Linux-Advocacy Digest #601, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Damien)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (J Sloan)
Re: Windows 2000 Datacenter Server does support the "five nines" (Craig Kelley)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Cliff Wagner)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jan 2001 07:11:57 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:32:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft on 19 Jan 2001 23:41:17 GMT;
> >On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >[*nice specs*]
> >
> >> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
> >> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
> >
> >You might run into some problems getting this machine to dual boot.
> >The default Redhat Workstation install (which the OEM probably used)
> >will likely have only two partitions (root and swap) which doesn't
> >leave you anywhere to put Windows. Partition magic will get you over
> >that hurdle, for a price.
>
> I'm fine with fdisk, actually. Is there a how-to?
I'm sure you are. But fdisk will not help you. It cannot resize
partitions, and since you'll only have two (a root, and a swap, both
of which you need), you are not going to have anywhere to put windows.
As for a how-to, I'm pretty sure there isn't one. Why would someone
want to put Windows on a perfectly functioning computer?
Something I didn't mention earlier, but someone else did I feel it's
worth restating. Windows installation with overwrite all your
partitions, destroying everything in it's path. You experiment is
doomed.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:11:12 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Not really. The only benchmark I've seen Linux win was with a web server
> that no one uses.
Actually folks are starting to use it, because of the performance -
> One benchmark.
You finally noticed that one because your nose was rubbed in it.
> Please show me ones where Linux wins
There have been a number of them -
Linux + Solaris combined to smash the sap banchmark as well.
There's the top 500 supercomputer list, Linux is starting to
populate that list more heavily, and inching ever closer to the top.
> (oh yeah, and the FUD ones from c't don't count,
c't is an excellent magazine, technically accurate, and without bias.
> only major reputible
> companies with standardized benchmarks, not grudges against Microsoft).
Yes, of course, let's listen only to mindcraft and nobody else.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:50 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America, Software for
> >Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America.
>
> That's because they're a monopoly, Kyle. It has nothing to do with
> their popularity or their value.
It did at one time. And that's how it started.
> >The consumer has always had a choice, and has always known it.
>
> A choice of what? Microsoft software or Apples software is not a
> choice. A PC with Microsoft software or a PC with someone else's
> software; that would be a choice. An Apple is not a PC. Why can't you
> seem to understand that?
Don't tell Apple users this. They will have an anurisim.
> >The consumer
> >has decided on the IBM/PC platform, and therefor has gone with Microsoft
> >Windows as their OS.
>
> MICROSOFT DOES NOT OWN THE PC PLATFORM!!!
They sort of do now. Albeit an unoffical ownership, you buy a PC, you get
Windows, period.
> >The consumer has known about Apple Computer, their
> >products, and has reduced the company to number two on the desktop
market.
>
> Number two behind whom: Dell, or Compaq?
All of whom distribute Windows as their primary Desktop OS. Apple is the
number two PLATFORM.
> >The consumer seems to have decided, the consumer may not be happy, and
the
> >consumer is willing to undertake an alternative OS. Show the consumer
> >something that can hold a candle to Microsoft's Windows, and they will
> >abandon their previous choice.
>
> If they'd ever made any choices, your thinking would certainly make
> sense. By nobody chose Windows; they had it forced on them. There's a
> rather obvious and well documented paper trail.
People chose Windows, the choice stuck for many years. And that's what eats
em up, the fact that at one time, they could have avoided all this...
nonsense...
> >The consumer will not be willing to wait much longer. Linux has the
> >spotlight NOW, it won't two years from now if something spectacular in
the
> >Linux desktop field happens. [...]
>
> More importantly, the Appellate Court has the spotlight IN FEBRUARY, and
> a legal remedy may not appear until fall. There's no chance, of course,
> that Linux can't hold out that long, but I'm losing my patience. So
> Linux takes over the desktop field, officially, with something quite
> spectacular, next week. My new PC.
Yea, Microsoft's office division and Microsoft's OS division get split up.
Now office will be for all platforms, and force Sun Microsystems StarOffice
off the face of the earth on more platforms that even it's for.
As for Windows, there is still nothing out that can beat it, except for
MacOS. Oops, wrong platform.
> >> Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. Obviously, they serve
> >> different markets.
> >
> >Apple makes computers, AND software for those computers.
>
> You don't seem to understand. Unless its someone else's software, its
> just a computer. Apple doesn't sell software, they sell computers.
> Their software is a part of their computer, not a separate product, as
> it is in the PC world. Dell, or Compaq, or even IBM, for instance,
> could come up with their own OS, for just their PCs. Nobody would buy
> it, of course, but that's because they'd have no reason not to have that
> OS work on Gateway or VALinux's computers.
Since when doesn't Apple sell software? Are we forgetting the comparison
between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs only a few years ago with the release of
OS8? Does anyone remember how angry people were when they slid that CDROM
into their system and watched the bugs fly? How about in the prompt release
of version 8's subrevisions? How about the rapid release of 9? Apple users
were PISSED! Especialy when they found out about the "upgrade" policy set
forth by Apple. They excalimed it was downright Microsoftian... (They
weren't happy.)
Of course, if we think about what happens when IBM, Dell & Compaq all make t
heir own OS's, we can remember the universe of computers "way back when"
there was Commodore, Apple, IBM, Tandy, and even more has-beens... Remember
all that wonderful incompatibility? Just think about that for a while, and
recall that ISO standardized computing articles might just be impossible to
institute and enforce with everyone making their own platform for
everything.... (EXAMPLE: Apple's early, but short lived reluctance to adopt
ISO9660)
> >Apple is also
> >number two on the platform scale. So, again, clearly the consumer had a
> >choice...
>
> Well, see, if you want to talk about 'platforms' being different from
> OSes, you have to understand the illegal prevention of middleware using
> Win32 by the Microsoft monopoly.
I'm sorry, what IS middleware again? It probably IS illegal, but I have no
idea what it is (in this context).
> >Those shoddy goods made it into someones home, because they are still on
> >top, which is sort of the point, Microsoft is STILL number one.
>
> Indeed; the monopolization, even the pre-load lock-in, is still in
> place, and the application barrier is an extremely effective economic
> burden to surmount. So high, in fact, that it is effectively impossible
> for the market forces that you erroneously believe caused the monopoly
> in the first place to overcome it, thus necessitating legal remedies for
> the lawbreaking which indeed did institute, maintain, perpetuate, and
> extend the monopoly.
Now we're catching on... But since there is still no replacement for
Windows on the desktop.....
> >How was Windows 95 a monopoly?
>
> Hell, how was it not? (In fact, it was simply the conversion of the DOS
> monopoly, the PC OS monopoly, to a new 'version'.)
There was no DOS monopoly. Microsoft had a better DOS than IBM did. More
utilities, more flash, and more features made it MORE attractive. Windows
3.1 wasn't quite the "Mac Killer" Microsoft had set out to be (and they knew
this) and Microsoft's Windows 95 marketing blitz was counteracted by IBM's
last-ditch attempt to make OS/2 actually useful by marketing OS/2 Warp at
the same time. The markting blitz's attracted attention, but the consumer
choose, that's right CHOOSE Windows 95 over Apple's platforms on New
computers, Windows/DOS on potential upgrades, and OS/2 Warp on definitive
upgrades.
They CHOSE, because at the time, they had a choice.
I think they're just beat up over the fact that they know they choose.
(Say, why are we posting the obvious history of computing here? Were we all
so coked up that we can't remember what happened SIX YEARS AGO?!?)
> You are either very naive concerning these market developments, or you
> are very... naive. Having waited years, while the rest of the industry
> produced a huge array of new developments, the market *ravenously*
> bought Win95, to replace the very pathetic Win3.1. And the popularity
> of this product seems much more, then, to be based on how crappy Win3.1
> was (but note the entire market used it very uniformly; known as a
> monopoly). It got this way because Microsoft force-bundled Win3.1,
> telling OEMs that they either had to sell ALL their PCs with DOS AND
> Windows, or they would have to pay back-breaking predatory prices for
> what had already become protected by an installed base providing an
> application barrier.
Yes, but the point is that the consumer chose 95 back then..... This didn't
start because Microsoft had "magical powers", they had the better looking
item, they became complacent, they are where they are now...
> Followed by upgrade and upgrade after upgrade. Its gotten to the point
> now, of course, where the market, at least, is no longer as naive as you
> are, and is resisting the newest versions of just about everything
> Microsoft is forcing on them. Not always successfully, of course, at
> all, because the application barrier can only get higher (when MS
> continues to act anti-competitively, which they always do). But
> alternatives are still locked out, and so MS is slowing down on
> technical development, and focusing on ways to extort more, especially
> from large customers (I count four times they've restructured prices to
> increase prices while pretending not to be doing so, with the hikes
> ranging from 20% to 100%, or even more.)
Large customers have more money....:) But Microsoft can't "lock out" choice
for programmers to improve the Linux platform. Linux "sux" because it can't
get with times that are now open to it, this very second, in the HERE AND
NOW. Consumers are willing to try things, but the product they're trying
is, trying their paitence....
> >OS/2 was available. It wasn't selling. The consumer decided again which
> >they prefered. IBM even bundeled Windows 95 with their Aptiva systems
WITH
> >OS/2 Warp at the convienence of a "dual-boot". Guess which one got more
> >attention by the user...?
>
> You forget; consumers don't freely choose which OS they want; there is a
> requirement that it run applications they want, as well, and this is a
> "catch 22" known as the application barrier. That OS/2 couldn't
> surmount it is entirely and apparently due directly to Microsoft's
> anti-competitive activities intended to do that, precisely. There were
> licensing tricks, development deals, leverage and partnerships, millions
> of dollars Microsoft spent in order to ensure that OS/2 never found a
> market. So guess which one we're still stuck with, and its only gotten
> worse since then?
The app barrier formed AFTER people CHOSE windows 95, not before. There was
a lot of DOS software "back then". Windows 95 just became more attractive.
> >It shows that "back then" the more savvy user landed on Microsoft
products.
>
> I was a savvy user back then, too. No, we pretty much just got stuck
> with it, and ended up with it.
You didn't get "stuck", you choose. You bought MSDOS, not PC-DOS. Didn't
bother with Caldera DrDOS (like anyone did...?) I'll bet you also CHOOSE
Windows 95 OVER OS/2, and certianly have NEVER thought about a Mac...
> >Even when they knew that other products existed, they made a choice based
on
> >superiority and price, not popularity.
>
> And even when we tried alternatives, and found them superior products at
> lower prices, they still mysteriously disappeared, eventually, having
> never found 'wide support' despite the number of people who also miss
> them.
I remember a lot of products like this, but they were for WIndows, and died
when the software maker could barely get the things off the shelves at your
local Leechmeers.
> >Now, we have people who just buy along the "upgrade trend", but the
people
> >would be willing to change, if they thought they had a REAL alternative.
>
> Indeed, you're right in that. You're just hopelessly wrong in your
> presumption of why they don't have a real alternative.
You think Linux is being hindered by Microsoft, I think Linux is being
hindered by idiots like Kulkis, and pompous twits like "." People who have
NO idea what desktop users even want anymore, people who sadly represent
more thought about Linux that I find on the internet than the idea that
"maybe Linux would be more desktop-friendly if..."
People like that (the few, the proud, the geeky) also seem to have a lot
more voice when it comes to that all-too-critical news sites like
Linux-Tucows, and (now more infrequently) cNET Linux.
> >The average computer user knows NOTHING about the innards of their PC.
They
> >don't feel they have too. Windows has now made using a PC the level of
easy
> >we never thought possible during the MSDOS days.
>
> Well, that happened for a lot of people with Mac, before it happened
> with Windows. You might have been more naive in your MSDOS days, but
> most of us already knew that software would improve in many ways,
> including 'ease of use'. What does this have to do with Windows, again?
> Other than the fact that they monopolized the PC OS market the whole
> time it was happening?
People enjoy simplistic bliss. If they didn't, UNIX would actually be on
the desktop. Even if it IS concidered harmful. Or even if some people
think that there are better things to worry about than what OS their PC is
running, or how it runs. People didn't like the TV because they loved to
see the practical implementation of the RGB color theroy over the
combination of values of grey on a phosperescent surface, they just liked
the pretty pictures and sound that came out of it; and couldn't give a damn
how it worked.
Same with the PC. They wish to turn it on, type their documents, print them
(if applicable) and go about their lives.
> >Which is why Linux zealots feel obligated to call Windows users dumb.
>
> I think, perhaps, you simply assume (need I even point out that its a
> false assumption?) that you feel obligated to consider everything useful
> about a PC to be a benefit of Windows alone. I suspect, as well, that
> you may presume that anything not useful about Windows or the PC is the
> fault of something other than Windows. That is dumb, yes.
No, if the computer is unable to do something, I typically fault Windows.
Windows IS the OS. The OS used to be just a user interface to system
processes, and everything else was someones program. That changed. I think
for the better. Comprehensive is a term I like to use when it describes a
computing platform. Apple had it (the GUI) right, along with a lot of
desktop format ideals. If something is impossible under Windows, it's the
fault of Windows because Windows is what is there.
> >Microsoft didn' thave "monopoly power" in 1993
>
> Sure they did. Hell, they were already under investigation by the FTC
> in the late 80s. They've been monopolizing, which is to say acting
> anti-competitively, since day one; they had market power handed to them
> by IBM. They never once used it to compete; they're strictly illegal
> monopolists.
Oh yes, because MSDOS was just SOO much more popular... Remember titles
that had printed on them "PC or MS DOS version 3.0 or better..." on the
side? Those who had computers knew what the (lack) of difference was, they
chose what was cheap. Microsoft's Windows became popular, OS/2 did not.
Why???
Microsoft couldn't pressure developers to code for the Windows (3) platform,
this was made obvious by the stunning immedate lack of software for the
platform (although it began to change when Lotus & Microsoft began competing
for the prodctivity arena...)
Only after Windows 95 did a massive undertaking of the eradication of other
computing resources occour. The people had chosen a line of Microsoft
products to begin with, they got stuck with it thereafter.
Linux has been claiming "Microsoft opression" has hindered it's development.
I still think it's active Linux programmers who are as like & open minded as
our Mr. Kulkis are. Being so scournful of what seems to be a good idea for
purposes that just outright seem like revenge, or a vendetta, and I find it
quite pathetic.
> >They had a popular product
> >(which wasn't really that popular, because NOTHING good was for Windows
back
> >then). Microsoft's major power came from the huge takeoff of Windows 95,
> >and the massive news that "computing is easier" which invited regular
> >consumers to actually use computers
>
> I'm getting the feeling you saw most of this from a rather distant
> perspective, Kyle.
I swear to dogs it wasn't the gruggs...
> >No, I'm just tired of hearing that StarOffice, AbiWord and Netscape and
The
> >GIMP are the top crop of modern software. They are awful, and can't
clearly
> >can't compete with their Windows product counterparts (Microsoft Office,
> >Internet Explorer, and Photoshop).
>
> Well, I think Office, Explorer, and Photoshop are crap. Hell just about
> all software is crap; as long as there's enough of it, so you can find
> something that works for you, you don't have to write your own, and
> that's the most that can be said for most of it.
Well, since I, and many other Windows/Linux transferees have managed to find
more power and comfort in our Windows versions of software, the mission of
making Linux a viable alternative has begun to fail...
> >I don't see this happening.
>
> And yet you don't seem to be able to piece together why.
Because Linux "sux". That's why.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 20 Jan 2001 00:13:34 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> On 19 Jan 2001 16:45:43 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones) writes:
> >
> >> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >> > FWIW, I had installed the wu-ftp fix so long ago that I forgot the
> >> > problem had ever existed. "Go thou and do likewise."
> >>
> >> Hmmm... That's interesting. The Register mentioned RedHat vers 5, 6 and 7. I
> >> find it a little unsettling that RedHat would not apply a patch to fix a
> >> problem with washington u ftpd that we all knew about (for a while), and that
> >> they are still shipping it as the defacto ftp server with their
> >> distribution.
> >>
> >> BTW, I didn't know that the problems with wu ftp were all fixed. The last I
> >> heard, the advice was to stay clear of it. Also, it seems that the worm
> >> could easily be modified (would it even need to be?) to affect many
> >> different Linux distros, like my Slackware, which shipped with wu ftp only a
> >> year and a half ago.
> >
> >RedHat has patches for 4.2, 5.2, 6.2 and 7.0 available (and has had
> >them available since last summer -- if you get hit by 'ramen' then you
> >deserve it).
>
> Although, 4.2.1, 5.2.1, 6.2.1, or at the very least a
> 7.0.1 ISO image should be in order...
>
> Install OS + Add Patches is the defective MS way of doing things.
wget http://blahblahblah
rpm -Fvh *rpm
It isn't brain surgery.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:14:00 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Enterprise customers (where Red Hat claims they compete in, which is
> a joke in and of itself)
Joke's on you wintroll - we are a fortune 500 company who
depend on Red Hat Linux for some critical infrastrucure -
> LOVE to go scouring out around the net spending
> copious amounts of time finding the latest gaping-hole patches for
> each and every little package that ships with their "Enterprise Linux
> OS".
Not sure what you mean there, we get RHSAs when there is an
issue, we apply the fix, and party on - no "scouring the net".
> Regardless of your misleading statements, if MS isn't #1, it's
> certainly #2, in either case my statement is true: "Microsoft
> has _ONE OF THE BEST_ [if not THE best] security response times".
You must be joking, ms is one of the worst in terms of security.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:19:46 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't be in
> business.
Please explain - and try the statement with some other
choices:
"BeOS on the desktop isn't pretty. if it were, microsoft would be out of
business"
hmm. downright lame...
"MacOS on the desktop isn't pretty. if it were, microsoft would be out of
business"
Nope, just doesn't make sense.
hmm, something seems to be wrong with your logic, friend.
Let's see if it applies in other situations:
"Lexus is not a quality automobile. if it were, hyundai would be out of
business."
nope, it's just as goofy as the previous examples.
Let's try again.
"Dietrich's coffee is no good. If it were, starbucks would be out of
business".
No, this is all silliness, and your argument makes no sense at all.
Try again kyle -
jjs
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Datacenter Server does support the "five nines"
Date: 20 Jan 2001 00:22:25 -0700
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So there you go. Microsoft has now stated that at least one of its
> Datacenter Server offerings can be 99.999% reliable. I wonder if the phrase
> "can help" might appear some time soon :-)
I'm sure it uses clustering to do this (no big deal).
It's already years late, I wonder when it will finally ship? :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:26:08 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> In article <FP4a6.61645$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J J Sloan wrote:
>
> >Yes, there was some silly uproar from the Red Hat bashers,
> >and I'm still not sure I understand what it was all supposed
> >to be about - gcc 2.96, while not yet 3.0, is a solid compiler,
> >especially the c++ stuff - and was needed for some enterprise
> >customers. I have been compiling the 2.4 kernel with gcc-2.96
> >on several boxes, and it's been completely solid.
>
> It wasn't a silly uproar. Linus said RedHat 7.0 was useless as
> a development station and he was right. You can't compile many
> applicatons with the beta release version of GCC they provided.
Although I have the greatest respect for Linus T, he is a human
being after all, and I think he overreacted on this one.
Striclty speaking, there are no technical problems with gcc-2.96,
only political ones, and RH has admitted that they could have
handled it better -
Could you perhaps tell me what applications can't be compiled
with gcc-2.96? I haven't been able to find any. Like I say, my
acid test is the kernel itself, and gcc-2.96 passes that test with
flying colors.
> 2.96 is not a release but it will compile a kernel but damn little
> else.
I build various rpms with it all the time - which install and run
with no problems that I can see -
If you can tell me something that doesn't compile with gcc-2.96,
I'd be very interested in checking that out for myself.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 20 Jan 2001 07:27:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:13:08 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>
>"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:46:37 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
>> >company web sites means the same thing.
>>
>> Please provide proof of this statement.
>> From my experience, most "My Cat Fluffy" sites are hosted
>> on places like geocities and homestead and places
>> like that because people generally don't want to
>> pay money to host something so inane.
>
>If you compare surveys from other parties (besides Netcraft), they
>mostly survey Fortune500, Global500, etc. Those numbers, IIS is
>in the lead or closely follows iPlanet and Apache is far behind.
>
>Netcraft is the only survey where Apache leads.
>
>http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>
>Netcraft doesn't differeniate between corporate and personal
>sites. It also counts each virtual host on a hosting provider.
>
>The numbers are grossly inflated for Apache. All Netcraft's
>numbers tell us is that Apache is the choice for hosting providers,
>which we already know, so it doesn't really give us anything.
>
>As far as geocities and homestead, there are still many people
>who purchase domain names for personal sites or family web sites.
>Aside from that, many non-profit organizations, clubs, and
>other small organizations have web sites.
>
>The people who have high traffic and who have high demand use
>iPlanet and IIS. The people who show pictures of their family
>or who post meeting calendars for the local VFW use hosted
>Apache virtual hosts.
>
>-Chad
>
By your claim Fortune 500 = top web site.
Someone has already refuted this claim, so I won't
waste my breath.
You didn't provide any sort of statistics other then
your Fortune 500 comment (which is more a political
then technological argument if you actually read
the article you cite so frequently).
Quoting from the page:
We expected the results to be dramatically different than the
Netcraft results because upper management in big business generally
don't understand open source software (OSS). They often forbid the
use of OSS because they confuse it with the FreeWare and ShareWare
from the 1980s. They're not aware that the quality of Apache rivals
the commercial products and surpasses the commercial products in
terms of flexibility and functionality.
If you consider that a glowing endorsement for IIS, well, keep
on citing that page. I prefer looking at statistics about things
like, oh, I don't know, actual traffic? Look at the "Most Requested"
sites on netcraft. Microsoft has 9 spots on the top...50.
And that's with hotmail on there twice.
You never did back up your claim to the number of "I love fluffy"
sites out there. If you can get a breakdown comparing the number
of commercial sites (there are a lot more sites on the net
doing "real business" outside the fortune 500 you know),
I'll happily accept that.
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:35:30 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
> > "Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
> >
> > "Linux, it is great"
>
> It's a bloody linux advocacy group. I can't believe you are in a linux
> advocacy group complaining that people are advocation linux. Are you on
> crack?
Sigh.
Take a look at those posts and tell me you don't see any hype.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
