I was reading this months issue of PC magazine and going over an article about general purpose 2U and 3U servers. Constantly while reading this article I noticed negativity towards use of the linux OS and apache server software. One of the tests ran the same machine(a HP Netserver LP 2000r) running both Linux and Windows. With Linux all of the bench tests lagged way behind the windows tests. Later in the article, the results were blamed on the deficiency of their choice in webserver (apache). Of course the article doesnt mention that the webserver is a free alternative to the extremely expensive Microsoft webserver. What do they expect? You pay $1000 for Windows 2000 Advanced Server, and with that money MS can put more time into making their server more efficient and able to handle a bigger load. They need to understand that you get linux and apache for free and that unless they want Apache to charge $1000 for their software, it will never be able to be as efficient as the MS software. They should also say that even though apache isnt able to handle as big loads, that doesnt mean that it isnt an extremely powerful set of software that can handle enormous loads and that the bench tests have little to do with actual real world performance. I'd hate to have people turned away from using linux and apache because of one stupid magazine.
