[linux-elitists] Re: FW: MS claims w2k is better than solaris 8

Heather star@betelgeuse.starshine.org
Fri Feb 18 10:20:53 PST 2000

> > I don't know the details of the 84%  ( I screwed you up by posting 86%
> > earlier, btw ) findings, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that the
> > reality is the exact opposite. Meaning, the Solaris equipment, software, and
> > maintenance actually costs 84% of the TCO of the M$ crap, and performed 3x
> > better.
> I think that to some degree the free software propaganda effort has fallen
> down on the benchmark front.  We should state clearly that in the past all
> these claims have been shown to be false.  Since we are satisfied that
> Microsoft lies, we are only willing to discuss their claims after they pay
> us to run the benchmarks ourselves, without their being in the room.
> oo--JS.

In the benchmarks game, there's no way to play without there being an "out"
to have your PR guy throw mud at.

	You pay for and arrange a study:  It must be rigged.
	    At minimum it has observer skew, they are seeing what they
            hope to be true.  It has unfair knowledge in your product
            and unfair lack in the competitors.

	You pay for a third party to study it, and keep hands off:
	    They tilted it your way so that they could get paid more
            and attach to your ads.  You didn't -really- keep hands off,
            you offered a technical contact and the competitors, unknowing
            of the study, were unable to.

        You offer to pay the competitors to get involved:  the other guys
            get to make PR out of you not being able to find third parties 
            with clue in multiple products.  And we don't really need a new
            study because we have our own studies.

The only way I could really see this kind being taken seriously is if several
vendors are trying to validate a new market niche.

        A third party studies it without prompting:  They don't understand
            the product(s), it can really do better than that when tuned.

The most you could claim is that they were testing ease of setup and admin,
by going without docs and technical contact. (I'll take TCO for 1000, gene.)

        The competitors study: use the above complaints against them.

So... the least bogus benchmark would still get the mud flung as fast.  
Our power is that we actually DID something with the results, instead of 
using them merely to plaster in ads.

And speaking of ads, have you seen the TurboLinux ads in the paper?  They're
offering a "free Windows upgrade" ... free TurboLinux with proof of purchase 
for w2k.  Even the fine print is great stuff!

I want to frame it.  :)

* Heather
There are two ways of constructing a software design.  One way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other is to
make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C.A.R. Hoare

MS is still working on #2.

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list