[kwlug disc.] Apache vs IIS system call chart

[Chris Bruner]

OK, you've convinced me :)

John Van Ostrand wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 22:45 -0500, Chris Bruner wrote:
>   
>> Oh it's not hard to believe that IIS/Windows is more poorly coded.  I
>> just try to remain objective, because I know I have a prejudice
>> against windows.  It's too easy to be a cheer leader, and I would much
>> rather be a cheer leader with provable facts then a suspicious
>> picture.  
>>
>> We don't know how complex the page was that was loaded, it might have
>> been a corner case for Windows. It might have been "out of all these
>> web pages, this one goes hog wild on windows, let's use that one."  We
>> don't know what all those calls are, they could be stubs for all we
>> know.  We don't even know if those pictures were made from tracing
>> live code or running a program to examine the source code. 
>>
>> It's a good story, worthy of MS itself. But if the pictures were
>> reversed wouldn't you be calling FUD?
>>     
>
> Well, yes but in that case it *would* be FUD ;)
>
> But seriously, there are a couple of ways to look at this. You're taking
> an objective approach, but it may be tainted by overcompensation.
>
> What we have here is an arguable report. And like virtually all reports,
> there are plenty of ways to refute it or reinforce it.
>
> I really like a Homer Simpson quote ""Phfft! Facts. You can use them to
> prove anything." or "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove
> anything that's even remotely true!"
>
> The truth may actually be between this report and what Microsoft's
> eventual rebuttal will be. If or when that happens what will everyone
> say? They're both wrong? The real question is which report would be more
> correct?
>
> I choose to use this report, not for its original security stance, but
> to demonstrate the differences between the solutions. I do this because
> my own experiences and those of Windows programmers that I know support
> those two graphs. I believe that open source, because of peer review, is
> better and more cohesive than proprietary code. I believe that open
> source, because of pride of craftsmanship and lack of pointy haired
> bosses, is released when it's ready, not on a marketing department's
> schedule.
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> KWLUG-Disc mailing list
> KWLUG-Disc at kwlug.org
> http://listserv.kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ccjclearline.com/pipermail/kwlug-disc/attachments/20070207/d4c95dcf/attachment.htm