Seanie wrote:
jcm>> Actually, I meant the tweaks made to the Linux kernel, etc. :)
>
> But surely fiddling around with software supplied as source-code is
> encouraged.
The point is that various people have said "oh no! Linux can't be beaten
at anything, let's artificially tweak it's networking for a single
test".
That is just as wrong as Microsoft getting their little drones to
rewrite bits of NT networking for certain controversial tests.
> Almost expected in fact.
Yes, but not at the cost of everything else.
> Therefore configuring NT for better performance is cheating, and
> configuring Linux for better performance is obligatory.
> So says me, anyway.
Sorry to sound like a pedant but that's rubbish :)
You must appreciate the differences in configuration between
desktop/small server/custer configurations - there is no way we can
expect Windows NT to handle all environments without tweaking, in the
same way that people routinely tweak the Linux kernel when needed[0].
My point is that there is a difference between tweaking and having a
bunch of hardcore linux nuts rewriting bits of the networking to
artificially win a test. Sometimes Linux will come second to NT in tests
- this of course has nothing to do with its performance in real
situations.
...and now back to watching the trilogy on Sky Movies.
--jcm
[0] and then of course certain institutions using Linux kernels don't
tweak them for better networking performace, as for
example, a cache might require... :P
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu 22 Nov 2001 - 13:09:35 GMT