I've just read a community blog on ZDnet, suggesting to stage a face-to-face run of Windows Server installation with Linux installation on the same hardware.
By getting (supposedly) much better results on Linux side, it claims then that Microsoft's claims about "stolen" intellectual property in Linux or other open source projects will be pointless. After all, using the same technology should provide the same results, isn't it?
I just so disagree with this. Understanding that there's so much more to operating system than couple hundred specific technological ideas making me think that implementing the suggested demonstration will not show any effect.
Besides, I probably could understand the reasoning if the difference would become tenfold, but if its consistently about 10% in average? And if Linux system will come worse in some scenarios? It doesn't mean anything at all. Yes, Linux developers may have used (unknowingly of course) some technique "patented" by Microsoft (all the value and meaning of patenting is beyond the scope here), and they even could've implemented it the same way, but then something else in Windows or Linux can cause for one of the systems work slower or faster than the other - and it will have nothing to do with this specific technological issue (patent?).
I just side Linus Tourvalds on this: just let Microsoft show the IP problems, and they will be fixed. If you don't want to show anything, I have nothing to fear about - how do I know you're not bluffing?