Abstract

In common with all comparative software studies, this study consists of three sections:

1. A question is presented, along with a pseudo-scientific methodology for research. The author acknowledges that, as far as they can ascertain, there is no feasible method (including their own) which will grant a meaningful answer.
2. The second section contains a random collection of quasi-relevant anecdotes. Unquantifiable attributes of these anecdotes are shamelessly presented as data. This "data" is then carefully engineered so as to facilitate the third section, but this engineering is not discussed.
3. The author's a priori prejudices are then presented as conclusions, tentatively supported by cherry-picked non-data engineered in the previous section.
4. Should the author wish to include any facts and/or logic, these will be appended in a fourth section, typically consisting of such enlightening and intellectually stimulating discourse as:

   After starting the web server, I submerged my computer in a vat of brine. Many subsequent HTTP requests were not properly served. This suggests that current web server technology is not compatible with common operating environments - two thirds of the earth's surface is submerged in brine (multiple obscure references to obvious statement)! Surprisingly, this incompatibility is not discussed in web server literature. While a more thorough investigation of this alarming discovery and its potentially devastating impact lies beyond the scope of this study, the authors trust that future research will identify a workable solution.

   At this study does not contain any facts or logic, there is no fourth section.