-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 26 May 2009 20:02 : \____
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Joel <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linux became defacto in render farms for special effects because if
>>>> you have 800 pcs all networked, or 2000 cpus all networked and running
>>>> for a week to produce the water for a scene such as in the the movie
>>>> "Titanic", you really dont want a single PC locking up with a BSOD
>>>> after 6 days and 23 hours do you ?
>>>>
>>>> Only Linux provided that kind of reliability.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not nice to lie as you do, tel.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
>>
>> Ah, "parked domain" netcraft. Does anyone take them seriously any more?
>>
>
> Yes. Widiots
I recently learned that Microsoft's real share is about 10-20%, not what
Netcraft claims it to be. They have a Microsoft relationship too.
===========
Lies, Damn Lies, and… Netcraft/Microsoft
Is Netcraft an accomplice or merely a victim?
“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.”
–Bruce Perens
THERE is a very interesting new comment from GreyGeek which led to further
discussion (scroll down to the comments). He wrote:
[T]he GoDaddy, Google and other Netcraft debacles in the Spring of 2005 and
later revealed that Netcraft does everything it can to twist the data in such
a way that it increases Microsoft’s webserver percentages and decreases
FOSS’s. With that twisting they have been able to make their “reporting”
APPEAR that Apache’s server share has dropped from over 70% to 46%, while
Microsoft’s has risen from under 20% to nearly 30%.
Deep down in their web site Netcraft concedes that in current “heavily
used” websites Apache runs 66% while Microsoft runs only 18%. (See below!) In
other words, for example, Netcraft counts the HUGE number of idle Microsoft
servers that GoDaddy PARKS, while NOT counting ALL the web servers in Google’s
ACTIVE Linux server farm. Their logic for this hypocrisy is mind numbing. They
use other similar “metrics” to extend the same distortions.
By comparison, another site which tracks web server market share is
SecuritySpace:
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200903/ index.html
which shows Apache’s current share at 71% and Microsoft’s is at 17%. From a
dropdown combobox on the same page you can query various domains and countries
to see how FOSS and MS compare in percentages. For example, France is 89% FOSS
and 8% MS.
As noted before in the context of Apache, Microsoft may be exploiting the
nature of Netcraft statistics to promote itself, so this might not be
Netcraft’s fault. Nonetheless, it puts in serious doubt any output from
Netcraft because its numbers were essentially ‘hacked’ in the sense that they
are now being gamed. With regards to uptime, another person points out:
Apparently in both cases, Microsoft offered to the customer “twice the
quantity of servers (that normally would be needed in a RedHat/Apache
implementation), and twice as many systems admins with full redundant
service, “all at Microsoft’s expense”. The aim was to publicly
show “reliability, scalability” of Microsoft technology as compared to the
more established and respected competition.
We’ve already seen just how unreliable Microsoft's poster child is. It’s said
to be another case of heavy redundancy for the illusion of stability.
To conclude, says another commenter:
I had the same experience as you, GreyGeek. When I found out that Netcraft
lost its objectivity (even its appearance of objectivity), and started rigging
the numbers in late 2005 to make Microsoft’s net presence look better than it
actually was, I lost all respect for Netcraft’s web survey.
Respect for Netcraft is so low now that it might as well just start
reporting IIS as having 100% market share across the board. It wouldn’t change
anyone’s opinion of Netcraft, so no harm could come from it. The only
difference is that Netcraft could stop pretending it isn’t an industry joke.
For what it’s worth, according to Netcraft, Boycott Novell is the 2156th Web
site in the world, as ranked by traffic. Although we served over 30,000
pages/day earlier in the week (as judged by AWStats metrics), it’s very
doubtful that Netcraft’s traffic rank is not skewed in favour of system
administrators. For similar but inversed reasons, Alexa ranks are GNU/Linux-
and Firefox-hostile (more Windows/IE-oriented). I wrote about this in my
personal Web site, which was at some stage ranked around 17,000th, according
to Alexa.
* Alexa Versus Netcraft Ranks
* Alexa Ranks - Only Make Belief
* From PageRank to Alexa Rank
Via A9, Alexa ranks worked quite all right for GNU/Linux and Firefox users.
That was before Microsoft intervened and put an end to it. █
============
Is Netcraft Promoting Microsoft Just Like Net Applications?
Summary: Netcraft changes what it measures, which works pretty well for
Microsoft; Net Applications carries on deceiving
THREE weeks ago we wrote about the mysteries of Netcraft, which is claimed to
be bent in Microsoft's favour. A few days ago the following got published:
Netcraft: Microsoft Hosts Most Active Sites
Web analytics firm Netcraft (www.netcraft.com) is expanding on its web
server survey by offering a dataset of the most active sites, giving a truly
global analysis of web hosts.
The firm explains that each website that is found on its monthly web server
survey can be attributed to a hosting location using reverse DNS and IP
address delegation information.
Could Microsoft be compensating for this change in the element that’s measured
so as to glorify Microsoft’s pathetic true numbers (10-20% market share,
according to some sources)?
“They are linking to a cryptic survey that is indirectly funded by Microsoft
and Apple.”The black art of statistics is associated with mastery of how to
change what’s displayed or measured such that it places the preferred
data/company as leader and then presents ‘quick results’ (usually graphs) to
unsuspecting viewers that are lazy to validate or to ask what it is that they
are actually seeing, let alone how it was derived, bar caveats?
A few days ago we found Web sites which are pretending that GNU/Linux has only
just surpassed 1% of market share on the desktop. They are all linking to a
cryptic survey that is indirectly funded by Microsoft and Apple. For
information about Net Applications, review past writings such as:
* Microsoft and Apple Pay Net Applications (Hitslink)
* Net Applications: the Big Lie, Boosted by IDC|IDG et al
* Summary: Lies, Damn Lies and Net Applications (Fake ‘Statistics’)
Regarding the latest from Net Applications, Bernard Swiss writes:
IIRC, Google Zeitgeist in 2003 reported 2.9%
and I trust that figure for client OS share much better than anything put
out by NetApplications.
It’s too bad that Google decided to stop reporting client OS share; I never
understood why they felt it necessary to do so, but I suspect there was more
to it than the official statement covered.
We have already shared our own perspective on desktop market share in [1, 2, 3,
4]. █
“We don’t have a monopoly. We have market share. There’s a difference.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
- --
~~ Best of wishes
AAAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse Anonymous.
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.98 1.16 1.28 6/308 9642
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkocbnkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5jIACdHIe6bkmwUQ7LEhjo2q2DvlhT
SVAAniHYJMBGAWafRTJTdY4I+csJs4C7
=X/KX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
