Linux-Advocacy Digest #568, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why use Linux? (TNT)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems (J@M)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 10 Jul 2000 18:02:50 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:04:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Oh, pleeeze. How long does it take to compile a set of utilities?
Too long, especially if you want to have somr control over where the
packages go as opposed to spraying them haphazardly all over your
system. I've worked on distribution building, and it's time consuming.
Especially if you have to start with things as basic as top and
tcp-wrappers.
>rdist the whole batch for new systems. I don't use most the stuff
>that comes with Linux anyway, since there are usually newer versions
>out.
When newer versions come out for Linux, you can grab a binary or src.rpm.
With BSD, and most Linux distributions, you can even do a remote upgrade.
> Are you really going to tell the boss that the reason the
>web server is dumping connections and customers are leaving is
>because you didn't want to compile top?
I'd abstain from using something spartan enough not to contain top unless
there was a reason why I needed it.
>All you need is gcc, and you've got everything.
Not until you compile it and package it.
>> Reality check: The Linux kernel is modular and the default
>> installation comes with modular support for just about everything.
>> You usually only need to compile modules.
>>
>> The only time I've done a kernel recompile was when the distributor
>> was too silly to include modular support for sound, and that was a
>> few years ago.
>
>So, you're saying I add a new SCSI device that has no kernel support
>and add it in without recompiling and rebooting?
No, I am not. If you have *modular* support for the SCSI device, then you'll
have no problems.
> How about re-loading
>patched drivers without bringing the system down?
Sure. Can do, as long as the patch doesn't require kernel mods.
>> I can't believe people actually pay for that ! Seriously, I find the
>free
>> alternatives better.
>
>Because it's the standard and
No it's not. It's just a proprietary software package.
BTW, a lot of legacy software uses *Motif*, but not CDE. And motif is dying ...
> It provides
>a common GUI desktop which is what the Unix's need to knock NT
>out of the desktop dominance.
Unix needs a common desktop, but NOT CDE. KDE/QT are vastly superior, both in
ease of use and in terms of toolkit design. CDE hasn't done very well at winning
the desktop market, huh ? And now , the desktop UNIX users are flocking to
KDE/QT and GNOME/GTK, while Motif/CDE are rapidly heading towards well-deserved
obsolescence. Not only can't Motif beat NT, it can't beat QT or GTK, despite
TOG's desperate attempt to get people to use it ( by giving it away )
UNIX needs to step out of the C ghetto, and QT is taking the required steps and
providing a true OO GUI API, while Motif is stuck in the callback paradigm. (
BTW, GTK has similar functionality to QT. The C++ implementation has similar
type safety and signal/slot behaviour to QT )
>isn't a whole lot of differance. There's also a lot of inconsistent
>problems that everyone here claims are "installation problems.
>Apparently, EVERY linux box I've ever used is installed wrong. Are
>the install scripts THAT bad?
Dunno, I haven't noticed.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact thast Linux gets it 90% right,
then the admin doesn't bother with the other 10%. Solaris gets it 10%, and
the admin had better fix some of the remaining 90% tif he values his job.
>I also hit problems with buying the "linux" version of server
>software. With no centeralized version control, exactly what has it
>been tested under, and if patches are required, whose patches?
This information is usually provided on the box. Most of the software just
links against libc, so you typically only need to check the libc and kernel
version. Upgrading kernels is extremely unlikely to break software, and libc
has "centralised version control".
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:05:05 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
wrote in <B7ma5.10915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up
>time of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything.
>What does that fact tell you?
Too bad you don't realize long uptime means stability and reliability. Taking
down a machine on purpose is not the same as unexpectedly crashes (or
expectedly at unknown time for MS's OSes).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 13:06:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> The LGPL does not have this problem. Nor the one
>> I mentioned. But it doesn't serve the political
>> agenda of the FSF - the point of the GPL really *is*
>> to control and usurp the works of others.
>
>Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
>the development of free software.
You can't encourage anything with restrictions. You can only
restrict it.
>This is done by preventing
>GPLed code from being used in non-free software, so that the
>developers of free software have a better base from which to
>develop their own software than the developers of non-free
>software. The idea is to tempt the non-free developers with a
>large set of wheels that they would need to reinvent, in the
>hope that they come over to the free side.
But, it isn't free, and in many cases the set of wheels
that have different-than-GPL restrictions is even larger
and in some cases have patents that prohibit re-invention.
>As it happens, the legal machinery needed to enforce this can
>make it difficult to merge GPLed code with code that is free
>but not GPL-compatible.
Try impossible.
>In that case, clause 10 of the GPL
>encourages contacting the copyright holder to work out an
>alternate arrangement.
Yes, look at the RIPEM saga to see how well that works out.
Anyone arguing either way on this issue should be aware
of that case. Please let me know how you think forcing
them to re-implement fgmp encouraged development of
free software as you assert above.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:59:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kaid0$2hdq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> Ah, I was under the impression that you were using two entirely different
> pieces of hardware to do what youre doing. My mistake.
Apology accepted.
> Yet part of good security practice is knowing exactly whats nessesary,
> and a PPP connection will hardly attract too terribly many 31337 h@x0rz,
> looking for places from which to flood, dump warez, and various and sundry
> other bandwidth-intensive activities.
It does not take many to cause problems all it takes is one. Besides once
someone does break in, depending on their skills, there are ways to keep
tract of which IP address you have whenever you are online after that.
Besides, why are you limiting your argument to just crackers who would want
to setup a covert archives of illegal data and other bandwiidth intensive
activities? There are many reasons for a person may choose to crack a
system. A few examples: to probe for information; to damage a system; as a
stepping stone to crack other systems; to gain access to computing power; to
gain access to applications; to take software and data; for parctice; for
bragging rights; etc. Once a system has been cracked, it can be tagged and
tracked for future reentry, changing your IP address when you reconnect is
no protection once a tracer has been installed in your system.
Until the sysadmin detects and disables the modifications, a system that has
been cracked is always at risk. In many jurisdictions the person who is
responsible for a computer can be held responsible and prosceuted for its
contents, reguardless of how it got there.
I am not willing to face any of these situations so I take precautions.
> > What is the probability of all that comming together the way it did with
a
> > disinterested third party performing the scan?
>
> Small enough that your blatant accusation was a mistake.
Looks like you are getting mixed up again. For my question that you are
responding here to, the smaller the probability is, the stronger that the
position of suspecting the possible involvement of Simon777 is. Given this
situation your response is an oxymoron.
The only two valid responses that could be derived from your actual response
are:
1. Large enough that your blatant accusation was a mistake.
2. Small enough that your blatant accusation was NOT a mistake.
> You are a loon.
Considering your errors above, get your ducks in a row first, before you
start calling someone else an avian. Jim, I won't tell you to bite your
tounge over your loony comments since you would find the experience
enjoyable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:09:56 GMT
On 9 Jul 2000 23:28:15 GMT, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>The vast majority of people, unfortunately, buy or have bought
>>pre-loads which are notorious for including Win hardware to keep the
>>price low. Some models even have proprietary chasis which makes
>>substituting replacement hardware difficult.
>
>Proprietary chassis *cough*Compaq*cough* are a cut corner, Linux
>or no. If your floppy disk fails, would you rather replace it with
>the $30 model from Best Buy or the God-only-knows-how-expensive
>model that you have to mail order direct from Compaq and wait six
>weeks to get?
Absolutely. When I see these custom systems with custom cases and
riser cards (so the cards can sit parallel to the bottom of the case)
I cringe.
>
>>But MY devices also work on the iMac.
>>Not under Linux USB though.
>
>Patience. 2.4.0 is on its way, and the beta kernel has USB support.
>I found it prone to crash under heavy load, and so I've gone back
>to 2.2.16; but even that can be patched for USB. See
>http://www.linux-usb.org/ .
I know it will come in time.
>
>>What about the millions of folks who already have a system and want to
>>try Linux?
>
>A battle we probably can't win in the short term. Winmodems are
>especially thorny, given the unpublished interfaces and the patents
>on modem protocols. Winprinters are probably a different issue.
What we really need to do is educate people on what garbage most of
these devices are.
There is hope however because the other day I saw a soccer mom buying
a modem in CompUSA and she was insisting on an external because she
didn't want to chance getting a Winmodem.
Pretty smart of her because even to a techie it is sometimes difficult
to tell if an internal modem is Winhardware or not.
DP
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:07:29 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this Apache
> dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making ones?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
>
> +===+===+===
>
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
>
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding the
> Web servers -- 43 percent. "
>
> == and ==
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2817
>
> "According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web sites, IIS
> is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market. In second
> place is Netscape/iPlanet with 35%. And the supposedly dominant Apache
> brings up the rear with only 15% of Fortune 500 deployments. Thanks to the
> success of IIS, Windows NT/2000 is also the most commonly used operating
> system on Fortune 500 Web sites: NT is used on 43% of such sites. Sun
> Microsystems Solaris comes in second with 36%. But the real surprise for
> those people that religiously follow the Netcraft surveys is that Linux
> "falls into the noise level," according to ENT, with only 10 companies in
> the Fortune 500 using the upstart open source OS to deploy their production
> sites. Even IBM AIX and HP/UX have 15 deployments each, and BSD/OS tops
> Linux with 14. "
Yep, and I'm going to assume that this is done via some magnificent
survey that does one of two things.
1) Only asks extremely high up "officials" in Fortune 500 IT departments
which don't actually have anything to do with the production machines.
I've seen this happen even in small companies. The IT manager will say
"We run NT on everything" because they don't realize that there are even
alternatives available, yet the staff has implemented Linux or BSD to
actually run the production servers and no one has noticed.
2) Only ask companies that are known Windows supporters. This could
even be done via an on-line query. Line it up to only query the
companies you want and your all set.
Of course, none of this really means that NT is better or worse. It is
very rare that BIG BUSINESS companies adopt something that isn't firmly
entrenched. NT/Windows is firmly entrenched (at the moment) and is
therefore less "risky" from a business standpoint. However, smaller
businesses that are a little more willing to take a "risk" find out that
deploying alternatives (like Linux and FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD) is not
only up-front cost effective, but also more of a solid system in the
long run.
So, even if this "poll" isn't rigged, pure numbers mean very little
about technical performance. I know that Windows dominates the market,
but that doesn't change the fact that for thousands (more?) Linux and
BSD work well. Just because some big business guy isn't changing over
to it doesn't mean I won't be able to use it. If that were the case,
there wouldn't even be alternatives.
Now, I realize I've opened myself up for a landfall of flammage, so let
'er rip. Anytime I see a Windows magazine say "Linux is dead, look at
our proof" I have a really tough time swallowing it. Likewise, anytime
a Linux magazine says "Windows is dead, look at our proof" I am more
likely than not going to ignore the results of whatever concocted test
is presented. In short, you can always find a way to make your favorite
look better. Only truly independent test/polls/benchmarks/whatever are
able to show anything worhtwhile, and even this must be tempered by your
own wisdom. Use what works for you.
Just because a Windows magazine once again says that Linux isn't usable,
I don't think I'll stop using it. It is usable to me, and for me, that
is what matters. For you, use what you want. If Windows works for you,
great use it. Don't try to tell me that I'm wrong for using what works
for me. It might be an idea for Windows advocates to stop yelling at
the top of their lungs in the Linux groups what a bunch of crap Linux
is. I don't spend all of my time haunting the Windows groups saying
Windows sucks. It does suck for me, but it may not for someone else.
OK, that should have pissed off everyone in COLA and COMWNA, let me have
it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:13:10 GMT
I agree. I thought it was a good post also.
Ironically one of things I like about Linux is the ability to manage
processes and with earlier Netscape versions this was a blessing.
Windows 98 is a joke in this area. You MIGHT be able to kill something
after 3 times in the ctrl-alt-del screen.
I have not had a single problem with the latestest version of Netscape
for Linux though. Not one single hang or memory flood(whatever the
term is when it fills up memory).
DP
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:27:17 -0700, Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Doug Begley wrote:
>
>> There are the mysteries of
>> what to do when an app stops. "Stop the process", of course, but how?
>
>From a GUI, KDE has ktop, which is a process monitor that'll
>let you kill any running process. I like qps better - you can
>find it on the net in various places.
>
>Gnome probably has a similar tool. Of course it's always good
>to know how to run ps or top (man ps, man top) from the CLI,
>and use the kill and killall commands.
>
>I thought it was a great post - anyone considering switching
>to Linux should read it carefully. The only thing I'd add is
>that if you *don't* have specific requirements, like certain
>CAD or audio apps, most of your other software needs will
>be met, usually with a choice of applications.
>
>Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 13:14:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>> You cannot restrict others anymore than you have been restricted.
>>
>>In GPL terms, this actually means 'you cannot restrict others
>>*differently* than you have been restricted'; [...]
>
>All that proves is that the GPL is the least restrictive license
>possible, since any difference in restrictions would constitute more of
>a restriction.
Not at all. Many different licenses have less restrictions. I
do not know of any others that attempt to cover other libraries
that happen to be linked, regardless of the author.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:20:45 GMT
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 17:44:26 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Below is a small extract from the beginning and the end of my log enteries
>from this incident. The entire log is just under 200K. I hope this is
>enough evidence. I would prefer to not have to post the entire log but I
>will, if you demand it. I believe this is enough supporting evidence for
>your involvement to be questioned.
I will have to trust what you put up is the truth.
>Yes, you have claimed that you were not involved in your first reply. As
>you know, I have not commented on your claim. I have not officially
>rejected your statement and I have not stated belief in or against your
>involvement since my first posting, in which I did not claim that you were
>involved, only that the evidence point in your direction, so I was asking if
>you could be involved.
Wasn't me.
Trolling around yes. Hacking? no way.
Heck even if I knew how to do it there are 100 people on the list
ahead of you that I would try :)
That's just not my bag.
>Since that origiinal article, I have not tried to argue to support the case
>of your involvement. All I have done is defend my reasoning to have
>suspected your involvement in the first place.
There is no need to defend on either your part or mine. I will have to
take your word that it happened and you will have to take mine that it
wasn't me.
>As you will recall, I was the one who first suggested that it is possible
>that someone had forged IP packets of the port scan to appear to have come
>from you. In that reguard you could consider me to be your advocate. Gee
>that admission of being your advocate in that instance hurts. ;-)
Awww shucks.....
Now your making me blush :)
>What good would taking it to Earthlink do since it was not involved with
>this incident?
>
Probably nothing since I have been complaining to them for weeks about
some idiot that SPAMS all of their groups with Phermones / Larger
Penis size and how to pick up women advertisements.
DP
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And what is the probobility that you are making it all up?
>>
>> With all due respect you haven't provided one shred of evidence other
>> than the ability to read an ip address from a post.
>>
>> How can we be sure it even happened at all?
>>
>> I could for example read your ip address from the post I am following
>> up on now and scream all over the place that I was getting hacked from
>> that ip address.
>>
>> If it is that serious an issue for you I suggest you contact
>> Earthlink.
>>
>> You will however have to provide them with more evidence other than
>> your word.
>>
>> My guess is that you are just making the entire issue up, unless
>> someone else if spoofing my ip address. I don't know, but I doubt that
>> is the case.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:21:19 GMT
14.4k?
Ouch!!!!
I thought I was doing bad a 28.8k...
DP
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:05:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Bernie "sitting behind a 14.4k modem line" Meyer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 13:25:01 -0500
In article <8k9aqs$o9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Steve Mading wrote:
>:>
>:> The tactic of assuming that the only reason someone disagrees with
>:> you is because they don't have all the information is egotism.
>:>
>: The tactic of continuing a lie is a little worse than a little
>: bit of egotism :-).
>
>Look, it isn't a lie if I actually believe it to be true. You can
>accuse me of being false. You can accuse me of being mislead, but
>you can't accuse me of lying, since it's pretty darn obvious I
>actually believe what I'm saying. This sort of ad hominem isn't
>going to swing me over to your point of view. Once upon a time you
>had a chance of convincing me. You don't anymore. I'm done with
>this thread. It's a shame, really, since I'll admit that with a little
>more convincing, and some better arguing, there's a chance I might
>have changed my mind.
The thread is about whether the 'free' term is deceptive. The
fact that there *is* a thread with people on both sides is
enough to prove that point - the content of the argument is
almost irrelevant.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:34:32 -0300
Mike Stump escribi�:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You cannot guarantee freedom by removing it.
>
> The GPL provides a nice counter example.
Or not ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J@M)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:28:59 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:11:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff
Silverman) wrote in <8kbltu$e5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
Just a question about security: On what bases that you've determined non of
those OSes are secure? Is there a secure OS?
Thanks,
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 14:32:36 -0400
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong: The restrictions are necessary because the GPL has the goal
> of promoting the development of GPLed software. (As quoted from
> another posting of yours.)
>
> You continue with your circular logic, assuming that the GPL is 'free',
> which it isn't. You have not proved your premise that he GPL is free,
> since, by default, software isn't free.
No, not wrong. The GPL has the goal of promoting the development of
free software. This is true even if we accept your claim that the GPL
itself isn't free. For example, if you wish to create some software
that you license under the BSDL, but that requires a GPLed library to
run, that's perfectly fine. Anyone will be free to take your source
code and use it in a proprietary way if they want to, and anyone will
be able to distribute the combined work under the GPL.
You incorrect claims about the nature of my reasoning aren't relevant.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:35:50 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 11:12:30 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
>doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
>W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same.
Once more proving that Apache excels at virtual hosting while IIS does
not.
>The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
>ones?
You mean the high-profile ones that MS helps set up for the publicity
value?
>"According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web
>sites, IIS is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market.
Oooh, how impartial.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
