|
 |
The following is an editorial written by Linux Today reader Paul Ferris. The Linux benchmark thing has proven to be a real can of worms for Microsoft. They should never have gone here, it's rather obvious at this point. I'd like to point out a few things that have been missed in the heat of the battle. First, you have the fact that Mindcraft has openly admitted that their hands are tied. One of the nice things about Bruce Weiner's "rebuttal" posted here on Linux Today, is that it contains the following: "A few of the emails we've received asked us why the company that sponsored a comparative benchmark always came out on top. The answer is simple. When that was not the case our client exercised a clause in the contract that allowed them to refuse us the right to publish the results. We've had several such cases." You have to wonder, after reading that, how many benchmarks it's taken Microsoft to get here. Installing Windows NT Server version 4.0 will point out that this is not the only restriction on published benchmarking figures. There is a clause in the installation "contract" that states that a user is not allowed to publish benchmarking data without the prior written consent of Microsoft. I know that most people who install Windows NT Server don't read the contract in its entirety. I probably rank among the four or five people who actually have. The second point is the fact that there exists a new set of data, as the run they are allowing to be "open" (their words) is in actuality the Third set of figures. No one seems to be asking the rather obvious questions here: Why hasn't that second set of data been published? I'll provide some speculation, in quasi-Church Lady format: Could it be . . . . Microsoft! Lately things are looking really bleak for Microsoft on the benchmarking front. They shouldn't have done this, it's now clear as a clean pane of window glass. It is Mindcraft, however, that has taken the biggest hit. Microsoft's reputation was not that sterling to begin with. Mindcraft now would like to clear their name more than anything. After all, their reputation is all they have to sell. Mindcraft can only do that by republishing the results of their tests with fairness to both sides. My speculation is that after a few simple Linux tweaks they saw the numbers drastically change. We can't know, however, how much. Mindcraft probably cannot publish those statistics without Microsoft consent. It must be very frustrating to live in a free country and be hobbled in such a way. This also makes clear another selling point for free software. Installing free software doesn't just net you the source code, so that you are free to change the program if need be. Let's face it, not all customers see this as a bonus. But just about everyone in the free world likes the idea that they can share their ideas and experiences with everyone else. The contractual clauses during the installation of Microsoft products keep getting longer, and the one for NT Server provides a nice backdrop for this problem. Having clauses in contracts to limit what you can say about a product goes against one of the most basic freedoms we have in America. It says that you paid to use a product, but you are not free to discuss how useable it might be. When you install a copy of Linux, no one is putting their hand over your mouth.  
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
| All times are recorded in UTC. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Powered by Linux, Apache and PHP
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
