From: "Joe Barr" 

On Sun, 11 May 2003 10:58:18 -0400, Geo. wrote:

> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3ebe2445{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> Maybe ext3 was not appropriate either?
>
> I can't agree with that, who would setup a file server using redhat and
> change the default file system? Is that real common, does RH suggest that
> somewhere for file server config suggestions?
>
> I don't think ext3 was any more inappropriate than NTFS, both are suitable
> for file systems for a file server. It's the RAID0 setup that is
> inappropriate for a data repository.
>
> The correct way to do these benchmarks is pick two guys, one who knows NT
> and one who knows RH, give them a lab used to bug test software (lots of
> different machines with different hardware) and say go to it. Rate each
> machine with each OS and see how the overall results come out.
>
> The reality is in a setup like that, it's not possible to hide the flaws
> as that's what a test lab is designed to expose.
>
> Geo.

Exactly right.  But Microsoft lacks to the balls to agree to tests like
that.  That's why it's in the EULA.  It clearly states:

WE ARE THE CHICKENSHIT WEASELS FROM REDMOND.  YOU MAY NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH
ABOUT THIS PRODUCT OR YOUR LICENSE IS VOIDED.  IF YOU WANT TO BE A
CHICKENSHIT TOO, CLICK ACCEPT NOW.




--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4