linux) IIS would lose horribly.
Stop whining and help speed up Apache! (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone publishes a benchmark about your software, and finds out your software does not perform well, don't whine, don't behave like a child, don't start kicking and screaming, don't tear his hair out. Behave professionally.
Good starting points:
Let me summarize what I think about their test. First of all, I believe their numbers. Apache sucks performance-wise, in particular if you run a busy site with dynamic content. That's why people are using squid in local accelerator mode before Apache. This is a good indication that some performance tuning is in order. But no, people rather wait for Microsoft to find out and then they start thinking about fixing it.
If this test was meant to be unfair FUD, they would not have tested TUX, just Apache.
But now to my questions above:
Question 1: is their setup relevant?
No. Sites who answer more than 5000 requests per second are not using a single web server, they are using a load balancer and a cluster.
Question 2: Can their numbers possibly be true?
The point I find least believable is that IIS had better CGI performance than Apache. Creating a process is really slow on Windows. Their result should be independently verified.
Question 3: What weak spots about the competition does their test reveal?
They did not test a single-CPU webserver (which is what almost everyone is using).
They did not test FastCGI or APAPI dynamic web pages.
So if we wanted to do a more balanced review, we would look at these.
Question 4: What can we do to improve the results.
Document APAPI better, I'd say. Almost nobody is writing their dynamic web page modules with APAPI.
Everyone is using PHP or mod_perl. Benchmark Apache in real-world scenarios. Document best practices.
Does the test setup matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to applaud the way you take a positive stance and look at how apache can be improved. I expect efforts in that direction form an ongoing part of apache development, but the positive attitude is appreciated. It's just a bit sad that your post reads as an endorsemnt of a blatant piece of paid-for propaganda
more benchmarks, apache really is slow (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if these numbers are trustworthy, but at least its another datapoint.
The red flag (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only one way to get a fair test.... (Score:3, Interesting)
This way, each side may tweak their setup to the max, using all specialized knowledge, to get maximum performance. Since each side may run the optimal hardware configuration (given price restrictions), the practice of hobbling the other side by picking ill-supported hardware is prevented.
This test best conforms to the sort of thing an end user would do - pick the best bang for the buck for the budget and task at hand.
Now, this might result in a dual Itanium server (Windows) being benchmarked against a dual Power server (Linux) (or some other comparison), but that is "fair" in that both sides are running on the same COST hardware.
True, each side might "release" a new (service pack|set of RPMs) for the purposes of the test, but as long as those releases are publicly available, who cares? We all benefit from the improvement of the code.
What would it cost for Google to do this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone do the math to see what that would cost.
It's conventional wisdom that Google has about 100,000 servers. If google went with Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition (which costs $3999 [microsoft.com]) That would cost google about half a billion dollars.
Extending the logic to use SQL Server Enterprise Edition as their search database, at $25000/server the price would go up to about $2.5 Billion.
Every CEO likes to be like Google and likes talking about numbers like b
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Rejuvenate" means "renew, appear to grow younger". Did you mean "become jubilant"?
I don't become jubilant when anybody's security flaw is exposed. In the case of Open Source apps, patches are generally available in a couple of days.
> 2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.
No, just the ones that misstate the facts or are attempts at FUD.
> 3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.
Um, Linux supports all my hardware just great.
> 4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.
> I run Linux, Windows, and Solaris machines. I use OpenOffice.org and so have no need for Microsoft Office. But if I did, I could run it using WINE, which I can get for free. Unlike MS Office.
> 5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.
I use Linux *professionally* on the desktop.
> 6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?
Sounds like there's a need for some consciousness-raising, then. Alothugh I've noticed that more and more people -- even Joe Sixpack types -- don't go glassy-eyed when Linux is mentioned these days.
> 7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
I don't have any problems printing from Linux.
> 8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts, and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
Well, it did take me about 30 seconds to learn how to type "./configure - make - make install - make clean". Or if I'm feeling lazy, I can just double-click an RPM file icon in Konqueror.
> 9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.
Sorry, mate, you're talking to someone who does just that for a living.
> 10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.
I honestly don't know about that. But I do know that lots of movies' special effects are being generated these days using Linux-powered render farms.
> 11. You cannot admit that linux sucks when it comes for gaming/home entertainment or education.
There are tonnes of educational apps available for Linux -- many of them come with commercial distros. There are still more on the Net. As for games -- if I want to play games, I'll buy an X-Box.
> 12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.
Over the years, I've used and administered Windows 3.1/95/98/Me/2000 and have no problems doing so. But after just 6 months, I can install, configure, and administer a Linux machine faster and more reliably.
> 13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.
Pointing and clicking has its place. But there are lots of things that are actually easier via a command line. For instance, I'd much rather run a MySQL server that way than use the GUI tools. Nice thing about Linux and Open Source apps in general is that you've a choice in the matter. If you don't like the command line, don't use the bloody thing.
> 14. Nothing will get past that shit that fills your head, you will not admit to any facts.
Can't respond to an assertion that's semantically nil, sorry.
> 15. Yo
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardware support maybe more complete on the x86 platform but that's it. Linux has far superior hardware support over all.
would like to see more effort towards binary compatability in the kernel to support binary drivers a bit more consistantly though.
There is a reason that binary compatibility doesn't exist in proprietary drive
Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (Score:3, Informative)
I have a choice of Larson, SDI, Zeh and Easycopy as linux vendors to print to the 42 inch non-postscript printers in my workplace - very much a niche market but still covered.
Re:May not be FUD (Score:5, Informative)
You are mistaken on some Apache concepts and how threads (?used to?) work on Linux.
This is because for each request, Windows must create a new process (the CGI program), and destroy the process when the request is complete. While the execution time is low, the process management overhead dwarfs the actual page runtime, because Windows doesn't do that sort of thing quickly. This is why CGI has long been blacklistedon Windows systems by good web devs, and this is one reason that Apache 1.x was such a dog on Windows. Apache 1.x creates a new Apache process for each request.
No.
Now Linux, on the other hand, creates processes about as fast as it creates threads, which is to say, really damn fast.
Yes, but only because pthreads does this by creating a new process (that just happens to share some things with its parents, like address space). Ergo, creating threads is just as fast as creating processes because they are nearly the same thing.
The NPTL in 2.6 might have changed this, but I have not read the docs yet.
Yet Apache is still back here creating a process or thread for each and every request (note that there are some ways to speed things up. FastCGI comes to mind, but I don't want to get into the gory details that I don't know enough about). This is not the brightest way to do it in terms of performance, but then, Apache appears to have been designed for universality and configurability over raw throughput.
No, Apache does not create a new process for each request. It creates a pool of child processes which sit waiting for requests. The parent monitors this pool and creates new spare children when too many child processes are busy. This way, most of the time a request comes in there is already a child process sitting idle waiting for work.
CGI does indeed require forking a new process, but there are already great ways to handle this. mod_perl, mod_php, mod_python all do it by embeding the interpreter inside the server. FastCGI keeps a version of the program running (much like apache does with its spares).
You are correct in that your description isn't the brightest way to do things. That's why operating system designers solved these problems years ago.
For static content, again, Apache creates a new process or thread for every request (with some exceptions). If you'll forgive a bit of an oversimplification, it's like writing a program that prints text to the screen. One program calls printf() in a loop. The other program executes a second program which itself displays just one line, and runs that in a loop.
Again, no. Apache will usually not need to create a new process or thread for every connection. The correct analogy would be the other program spawning the required number of children, and then asking them to all printf at the same time.