Is Microsoft Linux in the Wind?
Posted by malebolgia on 20 November 2003 - 18:25 · 88 comments & 3631 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(4 replies)
#1 Posted by Knight' on 20 Nov 2003 - 18:44
- Microsoft will never make its own distribution to Linux, that's basically admitting "yes we've known windows sucks so don't bother with it any more". Microsoft’s empire DEPENDS on its large user base, which will be its ultimate demise (in my opinion). It's just wishful thinking that Microsoft might make a Linux distro. Wishful thinking indeed!
-
#1.1 Posted by Gott on 20 Nov 2003 - 18:51
- Are you sooo sure about that?
MS Linux: Shipping in November 2003
MS Linux - the premier linux distro
-
#1.2 Posted by YaZoR on 20 Nov 2003 - 18:54
- I love this quote:
QUOTE "This is horsesh!t. Horsesh!t, horsesh!t, horsesh!t. And for those of you who don't know what that means, it's the sh!t that comes from a horse!"
-- Greg, Columbia Internet -
#1.3 Posted by Gott on 20 Nov 2003 - 19:06
- I just love the whole website:
The "Hot Topics"
QUOTE Microsoft Monkey Colony on Mars
Microsoft has announced that a team of monkeys will be shot into space in 2005 to establish the first Martian Colony. At a recent press conference, Bill Gates confirmed, "We are already training the monkeys to do simple tasks like reboot the space ship when it blue screens. The space vehicle will be running our newest product, SpacePod 2004. This product will instruct the monkeys how to colonize Mars and establish trade with the Martians. We intend to monopolize this market before Human travel to Mars is possible."
MS Linux to have Start Button
Microsoft is working to incorporate the well known "Start" button from the Windows Platform into X Windows' Gnome interface. "We just can't figure out how the hell to get that darn foot out of there! The damn thing is like stuck." The team will have this feature ready by product launch.
MS Linux Faces Competition
Microsoft has hired lawyers to attack it's own product line in an attempt to confuse the DOJ. This stunning new tactic shows great promise according to several Harvard Law professors, although many expressed confusion when questioned about the long term effects of this campaign.
And the MS Linux Features:
QUOTE More Swap Space: Microsoft Linux provides an average of 28 percent more swap space, thanks to a feature called IntelliSwap that enables more efficient use of your hard drive.
QUOTE How do I get MS Linux?
We are now offering the MS Linux Introductory CD at a special introductory price of only $249.99 (plus shipping and handling), if you order before it ships.
MS Linux is released under the provisions of the Gates Private License, which means you can freely use this Software on a single machine without warranty after having paid the purchase price and annual renewal fees.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by YaZoR on 20 Nov 2003 - 18:52
- I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Would be nice i suppose, but I don't see how it would make Microsoft lots of money (if it uses GNU Linux of course). Anyone?
-
#2.1 Posted by KCKitsune on 21 Nov 2003 - 12:10
- Microsoft would take a base distro like Debian or red hat and then put in a emulation layer to run all the Windows programs. Since the emulator isn't licenced as GPL they can distribute it as a binary (and making you pay for it). If I were Microsoft I would have it so that you don't need to change the kernel at all (like WINE) that way you don't have to give out the source code.
-
(18 replies)
#3 Posted by dougkinzinger on 20 Nov 2003 - 19:18
- It's licensing Unix code for the product it makes as a result of it's purchase of Interix back in 2000. Microsoft makes Windows Services for Unix, which allows most Unix programs to be written to work in Windows using these tools, and allows many Unix commands to work in Windows.
So in essence, it already has "Microsoft Linux". -
#3.2 Posted by clonk on 20 Nov 2003 - 23:11
- You're using the wrong your. You should have said 'God you're annoying.'
And doug is smarter than you will ever be, so if you are annoyed by superiority then I'd say you are very justified! -
#3.3 Posted by mlauzon on 20 Nov 2003 - 23:19
QUOTE (#3.2) You're using the wrong your. You should have said 'God you're annoying.'
And doug is smarter than you will ever be, so if you are annoyed by superiority then I'd say you are very justified!
That post is written by something that is so stupid, if I took its tiny
brain and rolled it down the edge of a razor blade, it would be like a
lone car going down a six lane highway. Your post is an orgy of
stultifying cacophonous verbal depravity; an exercise in literary
impotence, and an offense to all of good taste and decency.
Are you normally this dumb or are you just having a blonde moment? You're
just another Internet-addicted idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth
and constipation of the mind. Well, you're certainly thoughtless; I just
wish that you were keyboard-less, too. How true is Stanislaw J. Lem's
famous remark: "Every now and then you meet someone whose ignorance is
encyclopedic."
What possessed you to think that you were capable of being entertaining
or interesting to read? Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a
fatal overdose of your medication. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a
pathetic loser if you weren't living proof that stupid people should not
breed; if your weren't so fat that you make sumo wrestlers look anorexic,
or if you didn't have a face like a boiled Octopus. Nah, of course you
would.
You're a message board freak. I know it's hard to accept the truth, but
the truth it is, and accept it, you must.-
#3.4 Posted by dougkinzinger on 20 Nov 2003 - 23:59
- Wow, why all the hubbubb here guys?? I am a Microsoft Partner after all, and if you don't like my answer you don't have to read it, there, fella. Take it easy.
-
#3.5 Posted by dougkinzinger on 21 Nov 2003 - 00:23
- Yeah, okay Jon, you make productive posts, don't you. Sounds like someone needs to get a life.
-
#3.6 Posted by Jon on 21 Nov 2003 - 00:34
- That really is a very lame comeback, I'm not entirely sure why you bothered posting.
Doug is smarter than me? Not a chance
Doug: I make very productive posts, and have done for a long time. But occasionally someone stumbles onto neowin who bugs me. Posting in bold is annoying, and most people would consider it shouting/rude. Why on earth you persist god alone knows. -
#3.7 Posted by clonk on 21 Nov 2003 - 00:52
- mlauzon, If your post wasn't a combination of rehashed 'Your momma' jokes and trite cliches I would probably compliment you on your efforts there. But instead I'm going to give you a link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060185759/qid=1069374557/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/002-4693392-9761660?v=glance&n=507846
You'll probably need a new one after that post. -
#3.8 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 01:19
QUOTE It's licensing Unix code for the product it makes as a result of it's purchase of Interix back in 2000. Microsoft makes Windows Services for Unix, which allows most Unix programs to be written to work in Windows using these tools, and allows many Unix commands to work in Windows.
So in essence, it already has "Microsoft Linux".
Um, Interix/Services for Unix has no Linux kernel, so in essense, it is Unix just like it says. The association between SFU and Linux is the stolen System V code in Linux.-
#3.9 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 01:41
QUOTE (#3. 
Um, Interix/Services for Unix has no Linux kernel, so in essense, it is Unix just like it says. The association between SFU and Linux is the stolen System V code in Linux.
I agree that MS SFU does not contain the Linux kernel, and therefore would not be able to run Linux programs, as Doug had suggested. I believe, and I may very well be wrong since I don't use Windows very much, that MS SFU adds some rudimentary *nix compatibility for administrating purposes. *nix boxes are very easy to remotely.
As for the whole "UNIX SVR4 Code" thing... There has been absolutely no evidence shown outside a NDA that would support this claim. If SCO is really holding back the evidence, as they claim, it has yet to come out and be examined in a court of law. Until then, it is all speculation and opinion.-
#3.10 Posted by BOOGSoftball on 21 Nov 2003 - 02:23
- Uh, Yeah. Doug is smarter than you. He knows what he's talking about. You're contribution to this thread? 'God your annoying'.
Yep. Way to show your intelligence, Chuckles. -
#3.11 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 02:33
- I'd say that Doug seems to argue reasonably. Even if you disagree with a person's post, you can argue it reasonably - don't bring it to a personal level. Discuss the facts, please. Let's keep the posts productive.
As for the all bold... Well, I'll admit I do not like it much. But, you will have to admit it is better than all caps! -
#3.12 Posted by dougkinzinger on 21 Nov 2003 - 04:19
- Thank you guys.
-
#3.13 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 06:17
QUOTE I believe, and I may very well be wrong since I don't use Windows very much, that MS SFU adds some rudimentary *nix compatibility for administrating purposes. *nix boxes are very easy to remotely.
Well, of course it does. SFU is a UNIX subset for Windows NT based platforms. Quite naturally, it has UNIX compatibility stuff...it is UNIX.
QUOTE As for the whole "UNIX SVR4 Code" thing... There has been absolutely no evidence shown outside a NDA that would support this claim. If SCO is really holding back the evidence, as they claim, it has yet to come out and be examined in a court of law. Until then, it is all speculation and opinion.
It is true that there has been no court decision on the matter. It is not true that there is no evidence outside of NDA. While some have refuted what has been shown publically, one would also expect those who refuted it to refute it.-
#3.14 Posted by Jon on 21 Nov 2003 - 09:32
- WTF is wrong with you people. His constant use of bold p1sses me off, and I snapped. Why on earth do you all seem to think you can judge my intelligence from one line of text that wasn't even intended to contain input related to the thread.
I want to be able to read constructive posts without having my eyes distracted to one post who decided his opinion was more important than anyone elses, its rude.
And if he really knows what hes talking about (which I personally never questioned), why does he constantly feel the need to put things in bold? Is it because he thinks he has the write to be heard louder than us? That isn't what the net is about. -
#3.15 Posted by dougkinzinger on 21 Nov 2003 - 11:54
- Easy there, no need to write an essay over your distaste for a few bolded letters. There's children in the world who don't have food and you're writing essays about bold letters. Easy there, fella.
-
#3.16 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 12:58
QUOTE Quite naturally, it has UNIX compatibility stuff...it is UNIX.
Having a basic Unix compatibility does not make it UNIX. Just as Linux having wine does not make it Windows.
QUOTE It is not true that there is no evidence outside of NDA. While some have refuted what has been shown publically, one would also expect those who refuted it to refute it.
If you are talking about the BSD-licensed code, then you will see that the obsufuscated code that SCO showed was indeed properly licensed. It is not different than taking the Public Domain "Hello World" program, and finding it in both Linux and SVR4 UNIX. The fact that non-proprietary code is found in both systems does not prove criminal action.-
#3.17 Posted by gameguy on 21 Nov 2003 - 14:51
QUOTE (#3.16) Having a basic Unix compatibility does not make it UNIX. Just as Linux having wine does not make it Windows.
umm, yes it does... wine emulates windows, whereas services for unix is actually unix in a smaller form if i'm not mistaken.
-
(5 replies)
#4 Posted by zzkj7w on 20 Nov 2003 - 19:22
- I believe MS is supporting SCO to attack the GPL. If the GPL is proven in court to be invalid, MS would be able to use, and distribute its own version of the linux kernel without having to share the source. While SCO claims it didn't want to attack the GPL, but were forced to by IBM's countersuit, I think this was one of there main goals from the beginning.
Remember, linux is the kernel, GNU is the collection of utilities that make up the OS. If SCO gains ownership of the kernel, and then the GPL (other licenses would fall if this one did) falls, GNU/Linux is ripe for corporate plunder and profit exploitation of all those Oper Source Developers ...
of course, i'm drunk, and it makes sense to me now ... -
#4.2 Posted by radixvir on 20 Nov 2003 - 20:11
- i was thinking along the same lines....if ms/sco could prove the GPL invalid they could well make their own version of linux or take source from linux and include it in windows without worry (not to say they havent already done that, they for sure have bsd code in there)
-
#4.3 Posted by rezza on 20 Nov 2003 - 21:36
- If the GPL is decreed to be invalid (which isn't going to happen anyway) then people will just switch to a BSD style license. Not a problem.
-
#4.4 Posted by bluarash on 20 Nov 2003 - 23:31
- Not really since SCO has already said that they plan on going after the BSD community. No more FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, or OSX without a $799 per seat license. I can just see Apple having to work out some sort of strange deal in order to not charge $950 per copy of the desktop version of Panther.
I don't however see SCO winning anything in the legal realm. The current SCO company is nothing more than a leach living off from our legal system in the States. Their CEO talks the talk, but I doubt he can walk the walk, and I'm sure he is rather ashamed of the tactics his company employees. If I was an investor in SCO, which I'm not, I would send the wife and children off to work, go downstairs into my study, grab some j.d., and think very hard about the meaning of life. -
#4.5 Posted by KCKitsune on 21 Nov 2003 - 12:18
- Bluarash, I'm not doubting you, but I have NO clue on how SCO can take on BSD. AT&T tried to shut down BSD and got smashed in court. AT&T OWNED UNIX (none of this stupid SCO "All your code is belong to us" crap) and they failed. I can't see how this would happen.
-
(9 replies)
#5 Posted by BigBoy on 20 Nov 2003 - 19:51
- MS is just covering themselves (and their customers) that use Services for Unix. I don't understand how come this is so hard to understand and all those wild stories have to be made up?
I think someone has way too much time on their hands
-
#5.1 Posted by dougkinzinger on 20 Nov 2003 - 21:13
- Exactly, like my post said above. I agree wholeheartedly.
-
#5.3 Posted by dougkinzinger on 21 Nov 2003 - 13:21
- No, sorry, if you don't like them you are more than welcome not to read them.
-
#5.4 Posted by SomeDork on 21 Nov 2003 - 17:59
- I think it's important that we all try to make our comments stand out.
-
#5.5 Posted by dougkinzinger on 21 Nov 2003 - 18:17
- Sounds good to me!
-
#5.7 Posted by dougkinzinger on 22 Nov 2003 - 13:21
- If you want to be a mature individual that's your choice. Feel free to not read my posts if you wish. Easy there.
-
#5.9 Posted by dougkinzinger on 24 Nov 2003 - 04:49
- Right on Mipra! Bold rocks!
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by mh508 on 20 Nov 2003 - 21:03
- lol... i was thinking of Microsoft making its linux distro a few years ago... i thought it would be a weapon of Microsoft's if they shipped their own Linux distro and that way maybe aproach the linux users (ever though of Microsoft doing as many companies and releasing: Windows Free, Windows Home and Windows Pro versions? The "Free" would prolly be a Linux based lite/basic version of Home and Pro
Dunno if that would be good for users though hahahaha -
#6.1 Posted by devilotX on 20 Nov 2003 - 21:18
- See, I always figured thats why MS sued Lindows, cause they wanted to use that name, think about it, they put out a distro with a nix version of office (no one really wants to compete with MS Office, its the cost that keeps people away) then support it poorly and migrate *nix users into Windows, MS comes out looking good for supporting nix and it gains users...
or something like that....
-
(3 replies)
#7 Posted by gameguy on 20 Nov 2003 - 21:40
- why the hell would microsoft make their own distribution of linux?
they already have windows, and it is arguably superior in most (all?) ways, so what makes everyone think they're going to make their own distribution? 
they're just doing it for their services for unix (remember, SCO owns unix...) as dougkinzinger said. it has NOTHING to do with linux. just because linux grew from unix, doesn't mean jack sh*t about this thing between microsoft and SCO... -
#7.1 Posted by bluarash on 20 Nov 2003 - 23:37
- Superior in the way that I can't seem to manage my website without a daily reboot. It has gotten better in recent years, but is still a number of years off from a real scalable/affordable Unix like solution. Maybe five years...
-
#7.2 Posted by SomeDork on 21 Nov 2003 - 08:20
- I hear this all the time, and frankly, don't see it anymore.
NT4? Sure.
Win2k+? Your hardware is screwy, or you're violating a "best practice" (IE- using unsigned drivers, unsupported or non-win2k+ aware applications).
There is nothing inherently wrong with Windows or Linux, and you'll hear both camps say precisely what you're saying.
BTW, I can manage a website without a daily reboot, even without applying specific port 80 security patches... just because you can't doesn't mean the entire OS is bad. -
#7.3 Posted by nookadum on 21 Nov 2003 - 09:00
QUOTE (#7.1) Superior in the way that I can't seem to manage my website without a daily reboot. It has gotten better in recent years, but is still a number of years off from a real scalable/affordable Unix like solution. Maybe five years...
You probably don't even know how to use your computer properly if you keep getting errors like that.
Well, unless you're using Windows ME.
-
(17 replies)
#8 Posted by Torvald_Is_Our_King on 20 Nov 2003 - 21:53
- This is hilarious! Microsoft wouldn't use Open Source if it was the last method on Earth. *sigh* Oh well, Linux is getting more user-friendly and Microsoft is just getting more crappy and their eye candy winds up looking like this: . IMHO, Microsoft (at least at the server OS level) is going down.
-
#8.1 Posted by Evil2000 on 20 Nov 2003 - 22:04
- not quite correct.
Microsoft took, for example, the TCP/IP-Stack of FreeBSD and built it into one of the first versions of Windows NT. I guess there are many more examples like that, but you can't prove it since you can't compare the source code. -
#8.2 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 01:22
QUOTE (#8.0) Microsoft (at least at the server OS level) is going down.
That must be why they have 55% server market share which continues to increase. Perhaps you learn math somewhat differently than I did. FYI, when the amount something increases, that's generally considered going up.-
#8.3 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 02:08
QUOTE (#8.2) That must be why they have 55% server market share which continues to increase. Perhaps you learn math somewhat differently than I did. FYI, when the amount something increases, that's generally considered going up.
Hmmm... The information I can find on the net shows the opposite trend to what you say. Where did you get your information?
Netcraft here shows webservers, and shows Microsoft stedily losing ground.
Perhaps you have other information to share?-
#8.4 Posted by JaggedFlame on 21 Nov 2003 - 03:00
- Why do you always persist to show us webserver data and claim that it applies to all servers?
It does NOT. Web servers are a fraction of total servers. -
#8.5 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 03:09
- I am asking for the data behind the numbers being thrown out.
BobSmith quoted 55% and increasing. Other people quote different numbers, but increasing. Where is this information coming from? When there is a disparity, either information is old, or being made-up on the spot.
Do you know where these numbers are being quoted from?
<edit>If you re-read the post, you will see that I clearly point out it is for WEBservers, as I ask for the source of information on the quoted data. </edit> -
#8.6 Posted by JaggedFlame on 21 Nov 2003 - 04:52
QUOTE If you re-read the post, you will see that I clearly point out it is for WEBservers, as I ask for the source of information on the quoted data.
No, you said that it reversed the trend BobSmith was talking about. It has no bearing on what BobSmith suggested as a trend at all, because your data didn't apply. I could go find statistics that show that Microsoft is used more for Digital Rights Management servers. What does that prove as a whole? Nothing.
QUOTE BobSmith quoted 55% and increasing. Other people quote different numbers, but increasing. Where is this information coming from? When there is a disparity, either information is old, or being made-up on the spot.
Yes, he needs to tell us where these numbers are from, but you can't just tell him he's wrong based on your subset of data. Why don't you tell us why web server data is an accurate representation of the whole?-
#8.7 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 05:16
QUOTE (#8.6) Yes, he needs to tell us where these numbers are from, but you can't just tell him he's wrong based on your subset of data. Why don't you tell us why web server data is an accurate representation of the whole?
Well, webservers seem to be part of the "server" group. And there is decent data collected on these. However, no one can seem to point out any data for any other form of servers, yourself included. There just seems to be some statistics quoted fairly authoritatively without anything backing them up. I agree it is only one piece of the picture. But, so far, it is the only piece that I have seen.
It is hard to give much weight to a line of reasoning with nothing shown yet to support it. I never claimed that his information was wrong. I showed that the webservers showed an opposite trend to his claim, and asked for the additional information that supported his statement. Then suddenly, I am being accused of trying to pass off webservers as ALL servers (which I did not do), and of saying that BobSmith was wrong (which I also did not do).-
#8.8 Posted by JaggedFlame on 21 Nov 2003 - 05:36
QUOTE Well, webservers seem to be part of the "server" group. And there is decent data collected on these. However, no one can seem to point out any data for any other form of servers, yourself included. There just seems to be some statistics quoted fairly authoritatively without anything backing them up. I agree it is only one piece of the picture. But, so far, it is the only piece that I have seen.
I'm not denying that he needs to back up his statistics. However, your data does not reverse his trend at all. It is not the same data set he is talking about.
All your data says is that Apache has more marketshare for web servers. We don't know what percent of all servers are web servers. Therefore, web server data is fairly useless to what he's talking about.
The point here is that if you see someone quoting statistics out of the blue, it's equally weird to be bringing up a subset of data and claim that it has any bearing to what he's talking about.
As for disputing your data: http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1...1000webservers/. I still fail to see how it has anything to do with total servers, but whatever. I've frequently seen people such as slapnuts_ox pull data out of their ass saying 75% of all Internet servers are Linux servers, but I don't bust this link out claiming it reverses that trend, because I just don't have enough information about it.-
#8.9 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 06:27
- Jagged,
Thanks for the defense. Also, kudos on the port80 link. I was going to post it, till I realized you had. Below is a reference to IDC putting 2002 Windows market share at 55% Search for "windows server market share" on google and several of the top ten links show syndication of the IDC report.
"IDC said new license shipments for the server version of Windows represented 55.1% of the market in 2002."
http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/newsIt...i931438,00.html
-
#8.10 Posted by KCKitsune on 21 Nov 2003 - 12:33
- Jagged & BobSmith from that link that you gave it says the following at the bottom
QUOTE An IDC analyst said despite Microsoft's good numbers in this area, it's not likely that its server OS will grow much more than that.
So you are right Bob, but with the world's financial state as it is, Microsoft had better lower the price for it's server OS or just by sheer economic forces it will get taken down. Now if you add in technological innovation... well BillG had better be praying
Also to show that Samba is a better file server than Windows, please feast your eyes on these links:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/News/1144312
http://www.itweek.co.uk/ITWeek/itw_graph_1144289.jsp -
#8.11 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 13:27
- He didn't say it was likely to shrink either. I see no evidence to support your little prediction of doom. People have preached doom and gloom for Windows for years, yet market share in all that time has continued to grow. Even if it stalls at 55%, that is still majority. That means, Windows Server has more market share than all other competing vendors combined. That doesn't seem like a bad position to me.
-
#8.12 Posted by JaggedFlame on 21 Nov 2003 - 15:19
- Bob, if that's the link you were trying to post, then when you said:
QUOTE That must be why they have 55% server market share which continues to increase.
You should have specified web servers. That's why we ran into a little conflict in this thread. -
#8.13 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 22:10
- I just didn't have time to find the IDC link.
The port80 link is the one I was referring to. I only thought of that to provide balance to the misleading netcraft stats. -
#8.14 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 22:32
- I went to that port80 link. It seems (by the rather annoying pop-up ad) that they are in the business of promoting and selling their own products for Microsoft servers. Plus, they show only the top 1000 corporations. Nothing like a cut-off in the numbers, eh? Netcraft polls all available servers on the internet. Plus, the port80 information is also for WEBservers. Not ALL servers, like I as being criticised for quoting. I believe that it was JaggedFlame that was jumping on this detail, though, and not you, Bob.
So, the Port80 survey of the top 1000 shows Microsoft with approx 55% of webservers, and the Netcraft survey of 100% of responding servers is wrong? -
#8.15 Posted by BobSmith on 22 Nov 2003 - 01:21
- port80 writes software that runs on IIS. That is true. However, you can use their tool (or your own), to query the webservers yourself to determine the accuracy of their claims. So far as I can tell, port80 reports exactly what each webserver reports.
1000 corps only? Their point is to show that lthe majority of arge companies (the Fortune 1000 to be exact) run their websites on IIS ergo Windows. It's not an issue, IMO, of market share. It is simply stating that most of the 1000 largest companies on earth trust Windows to run their web sites.
Netcraft. It doesn't include all sites. It includes all the ones it knows about. There is a difference. It includes in its numbers any dinky site you can find. Setup a box, host a hundred sites, let netcraft know about you, and there you go, another 100 votes for your favorite webserver. Does anyone visit your site? Have you altered it recently? What's the relationship between number of sites and number of boxes or number of IPs vs. number of boxes. Netcraft can't tell you that (port80 can't either). Netscraft, mostly speaks of marketshare, but says little about quality. Since netcraft can't determine things like loadbalancing, it can't give a real answer even on market share.
port80 revisited. Their site simply shows web sites claiming to be IIS from the Fortune 1000. Personally, the fact that the majority of the largest corps on earth support IIS is enough to make me take IIS very seriously. The fact that, potentially, thousands of nobodies use Apache means very little to me. -
#8.16 Posted by JaggedFlame on 22 Nov 2003 - 08:31
QUOTE Plus, the port80 information is also for WEBservers. Not ALL servers, like I as being criticised for quoting. I believe that it was JaggedFlame that was jumping on this detail, though, and not you, Bob.
That's exactly what I said when I pasted the link. I merely suggested that that was the statistic he wanted. It turns out he wasn't saying what he meant, either. So he's just as much responsible for this discussion as you are.
Look, you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to. All I'm saying is that you need to say what you mean. I know you didn't mean to say that a trend such as "55% of all servers are Microsoft servers" can be reversed with simply web server data.
It can't. So why say something like that? That's all I'm saying. Don't get so defensive.
QUOTE It seems (by the rather annoying pop-up ad) that they are in the business of promoting and selling their own products for Microsoft servers. Plus, they show only the top 1000 corporations. Nothing like a cut-off in the numbers, eh?
It seems to me that if you were a web server administrator, you would want to get such a product to DISGUISE the fact that you're running IIS, based on the popular conception that IIS is more vulnerable. Seeing as how IIS is still in the lead, even after this, I would think that this has little to do with anything.
I mean, think about it. If I were running an Apache webserver on Linux, there's no reason for me to make people think it's IIS. There's no point to it. You get more worms trying to hack into your server for no reason. And you pay money for something like that? I don't think so.
QUOTE Netcraft polls all available servers on the internet.
Don't kid yourself. Do you really believe that?
QUOTE So, the Port80 survey of the top 1000 shows Microsoft with approx 55% of webservers, and the Netcraft survey of 100% of responding servers is wrong?
First of all, you are wrong for thinking that it's a survey of 100% of responding servers, and second of all, it is indeed inaccurate. If Netcraft were to poll actual servers instead of domains, it would reflect reality much better. And yes, they used to do that. That report showed IIS clearly in the lead. For some idiotic reason, they first made that report a pay report, and guess what, now you can't even access it anymore. Go figure.
Think about it. If you park a million domains with a server because you're a registrar, and you happen to be running Linux, guess what? The results get way skewed towards Linux. You can see this whenever Linux gets a huge lead on Netcraft. They pretty much say right out loud that it was because registrar.com reserved a bunch of new domains or something.
Compared to my link, which shows you corporations. Why the hell do I care what Joe Schmo or some registrar pageholding server is running? I care what Microsoft or IBM are running. I don't know about you, but port80 seems way more useful to me.
And I reiterate: this is WEB SERVER DATA. There are tons of other types of servers that you're just tossing aside for the moment. It's well and good to be arguing about web servers, but it's not going to get you anywhere. If we were to admit that one OS has the lead for web servers, then what? Who cares? I, for one, am much more interested in SQL servers or application servers or any other type of server than one that just serves out information on the Internet.
And if you look at the case studies on Microsoft's website, you'll see that there are a lot of corporations using Microsoft software for their needs. Way more than I've ever seen for Linux. That's pretty impressive in my book.
Last edited by 820 on 22 Nov 2003 - 08:46
-
#9 Posted by bluebsh on 20 Nov 2003 - 23:44
- it'd be nice if people would start reporting fact and not made up fantasy world BS now days...
-
#10 Posted by norky on 21 Nov 2003 - 00:03
QUOTE when the company said it was licensing the Unix source code and patent from the SCO Group.
therein lies the answer to the question.
SCO is broke, MS licenses the UNIX source code, SCO's lawsuit drags on, SCO is still broke, MS buys UNIX patent from SCO, MS continues fighting lawsuit, MS wins, MS rules the world.
I know this won't happen, but hey..
-
#11 Posted by Quick Reply on 21 Nov 2003 - 00:31
- um... this is because of Microsoft Virtual Server 2004
-
(9 replies)
#12 Posted by Milka on 21 Nov 2003 - 01:57
- LOL people get real... why do everyone think that Linux is ohhh so good that MS actually think it would be better to base a new Windows on that
Linux is nothing compared to Windows and will never be, Windows has a way better design and time will prove that for sure
I'm actually getting kinda annoyed about everyone wanna stuff that garbage (Linu
down our throat all the time... Linux profets are getting way too much like Jahova's at times even worse 
-
#12.1 Posted by markjensen on 21 Nov 2003 - 02:21
- Linux design...
The same Operating System scales from TIVO, up to Handheld PCs, Desktops, Servers, and two of the top 10SuperComputers in the world.
I think that says an awful lot about the capabilities of the system. Anyone wonder how many Windows SuperComputers there are? None.
As far as pushing down anyone's throat, no one (certainly not I) is forcing others aside and loading Linux on thier PCs. However, every time I have purchased a PC, it seems to have Microsoft pre-installed, and OEM contracts seem to legally prevent sellign without Windows. Who seems to be forcing whom? -
#12.2 Posted by BobSmith on 21 Nov 2003 - 06:43
QUOTE However, every time I have purchased a PC, it seems to have Microsoft pre-installed, and OEM contracts seem to legally prevent sellign without Windows.
Funny, I've seen Dell and HP (the top two PC vendors) selling Linux on PCs. If a Windows guy like me can find Linux, it's rather pathetic that a Linux guy like you can't. Don't you think?
BTW, The contracts you spoke of haven't been in place for many years now.
QUOTE The same Operating System scales from TIVO, up to Handheld PCs, Desktops, Servers, and two of the top 10SuperComputers in the world.
QUOTE Anyone wonder how many Windows SuperComputers there are?
No, I hadn't wondered that. Frankly, I don't care. Windows has 55% server market share...double that of Linux. Windows Server does very well for what it was designed for. Should Microsoft expand Server to the mainframe, then it'll be worth the trouble to compare. As for real world scenarios (super computers are pretty rare in comparison to the rest of the market), Windows Server Data Center (2000 and 2003) does very well. It even gaurantees 99.9% reliability. (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003.../dcprogram.mspx see "Minimum 99.9 Percent Uptime Guarantee" Any other vendor do that? Hmm, didn't think so.
BTW, Linux is only there due to the stolen SMP code from SCO.-
#12.3 Posted by SomeDork on 21 Nov 2003 - 08:15
QUOTE (#12.1) Anyone wonder how many Windows SuperComputers there are? None.
First, define "supercomputer". It's subjective. But regardless ... there are windows "supercomputers"... Here's one: http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5460. Google is your friend, it took me all of 30 seconds.
Concerning "Scaling": Windows Embedded. Powers everything from smartphones to Pocket PCs to car stereos. Linux isn't the only cat in the henhouse.
Who is forcing whom: The vendors are responding to market request, nothing more and nothing less. Scream, bitch, moan, but the bottom line is the public has spoken. Linux, OS/2, have all had their time in that sun, but all of them failed to provide a viable business model for the vendor.-
#12.4 Posted by nookadum on 21 Nov 2003 - 09:10
QUOTE Windows Server does very well for what it was designed for.
Sure, and Linux can do the same.
QUOTE BTW, Linux is only there due to the stolen SMP code from SCO.
What a bunch of fud. It wasn't even proven yet.
Proprietary by Nature
Perhaps the most compelling reason for skepticism is that such a move would be against Microsoft's very nature. "At this point, Microsoft appears to be opposed to both the concept of open-source software, in general, and Linux, in specific," Dan Kusnetsky, vice president of system software for IDC, told NewsFactor. "I'd have to say that the chance of Microsoft offering a Linux operating system is rather remote." Even if the software giant were to revise its philosophy, there is the matter of whether such a move would make sense in financial terms. "Microsoft's management has a responsibility to maintain and increase shareholder value," Stacey Quandt, principal analyst, Open Source Development Lab, told NewsFactor. "At the same time, Microsoft's survival in its present form depends on maintaining and increasing the Windows operating system installed base. Hence," she concluded, "it is highly unlikely that Microsoft will create a Linux operating system."
Changes: