FOSS is superior in performance
Comparing GNU/Linux and Microsoft Windows performance on equivalent hardware has a history of contentious claims and different results based on different assumptions. OSS/FS has at least shown that it’s often competitive, and in many circumstances it beats the competition. The following recent studies suggest that some OSS/FS systems beat proprietary competitors in at least some circumstances:
References
David, A. (2007). Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! Retrieved from http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Other important sources
Robert, C & Richard C. (2004) . Free and Open Source Software. Overview and Preliminary Guidelines for the Government of Canada. Retrieved from www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov_Canada-OSS_Guide-Dec04.pdf
Allen, G. (2008). Good to Great FOSS: Learnings from Africa . Retrieved from www.aspirationtech.org/files/GoodToGreatFOSS-LearningsFromAfrica.pdf
Kenneth, W.(2004). Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy. Retrieved from http://www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov-OSS_Guide-04.pdf
- Microsoft themselves found that two OSS/FS operating systems, Linux and FreeBSD, had better performance than Windows by many measures. Paul Murphy’s “Unix beats Windows’ - says Microsoft!” Article of November 8, 2005, pointed out a Microsoft Research report about their research on their “Singularity” research prototype. The report compares their research prototype to Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD... exposing performance figures that compare these operating systems directly to each other. Murphy writes, “What’s noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to FreeBSD and Linux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result shows Windows losing to the two UNIX variants.” And where they didn’t do as well, Murphy determines that it was because “there are better, faster, ways of doing these things in UNIX, but these guys... either didn’t know or didn’t care.” These numbers certainly don’t prove that any one system is always the best performer, but it certainly justifies considering them.
- In 2002, TPC-C database measures found that a Linux based system was faster than a Windows 2000 based system. More specifically, a HP ProLiant DL580 with 32 Intel Xeon 900MHz CPUs running Oracle 9i R2 Enterprise edition ran faster running on a stock Red Hat Linux Advanced Server than on Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server. You can see the Linux and Windows reports; note that HP did not modify the Linux kernel to get these results.
- PC Magazine’s November 2001 performance tests for file servers found that Linux with Samba significantly outperformed Windows 2000. Their article Performance Tests: File Server Throughput and Response Times found that Linux with Samba significantly outperformed Windows 2000 Server when used as a file server for Microsoft’s own network file protocols. This was true regardless of the number of simultaneous clients (they tested a range up to 30 clients), and it was true on the whole range on computers they used (Pentium II/233MHz with 128MiB RAM, Pentium III/550MHz with 256MiB RAM, and Pentium III/1GHz with 512MiB RAM, where MiB is 2^20 bytes). Indeed, as the machines became more capable the absolute difference grew more pronounced. On the fastest hardware while handling largest number of clients, GNU/Linux’s throughput was about 130 MB/sec vs. Windows’ 78 MB/sec (GNU/Linux was 78% faster).
- PC Magazine tested file server performance again in April 2002; Linux with Samba beat Windows 2000 again, but Samba then surpassed Windows 2000 by about 100% and can handle 4 times as many clients. PC Magazine published another comparison of Samba and Windows (a summary is available electronically as “Samba runs rings around Win2000.”). They noted that the later Samba software surpasses the performance of Windows 2000 by about 100 percent under benchmark tests, and found that Linux and Samba can handle four times as many client systems as Windows 2000 before performance begins to drop off. Jay White, IT manager at electronics firm BF Group, said that Samba is one of the most useful pieces of server software available for a mixed Windows and Linux environment. “Our Samba server has been online for 394 days so far. The total cost is the hardware plus 30 minutes of my time each year,” he said. Mark Twells, IT coordinator at a large education facility, said, “We run six Samba servers on a variety of hardware [and] we have around 1,000 users.”; this certainly excellent evidence of Samba’s utility.
References
David, A. (2007). Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! Retrieved from http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Other important sources
Robert, C & Richard C. (2004) . Free and Open Source Software. Overview and Preliminary Guidelines for the Government of Canada. Retrieved from www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov_Canada-OSS_Guide-Dec04.pdf
Allen, G. (2008). Good to Great FOSS: Learnings from Africa . Retrieved from www.aspirationtech.org/files/GoodToGreatFOSS-LearningsFromAfrica.pdf
Kenneth, W.(2004). Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy. Retrieved from http://www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov-OSS_Guide-04.pdf