The original author, on a basis of a fib benchmark, concludes ruby 1.9 is faster - that is as flawed as it gets.
Did you try running with Python 3? You will get around the same time as you get with Python 2.7. Pick anything from here http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... and run it with Python 2.7 and ruby 1.9. The programs which are faster with Python 3 will be mostly faster with Python 2.7. 2.7 isn't slower than ruby 1.9; it is faster in most of the cases.
Regarding the fib example, when the original was doing the rounds, I didn't find any explanations from python or ruby implementors. I can't say why, but most likely python has a higher overhead with growing call stacks, and ruby does some optimizations.
Data is not dishonest and benchmarks are not dishonest. What is dishonest is this tendency to cherry-pick only the case which is convenient to you, as you have done here. If you want to talk about Ruby performance vs. Python then you will have to dig into something like the site linked previously, which has many different benchmarks run on a uniform testbed rather than a single cherry-picked case run in whatever way you felt like.
Python 2.7.2
python -c 20.69s user 0.06s system 99% cpu 20.807 totalRuby 1.9.3 def fib(n) if n == 0 || n == 1 n else fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) end end
ruby 11.44s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 11.507 totalI guess since benchmarks are not completely worthless, we should conclude that ubuntu doesn't keep up on ruby and uses 2-3 year old versions.
I wasn't accusing you of starting the pissing match.