Board index » kylix » Re: The future..

Re: The future..


2004-01-17 02:27:59 AM
kylix0
The number of web sites rose from 35 million to 46 million. It just
means that MS's share (as a percentage) is getting smaller. From the
article, MS is still king of the SSL market but Apache is picking up
steam here. From other places not Windows.
Cheers
Dean
JQP wrote:
Quote
"Dean Hill" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Th figures I was quoting was from a recent ZDNET article.
>
>zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5139511.html

OK. So I read this right, Apache picked up 11 million sites while IIS
remained essentially flat. And this is supposed to show a huge
exodus from Windows to Linux?

Don't know where the extra 11 million came from (NetCraft's numbers
have always been flaky) but they don't appear to have come from
Windows.
 
 

Re:Re: The future..

"SiegfriedN" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
It is always a dilema today to decide what to invest your future into.
Time is too precious to waste on technology that may not be around in 3
years time.
I couldn't agree more. Time is limited so use it wisely.
One simple rule to keep in mind when evaluating technology --- it mostly
only moves forward, occasionally sideways and hardly ever backwards.
To facilitate a lateral move, the transition must be relatively simple, pain
free and easily justifiable in economic terms. The available evidence shows
that the growth of the Linux server has been primarily a lateral move from
proprietary Unix, mostly Solaris.
On the desktop, moving from Windows to Linux does not fit the lateral move
criteria IMO. For the average user, it is a step backwards in terms of
usability. China aside, for most of the rest of the world, the benefits
aren't worth the effort under current conditions and I'll bet money that it
won't happen to any significant extent.
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Dean Hill" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Latest netcraft results say otherwise for web servers. Apache market
share grew +-8% while the IIS market share decreased as did the number
of servers with IIS installed (marginally).
Ah yes, the infamous Netcraft survey that Linux fans alternately love and
trash depending upon which way the prevailing wind is blowing at the moment.
www.entmag.com/news/article.asp
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: The future..

"Dean Hill" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Th figures I was quoting was from a recent ZDNET article.

zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5139511.html
OK. So I read this right, Apache picked up 11 million sites while IIS
remained essentially flat. And this is supposed to show a huge exodus from
Windows to Linux?
Don't know where the extra 11 million came from (NetCraft's numbers have
always been flaky) but they don't appear to have come from Windows.
 

Re:Re: The future..

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Dean Hill" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Latest netcraft results say otherwise for web servers. Apache market
>share grew +-8% while the IIS market share decreased as did the number
>of servers with IIS installed (marginally).

Ah yes, the infamous Netcraft survey that Linux fans alternately love and
trash depending upon which way the prevailing wind is blowing at the
moment.

www.entmag.com/news/article.asp
I would discount Netcrtaft as well. After all, they use such unscientific
methods as actually pinging the Internet list of the DNS server all over
the world and see what these sites are actually running. Would be far
better if they use some Microsoft figures from Ballmer and Gates, based
upon some contrived proposals would it not? :)
 

Re:Re: The future..

"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I would discount Netcrtaft as well. After all, they use such unscientific
methods as actually pinging the Internet list of the DNS server all over
the world and see what these sites are actually running. Would be far
better if they use some Microsoft figures from Ballmer and Gates, based
upon some contrived proposals would it not? :)
And you think "pinging" is a scientific measure of real live web sites?
Now that's funny<VBG>.
 

Re:Re: The future..

Quote
"Linus thinks of the developer as the Linux customer, rather than the
corporations that use Linux.
Linus is in charge with the OS Kernel (the only thing that rightfully is
called "Linux") not with the distributions, the Desktop (like
KDE/Gnome), the tools that come with a distribution or the application
software. So he is absolutely right to see to create the best possible
ground the developers can stand on.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: The future..

pNichols wrote:
...
Quote
The processing power issues are being addressed with 64 bit, to be sure, and
that could mean the death in the next few years, for proprietary server
chip sets, like Sparc, and Risc arhcitecture. However, I wonder whether AMD
and Intel are going to play well together in the 64 bit world? Currently,
AMD definitely has the advantage in the 64 bit world.
...
additionaly read this interesting article..
Interview with Scott McNealy
www.pcw.co.uk/News/1151597
Looks like Opteron is the way to go at the moment!
Siegs
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

>"Linus thinks of the developer as the Linux customer, rather than the
>corporations that use Linux.

Linus is in charge with the OS Kernel (the only thing that rightfully is
called "Linux") not with the distributions, the Desktop (like
KDE/Gnome), the tools that come with a distribution or the application
software. So he is absolutely right to see to create the best possible
ground the developers can stand on.
You have a point ... as far as you go. You omitted the last part of the
quote which was ...
"Most of the Open Source is like that."
Just my opinion but viewing other developers as the customer really misses
the mark in many cases ... if Open Source wants their products to be widely
accepted in the marketplace. On the other hand, if what they really want is
"software by geeks for geeks" then it is right on target.
 

Re:Re: The future..

SiegfriedN wrote:
Quote

www.pcw.co.uk/News/1151597

Looks like Opteron is the way to go at the moment!

Siegs
I agree.. AMD is the stock to buy right now in the Chip World, IMHO as well.
 

Re:Re: The future..

Quote

You have a point ... as far as you go. You omitted the last part of the
quote which was ...

"Most of the Open Source is like that."

Just my opinion but viewing other developers as the customer really misses
the mark in many cases ... if Open Source wants their products to be widely
accepted in the marketplace. On the other hand, if what they really want is
"software by geeks for geeks" then it is right on target.
Of course you are right, but there are quite strong movements in other
directions, as well. E. g. "Lindows". (I never tried it.)
-Michael
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Of course you are right, but there are quite strong movements in other
directions, as well. E. g. "Lindows". (I never tried it.)
And if you'll note, Lindows is not really *free* --- as in beer or speech.
It is sold on a per seat basis with copying, modifying, etc. prohibited. In
fact, I'm not sure how it can even be reconciled with the GPL. Some of the
source code is available (not sure about all) but the license essentially
prohibits you from using it --- "you may not ... modify LindowsOS or
incorporate LindowsOS into or with other software".
For all practical purposes, it looks more like a proprietary product to me.
They describe it as "mixture" of Open Source and proprietary.
 

Re:Re: The future..

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Of course you are right, but there are quite strong movements in other
>directions, as well. E. g. "Lindows". (I never tried it.)

And if you'll note, Lindows is not really *free* --- as in beer or speech.

It is sold on a per seat basis with copying, modifying, etc. prohibited.
In
fact, I'm not sure how it can even be reconciled with the GPL. Some of
the
source code is available (not sure about all) but the license essentially
prohibits you from using it --- "you may not ... modify LindowsOS or
incorporate LindowsOS into or with other software".

For all practical purposes, it looks more like a proprietary product to
me.
They describe it as "mixture" of Open Source and proprietary.
Um, I think you're confusing Lindows with Red Hat or something.
I've been involved with Lindows since the beginning and the license
allows me to put it on as many of my personal pcs' as I want to.
Putting it pc's I want to resell is another matter, though they've got
an "OEM club" or somesuch that I believe charges like 100 dollars US a
month for unlimited distribution.
As an "Insider" I'm encouraged to poke around in the source, and if
I really go nuts and volunteer, I'll be ASSIGNED software to help work
on for them.
Now, I agree with you that it can't downloaded for free, and I'm not sure
how that
can be reconciled with GPL either.
Mike
 

Re:Re: The future..

"Mike Mormando" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Um, I think you're confusing Lindows with Red Hat or something.
I've been involved with Lindows since the beginning and the license
allows me to put it on as many of my personal pcs' as I want to.
Yes, the key word being "personal" as defined under the "Family" license.
Under this license, you're still not "free" to give it to friends or anyone
outside your "family". Not very GPL friendly IMO.
However, the "Business License" is even more restrictive:
www.lindows.com/lindows_products_OSEULA.php
Lindows grants You a non-exclusive license for Your authorized users to use
the object code form of LindowsOS ... for
(1) solely up to the number of Simultaneous Users purchased by You ...
or
2) solely up to the number of Seats purchased by You ...
Looks very similar to Microsoft's old "per user" or "per computer" EULA
options to me?
 

Re:Re: The future..

Mike Mormando wrote:
Quote
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:400d0772$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>
>>Of course you are right, but there are quite strong movements in other
>>directions, as well. E. g. "Lindows". (I never tried it.)
>
>And if you'll note, Lindows is not really *free* --- as in beer or speech.
>
>It is sold on a per seat basis with copying, modifying, etc. prohibited.

In

>fact, I'm not sure how it can even be reconciled with the GPL. Some of

the

>source code is available (not sure about all) but the license essentially
>prohibits you from using it --- "you may not ... modify LindowsOS or
>incorporate LindowsOS into or with other software".
>
>For all practical purposes, it looks more like a proprietary product to

me.

>They describe it as "mixture" of Open Source and proprietary.


Now, I agree with you that it can't downloaded for free, and I'm not sure
how that
can be reconciled with GPL either.
I guess they don't distribute modified GPL projects, like the kernel or
GPL apps. But their own additional software is properietary.
HTH,
Micha.