In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:02:48 +0000
<2376336.lQdxMWxvBJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Tuesday 06 February 2007 00:02 \__
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, OK
>> <otto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:18:57 +0100
>> <ejefs21mionhbib2su3cge4ds01ppi6oou@xxxxxxx>:
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:14:23 +0000, Doug Mentohl
>>> <doug_mentohl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>'Netcraft says six of the 10 most reliable hosts run their Web sites on
>>>>Linux, while three use FreeBSD and one is powered by Windows'
>>>>
>>>>http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/020507_Netcraft_Announces_Top_Web_Hosts.cfm
>>>
>>> Speaking of netcraft, you probably noticed that Apache is on the way
>>> down, the slope looks like (-1) and at this rate, in 18 short months
>>> from now the so-called Apache domination of the web will be history:
>>>
>>> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/02/overallc.gif
>>
>> One should also note that Windows is on the second most
>> reliable server on that list as well -- www.web.com .
>> Linux is on www.iWeb8.com, the third most reliable server.
>>
>> Windows wins this round.
>
> Apache controls 73% of the live Web.
>
> December 2006 Security Space Survey Results
You're two months off; the percentage is now 58.7%. Mind you,
it's a problem anyway; how does one "control" the Web? At
best, the WWWC defines things such as HTML and HTTP, and
allows for specification of communications between a web server
and a user agent (aka web browser).
Also, you've mentioned GoDaddy games -- and they
are games. But Apache percentage is going down, though
IIS is not picking up the slack.
I don't know who is.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Security Space estimates that nearly 90 percent of all Web sites
> | are "orphans" to which no other sites link. Its Web server survey
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | therefore counts only those servers referenced on other sites.
> `----
>
> http://www.serverwatch.com/stats/article.php/3652421
>
> Microsoft, in the mean time, is paying Web hosts to move inactive sites
> (millions of them) to some idle Windows servers. This enables Microsoft to
> deliver more lies to prospective customers, boasting a bogus growth that was
> paid for.
Not illegal, as you state below. Problematic, to be sure.
>
> Open Source Fights Back
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | 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. The switch was accompanied by a press release by
> | GoDaddy, containing Microsoft promotional language. Now, I've changed
> | many servers from one thing to another, but I've never made a press
> | release about it. GoDaddy wouldn't be doing that unless Microsoft had
> | offered them something valuable in return. There has been talk in the
> | domain business 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.
> `----
>
> http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=15108
>
> Microsoft has been messing about with statistics for ages. And guess what?
> It's not a crime.
>
> See "Get the Facts":
>
>
> ,----[ Quotes with annotation ]
> | "(Microsoft manager:) I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
> | on TCO on webservers. I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
> | on availability (windows was down more than linux). And I don't like the
> | fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with windows .net server."
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | "I don't like it to be public on the doc that we sponsored it because I
> | don't think the outcome is as favorable as we had hoped. I just don't like
> | competitors using it as ammo against us. It is easier if it doesn't mention
> | that we sponsored it."
> `----
>
> http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
>
>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
