On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:55:39 -0400, DFS wrote:
> wd wrote:
>
>>> Pay web hosts to use Windows?
>
>>Roy Schestowitz wrote...
>>
>> Yes, it's true. Rewards for migration to IIS. After all,
>> Apache is better and free, so why change?
>
> Because it's not better.
In your opinion.
>
>
>
>>> Thanks... very interesting...
>
> It's not interesting at all, except as an example of another freakin' joke
> of a smear, based only on speculation, by Linux/OSS "advocates".
> And notice Roy "The Liar" Schestowitz couldn't show you a link that offers
> anything but more speculation.
There is no Roy "The Liar" Schestowitz.
>
>
>
> Open Source Fights Back
> Date Published: 4/20/2006
> With Bruce Perens, open source evangelist and creator of
> OpenSourceParking.com, a free domain registry based on open source software.
>
> [DFS: by self-titling 'open source evangelist', his credibility related to
> MS topics is immediately reduced to nothing]
By your own logic, you just made anything you say completely irrelevant.
No MS advocate can have any credibility related to Linux topics.
>
> Question: The OpenSourceParking.com announcement cites a Netcraft report,
> which found that GoDaddy.com's migration from Linux to Windows caused Apache
> to lose server share. Was this event the sole impetus for
> OpenSourceParking.com?
>
> Perens: Not the first. It's part of a continuing behavior pattern by
> Microsoft that I think it's fair to call "dirty fighting." GoDaddy was using
> Apache (I assume on Linux) because it was a great technical solution. They
> didn't switch to IIS on Windows Server 2003 for any technical reason [DFS:
> he actually has no idea why they switched]. The switch was accompanied by a
> press release by GoDaddy, containing Microsoft promotional language [DFS:
> his biased opinion only, of course]. Now, I've changed many servers from
> one thing to another, but I've never made a press release about it [DFS:
> typical Linux nut, sample of one]. GoDaddy wouldn't be doing that unless
> Microsoft had offered them something valuable in return [DFS: his biased
> opinion only, of course]. There has been talk in the domain business [DFS:
> of course there has been 'talk' - he's the one doing the 'talking'] that
> Microsoft has been offering the large domain registries a wad of cash to
> switch their parked sites. There is no other reason to do this than to
> influence the Netcraft figures [DFS: or because the domain owners want to
> because Windows offers great advantages
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060321/sftu089.html].
>
>
> Question: Why take this approach given that the sites that were migrated
> have no content as of yet?
>
> Perens: It all has to do with the Netcraft report, which reports total Web
> sites first and active Web sites (the ones with real content) farther down
> the page where it has less impact on the reader [DFS: he's using cola idiot
> tactic 'Only 8 of us can evaluate operating systems/web hosting sites/etc'].
> Netcraft's treatment of parked domains as a valid statistic gives Microsoft
> an incentive to influence parked sites, as they can use the Netcraft figure
> to brag about their mindshare in the server OS and Web server market. I felt
> that by paying someone to move a parked site (which is what I think
> happened) [DFS: how unusual - a wackjob "advocate" has a bout of honesty and
> admits it's pure speculation?!], Microsoft was engaged in what we called
> "Diary Distortion" back when I was a media student: an active effort to
> influence an audience-share rating system in a way that distorted the result
> away from what the actual audience was doing.
> So, I thought to myself: Hey, I could fight back with a page of Ruby on
> Rails coding. [DFS: and so he tries to do exactly what he claims MS is
> doing - less the financial incentive of course]
None of your remarks have any proof behind them whatsoever.
--
Kier
|
|
