When MS and Mindcraft originally published their results the suite of tests and the processes employeed were thoroughly and quickly discredited. Nonetheless, the developers of the involved open source packages shrugged, analyzed the results, did some profiling of their own, looked over their respective bits of code, devoted hours to coding tweaks, a few days worth to tests, and spent some time exchanging and debating different approaches to improving the code. These developers could have stuck their heads in the sand and dismissed the whole topic as unimportant. They could have felt that the PR and advocacy responses would suffice. This is largely due to management.
Programmers often find themselves at odds with their own management.
When we choose to attend to criticisms, it's vital not to adopt their demonstration model as your objective. We must stay true to our own requirements. It would be technically easy for the kernel developers to write the code for this. So, the Linux, Apache, and Samba developers showed admirable focus on real improvements and seemed to have eschewed any temptation to commit fraud. This leads us to a broader lesson.