On 02/10/2007, Mike Cheponis <mac@wireless.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Andrew Doran wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:50:16PM +0100, Andrew Doran wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:27:34PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >> Either we degrade a lot more gracefully than Linux under load, or there's
> >> an artifact in the Linux graph.  The current plot makes it impossible to
> >> tell which, though.
>
> > (...stuff removed...)
>
> > In the long run Linux will beat NetBSD.
>
> Why is this?
>
> I don't know any fundamental reason this should be so.

I think that this is because the Linux graph is so unpredictable - it
is all over the place in the graphs collected by Andy, and which
someone else agreed was the case under Linux - it has more spikes than
my son's hair. Anyway, because it's so unpredictable, it can be used
to prove that Linux performs better than any other operating system at
any point in the graph (whilst at the same time handwaving away that
it's performing worse).

QED.

Regards,
Al the statistician