Netscape: FREE! - MS's repsonse?? (was Netscape: FREE!)
Chris
No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question: what will
MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr. Gates
slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
What do the PEOPLE think?!
Brian Knotts wrote:
> Netscape is not only making their browser freely distributable, as was
> expected, but it is releasing SOURCE CODE starting with developer releases of
> 5.0!
>
> Take that, Microsoft!
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Brian Knotts bkn...@europa.com http://www.europa.com/~bknotts/
Loren Petrich
In article <34CA33F3...@surewould.com>,
Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question: what will
>MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr. Gates
>slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
Chairman Bill has never been a fan of GNUware -- ever since some
of his hobbyist friends pirated his early version of MITS BASIC.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Steven C. Den Beste
Chris wrote in message <34CA33F3...@surewould.com>...
>Brian Knotts wrote:
>
>> Netscape is not only making their browser freely distributable, as was
>> expected, but it is releasing SOURCE CODE starting with developer
releases of
>> 5.0!
>>
>> Take that, Microsoft!
>>
>No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question: what
will
>MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr. Gates
>slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
>
>What do the PEOPLE think?!
>
I don't think Microsoft is going to make any fundamental change at all. (I
certainly don't think they'll give the source to IE away, for instance.)
Has it occurred to you that this may be, more or less, what Microsoft has
been aiming for all along? Not the release of the source, per se, but the
effective destruction of any sales receipts for Netscape for
Navigator/Communicator etc.?
By doing this, Netscape is now deprived of a major revenue stream. That's
serious for a company which doesn't have all that many; it only leaves
Netscape with about three. (As I recall, what's left is server sales, sales
of groupware, and advertising revenue from Netscape's web site, which turns
out to be significant.)
Since Microsoft hasn't been getting any direct revenue from IE anyway, loss
of some marketshare for it is hardly a disaster; they wanted marketshare as
much to deprive Netscape of it as for any other reason.
(And before anyone accuses me of cheering for this, I'm really sorry that
Netscape is in trouble and that people are being laid off. I wish it wasn't
that way. I hope that they have time to make the transition into a new and
successful business before their resources run out; they don't have much
margin for error. I would be very upset if they went under or were
acquired.)
Robato Yao
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 18:33:23, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
> No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question: what will
> MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr. Gates
> slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
>
> What do the PEOPLE think?!
We are about to see the greatest ideological and religeous conflict in
computing history:
The Legacy of Greed, headed by Gates and Microsoft
versus
The Legacy of Voluntary Contribution, as typified by Free Unix
sainthoods.
Frankly, I am so deeply impressed by the Linux movement, which may
have created an operating system with more development hours and
dollars behind it than any commercial OS in history, including
MIcrosoft's, all in so short a time. I am also deeply impressed of
another movement that complements this, which is the web based
distribution of freeware and shareware. Wedding both is a web based
system of voluntary software development.
More and more, other systems will take notice of these two approaches.
Already Be is inclined towards the latter. A movement within the
OS/2 groups have strong sentiments to make OS/2 truly free to share
the Linux approach of development.
Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
or any free OS.
If Linux or Free Unix is one shoe, the free browser is the other.
There is an obvious opportunity in this---taking the source code of
both and welding it into one super NC/Web OS. There is a third part
in what seems to be really a trinity, and that one is a free JAVA VM
(like Kaffe) for Linux and for the Free Unix movement. Sun should see
and realize the full potential of what the combination and alignment
of all these forces can mean.
Rgds,
Chris
>
> Brian Knotts wrote:
>
> > Netscape is not only making their browser freely distributable, as was
> > expected, but it is releasing SOURCE CODE starting with developer releases of
> > 5.0!
> >
> > Take that, Microsoft!
> >
boo...@ibm.net
on 01/24/98at 08:54 PM, "Zico" <Zico...@hotmail.com> said:
>Why would they bother doing anything of the sort? They're
>already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
>share away.
This is the tragedy of the whole thing. Seeing MS win because of their
sheer weight and thuggery is troubling to me; I prefer to see quality win
over thuggery, but that is not to be.
Still, someone will outflank MS and MS will end up as a big, but lawful,
competitor.
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
Brian Knotts
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 20:54:44 -0500, Zico wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Chris wrote in message <34CA33F3...@surewould.com>...
>>No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question: what
>will
>>MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr. Gates
>>slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
>>
>>What do the PEOPLE think?!
>
>
>Why would they bother doing anything of the sort? They're
>already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
>share away.
Not anymore.
:-)
Roger Christie
Zico wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Chris wrote in message <34CA33F3...@surewould.com>...
> >No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question: what
> will
> >MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr. Gates
> >slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
> >
> >What do the PEOPLE think?!
>
> Why would they bother doing anything of the sort? They're
> already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
> share away.
>
Because this stands to change that.
--
+=======================================+
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Linux: Been there, done that.
Roger Christie
rog...@castle.ultranet.com
arathorn@Castle D'Image MUSH
+======================================+
David H. McCoy
In article <DRm1WlwhvoWd-p...@guili-26.kuentos.guam.net>,
cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
> Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
> released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
> of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
> or any free OS.
>
>
This is hardly sainthood on IBM's part. They released the source because
they are not supporting OpenDoc.
Are there any examples of IBM releasing the source to any thing that they
are continuing to support?
--
-----------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
-----------------------------------
James Himmelman
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:23:45, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H.
McCoy) wrote:
> In article <DRm1WlwhvoWd-p...@guili-26.kuentos.guam.net>,
> cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
> > Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
> > released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
> > of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
> > or any free OS.
> This is hardly sainthood on IBM's part. They released the source because
> they are not supporting OpenDoc.
Who said anything about "sainthood"? He only said that IBM released
it, and he is right.
> Are there any examples of IBM releasing the source to any thing that they
> are continuing to support?
Not that I know of. So what is your point? You seem to be reading an
awful lot into his post.
> dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
[[[ James Himmelman - jhi...@i-2000.com ]]]
Bradd W. Szonye
>>already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
>>share away.
>
<34cb5fd8$2$obbguz$mr2...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...
>This is the tragedy of the whole thing. Seeing MS win because of their
>sheer weight and thuggery is troubling to me; I prefer to see quality win
>over thuggery, but that is not to be.
Pardon me if this isn't appropriate for all the included newsgroups...
hopefully it's of a fairly general interest.
Because of the nature of my work and my hobbies, I use a browser, an
SMTP/POP3 e-mail client, and a newsreader--a lot. The most important things
to me in these products are not their features but their interfaces. In
particular, it's important to me that I can do the most common tasks with a
single keystroke unless it's an inherently pointing-type activity (like
selecting links with a mouse[*]).
I use IE4 at home and Communicator4 at work. I prefer IE4 for browsing for
one simple reason: Navigator's interface is broken for the way I usually use
a browser.
First, the minor criticism: while Navigator may be more solid internally
than IE (I don't know this, I'm just admitting that it's a possibility), the
interface shows signs of shoddy implementation. There's at least one option
dialog that has a non-functioning close button in the window frame. It looks
like you should be able to dismiss the dialog with the standard close
button, but it just doesn't work. While getting the internals right is more
important from a technical standpoint, getting the interface right is much
more important from a competitive standpoint!
Next, the major criticism: this might sound silly, but it really bugs me. IE
uses Backspace for the Back button--the most commonly-used shortcut. I can
reach that from my home keys. Navigator uses Alt+Left-Arrow for the same
task. I have to move my hands to press this. Even more annoying (and both
browsers are guilty of this): the other most common tasks are scrolling and
"next in a series of pages." For the former, I have to reach for
PageUp/PageDown; for the latter, the mouse.
One combination of keys might work well: G(o back), Shift+G(o forward),
D(own), U(p). Other potential scroll keys are F/B/space, like most Unix
tools. There's a possible conflict with text fields on forms; possibly use
Ctrl+U/D/F/B for this situation. I would most like forward to be F or
Ctrl+F, but that conflicts with the Windows use of Ctrl+F for find.
Therefore... LET ME CONFIGURE THE SHORTCUTS! That way folks who prefer
Netscape's Space/Backspace for down/up can use that too.
This is really a criticism of all Windows software: please, PLEASE don't
make me take my hands off my home keys to do my most common application
tasks. For all the fluff you hear about improving ergonomics, they can't get
a simple thing right like reducing wrist and arm motion? I must admit, I
never even realized this was a problem until two things happened: I started
using the "vi" editor at work, and I started getting wrist/elbow/shoulder
pain, but only when using my home computer! Now, it certainly makes sense to
make the cursor keys work right, but is it all that hard to put an
alternate, easier keystroke on the main keyboard? As hard to learn as vi can
be, it saves my wrists, which is important in my line of work.
Okay, enough griping about the browsers. Regarding e-mail: I don't have a
lot to say, since I don't use Messenger at work (e-mail is VAX-based), and I
only have some general gripes about Outlook Express. Overall, OE is a nice
mail-reader; unfortunately the editor seems pretty damn broken.
Cut-and-paste is clunky; reply and forward quoting is kind bizarre, and
often screws up the line breaks. I just sort of blunder around with it, not
doing anything too sophisticated. The only reason I don't switch is because
I haven't seen anything I like enough to justify paying for it as an
alternative.
Finally, newsreaders. I kinda like Collabra, except that it's a pain to
start. Start Communicator, start Collabra, choose a newsgroup, close the
groups window, actually get to work. Ugh. After the reader is going,
however, it's pretty nice for a bare-bones reader. Start at the first group
and keep pressing N to go through the messages in all groups. Nice.
Outlook Express is almost as good, except for two things. First, "Next
Unread" is Ctrl-U. DUH! What's the most common reader function, Microsoft?
Use ONE KEYSTROKE please--preferably the N key that all other newsreaders
use. Also: on switching newsgroups, I have to click on the first unread
message; using Next Unread doesn't work at all yet. And then I have to click
in the preview pane again in order to scroll it with the keyboard (otherwise
it scrolls the thread pane). Quit making me reach for the mouse unless I
need to point at something!
That last criticism applies to all Windows newsreaders: Let me go through
ALL the unread messages using only the N key. In all newsgroups. Without
touching my mouse. While you're at it, give me a one-key shortcut for
scrolling the VIEWING pane exclusively. That's the one I scroll the most
often. Put the shortcuts on some alphabetic key.
In my ideal newsreader:
1. You can start the reader directly, unlike Collabra or (to some extent)
OE.
2. The reader automatically downloads the headers from the first newsgroup
in my subscribed list and shows them in the thread pane. With all messages.
With threads expanded. I like context! And let ME order the subscribed
list--don't just use alphabetical order.
3. The reader automatically jumps to the first unread message in the thread
pane (like OE does) without actually downloading the body.
4. The reader actually downloads the first unread message when I hit the N
key.
5. When there are no messages left in the first group, the N key takes me to
the next group. Whether it asks for confirmation to do so (like Collabra) is
an option.
6. While reading messages, I can scroll the preview pane down and up with F
and B. (These are the keys used by almost all Unix applications for this.)
This scrolls the preview pane ONLY. The less-common task of scrolling the
thread pane can use the arrow keys.
7. The space bar also scrolls the preview pane down. At the end of a
message, space bar gets the next message or next unread message, depending
on a configurable option.
8. Optionally, the reader lets me map keys other than N, F, B, space to
these tasks.
Is that too much to ask? I might actually be able to read my news without
ending up with twisted fingers and tense shoulders. In hopes of getting some
of these features, I downloaded the trial version of Anawave's Gravity,
which reviewers rave about. Incredibly, I found its interface even less
usable than Collabra or OE. I'm reluctant to try Free Agent, because so many
of the secondary features I use are only available in Agent, and I can't
evaluate them.
I guess I'll just have to break down and finally learn Windows programming
so that I can get a damn newsreader that works the way I want it to.
(*) By the way, I wish there were some standard HTML tag--maybe there
is--for marking some link on a page as "the next in a series of related
pages." Then, have the browser map a toolbar button and the N key to this
tag.
---
Bradd W. Szonye
bra...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
David H. McCoy
In article <uprsNDlpp0Dh-p...@dyn26.tc1.mineola.i-2000.net>,
jhi...@i-2000.com says...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:23:45, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H.
> McCoy) wrote:
>
> > In article <DRm1WlwhvoWd-p...@guili-26.kuentos.guam.net>,
> > cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
> > > Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
> > > released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
> > > of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
> > > or any free OS.
>
> > This is hardly sainthood on IBM's part. They released the source because
> > they are not supporting OpenDoc.
>
> Who said anything about "sainthood"? He only said that IBM released
> it, and he is right.
We are about to see the greatest ideological and religeous conflict in
computing history:
The Legacy of Greed, headed by Gates and Microsoft
versus
The Legacy of Voluntary Contribution, as typified by Free Unix
sainthoods.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Frankly, I am so deeply impressed by the Linux movement, which may
have created an operating system with more development hours and
dollars behind it than any commercial OS in history, including
MIcrosoft's, all in so short a time. I am also deeply impressed of
another movement that complements this, which is the web based
distribution of freeware and shareware. Wedding both is a web based
system of voluntary software development.
More and more, other systems will take notice of these two approaches.
Already Be is inclined towards the latter. A movement within the
OS/2 groups have strong sentiments to make OS/2 truly free to share
the Linux approach of development.
Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
or any free OS.
If Linux or Free Unix is one shoe, the free browser is the other.
There is an obvious opportunity in this---taking the source code of
both and welding it into one super NC/Web OS. There is a third part
in what seems to be really a trinity, and that one is a free JAVA VM
(like Kaffe) for Linux and for the Free Unix movement. Sun should see
and realize the full potential of what the combination and alignment
of all these forces can mean.
Rgds,
Chris
There is Chris' post. To answer your question, HE said something about
sainthood.
> > Are there any examples of IBM releasing the source to any thing that they
> > are continuing to support?
>
> Not that I know of. So what is your point? You seem to be reading an
> awful lot into his post.
It sound to me like he is equating IBM's release of OpenDoc to the free
software mentality that is the defining characteristic of the Unix
community.
If this is his intention, my point is that I don't agree. IBM held on
pretty tightly to OpenDoc up until they decided to no longer support it.
This is not sainthood.
> > dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>
> [[[ James Himmelman - jhi...@i-2000.com ]]]
>
--
Tor Slettnes
>>>>> "Loren" == Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> writes:
Loren> Could Linux and GNUware in general be these hobbyists'
Loren> revenge on Chairman Bill?
Not quite yet. Linux is merely a little insect on his radar screen.
(After all, we are still talking about vastly different markets).
It is just a question of time before Linux becomes more userfriendly
(also for novices) than Windows, though. Application support is
already pretty good, and more being created every day. It's free,
and it's rock solid.
So gradually he will see some competition.
Incidentally, the official line from Microsoft regarding Netscape's
release of source code includes the statement that "Netscape will have
to spend a lot of effort ensuring the quality and security of
contributions". To compare, Linux is both more secure and more stable
than Windows.
-tor
Paul Rickard
The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
--
-Paul Rickard, President of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign.
"Without data, you're just another opinion."
http://www.abctec.com/~msbc
Paul Rickard
The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
Tor Slettnes
>>>>> "Zico" == Zico <Zico...@hotmail.com> writes:
Zico> Why is it a tragedy? Do you think everyone should keep using
Zico> Netscape even if it's inferior, just because you hate MS?
Zico> It's it's nice to see the marketplace working as it
Zico> should. Microsoft's gaining market share because they've
Zico> passed by Netscape in the browser race.
When you are saying Netscape is inferior, I assume you are talking
about the integration into the Windows environment. Certainly, MSIE4
has, as Microsoft says, become a part of Windows.
Netscape's advantage is that it supports more Web-specific features,
including style sheets, real java (not the pseudo-Java that Microsoft
tries to tell you is real Java), and so on. Not to mention that it
supports far more platforms (for me a must).
The release of their source code is wonderful. It ensures that the
browser will continue to be developed - hopefully to the aid of
Netscape Corp, but also even if they should vanish.
Zico> Quality? Surely you're not talking about Communicator. They
Zico> had such a technological edge at the time of Netscape 2.02,
Zico> but blew it themselves.
How? Netscape 4 (although a bit bloated) certainly has a lot of user
interface improvements, features such thing as IMO the best Web editor
there is, and again, is the only "universal" browser out there.
Zico> More power to 'em. I don't wed myself to any company. But I
Zico> don't expect to see the challenge coming from IBM, Netscape,
Zico> Oracle, Sun, or Apple.
Different markets. MS herd sheep; Sun & Netscape (or for that matter
Linux, FreeBSD, Rhapsody..) are for slightly more savvy users.
Yes, the sheep count is high, but that does not mean there are no
alternatives.
-tor
Donald Brown
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
> Early in his career, Bill Gates had had the experience of his MITS
> BASIC interpreter widely pirated. He wrote a famous letter in response
> asking these computer hobbyists to consider the terrible consequences of
> people not having an incentive to write software.
>
> Could Linux and GNUware in general be these hobbyists' revenge on
> Chairman Bill?
Naw, they just want his nehru jacket.
Geez, can we deal with something more recent?
Donald
boo...@ibm.net
on 01/26/98at 04:19 AM, nospam@nospam (John Black) said:
>I'm not a pro-Microsoft zealot, but while releasing the source code does
>help, people still stick with Microsoft products. Sales of NT have been
>making major inroads of UNIX.
Is NT moving into Unix territory? The little bit i have seen is that NT
is moving into territory that wasn't Unix, and never would be unix. NT
seems to me to be going into new situations, mostly, and places where the
minimal unix staff left for greener pastures.
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
Steven H. Parker
boo...@ibm.net wrote:
> Is NT moving into Unix territory? The little bit i have seen is that NT
> is moving into territory that wasn't Unix, and never would be unix. NT
> seems to me to be going into new situations, mostly, and places where the
> minimal unix staff left for greener pastures.
Where I work we have a few NTWS boxes. They are that way because HP
shipped them that way. The higher end [anything above the basic desktop
model] machines built by HP are shipped with NT by default. I would
speculate that this is due to pressure from MS to pad its NT sales
figures.
-SHP
Loren Petrich
In article <DRm1WlwhvoWd-p...@guili-26.kuentos.guam.net>,
Robato Yao <cro...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
>We are about to see the greatest ideological and religeous conflict in
>computing history:
>The Legacy of Greed, headed by Gates and Microsoft
>versus
>The Legacy of Voluntary Contribution, as typified by Free Unix
>sainthoods.
>Frankly, I am so deeply impressed by the Linux movement ...
I think what is significant here is that the cost per individual can be
relatively small -- once some code is written, it is written
And having source code open allows for better quality control (more
people able to examine and modify it).
>More and more, other systems will take notice of these two approaches.
> Already Be is inclined towards the latter.
Where's that from? The BeOS's internals are still proprietary,
but at least Be provides a lot of info for developers, and tries not to
charge too much.
A movement within the
>OS/2 groups have strong sentiments to make OS/2 truly free to share
>the Linux approach of development. ...
I think that if IBM decides to stop supporting OS/2, that would
be a worthy fate for it.
>Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
>released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
>of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
>or any free OS. ...
I had wondered what happened to OpenDoc; it's nice to know that
it will now be freely available.
>If Linux or Free Unix is one shoe, the free browser is the other. ...
Already, one thing that has hurt Netscape is that its biggest
competition, Apache, is free. And is not cross-subsidized by some company
which tries to destroy its competition by ways other than outperforming
it. Notice what M$ executives say among themselves -- that they want to
destroy Sun and Netscape rather than outperform those two companies.
Adobe never gets called the Evil Empire of Image Editing on
account of Photoshop, because Photoshop is, in a sense, easily
expendable. An operating system, however, is not, because many computer
users accumulate a big library of dusty decks. Consider the big
investment the computer industry has made in backward compatibility, just
to see.
Loren Petrich
Early in his career, Bill Gates had had the experience of his MITS
BASIC interpreter widely pirated. He wrote a famous letter in response
asking these computer hobbyists to consider the terrible consequences of
people not having an incentive to write software.
Could Linux and GNUware in general be these hobbyists' revenge on
Chairman Bill?
--
John Black
>The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
>hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
Bob O
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 07:05:32, chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:53:13 -0800, Paul Rickard <ms...@abctec.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
> >hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
> >stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
>
> How can a web server stomp on an OS? Or did you mean to say the same
> way Apache is stomping on IIS? You do realize that Apache also runs
> on NT, right?
>
> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
> IIS. That is, IIS's numbers are increasing, while Apaches are
> decreasing.
>
> That's not counting Intranet's either.
>
Actually I saw a graph on a site the other day. Both Apache and IIS had
user number lines inclined upwardsly at the same angle with a slight favor
to Apache. That means that IIS may be gaining percentage wise but not
closing the gap on numbers of users of which now Apache has more than twice
as many users.
Bob O - Computing for fun
Bob O
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 04:31:22, "Zico" <Zico...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> MSIE not only supports style sheets, but has supported them longer
> than Netscape (since IE 3), and supports the W3C CSS spec better.
> Every review I've seen has proclaimed Microsoft's "psudo-Java" JVM
> faster and less buggy than Netscape's. And being on more platforms
> doesn't make something superior. That's like saying that The Gimp
> is superior to Photoshop just because it runs on more platforms.
> I'd like to be able to use MSIE on Linux (I use Communicator 4.04),
> but it doesn't mean that I find MSIE inferior to Communicator when
> I use them both on 95 and NT.
>
Most reviews put Communicator well ahead of IE 3. and most reviews put the
new versions about equal. However, when you breakdown the reviews, MS has
always had a better Java implementation. It wasn't enough in IE 3 to pull
the overall ratings even, but in IE 4 it has.
Netscape in their recent decision admitted that their Java implementations
have been very poor. With this new direction they hope this problem will
be solved.
Netscape is still generally rated better in the rest of the stuff.
Individual opinions will vary no doubt because MS is doing the big push
thing and a lot of folks don't like stuff getting pushed at them, you know,
sort of a rebel spirit.
Todd Kepus
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 01:12:32 -0500, Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com>
wrote:
>Zico wrote:
>
>> Why is it a tragedy? Do you think everyone should keep using
>> Netscape even if it's inferior, just because you hate MS? It's
>> it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
>> gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
>> the browser race.
>
>What are you smoking?
I don't smoke.
> And can I have some?
> Internet Explorer 4 sucks on
>toast, man!
Why? I find it fairly comparable to Netscape 4.03. In what *ways* do
you think it 'sucks'?
> I've tried IE4 and Communicator, and IE4 is the klunkiest
>browser I've seen that wasn't in an early beta stage.
That's probably because you didn't give it a fair shakedown.
Judging from your .sig, I'd say you were a UNIX user :-)
Boycott MS? Sheesh. And Linux?? Give me a break. Now I know why
you don't like IE.
-Todd
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com>/ http://genpc.home.ml.org
>Unix / Linux / Windows Hacker, / Boycott Microsoft!
>Anime & Sonic Fan, / Linux rules!
>All Around Nice Guy / Let's keep the Net and the Land FREE!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kepus - Japan Hewlett Packard - todd_...@hp.com
--------------------------------------------------------
*The standard disclaimers et. al. (and stuff) apply.
"I am not an HP spokesperson, and any opinions presented
here are mostly likely _not_ those of HP's"
--------------------------------------------------------
James Youngman
>>>>> "Tor" == Tor Slettnes <t...@lanminds.com> writes:
Tor> Incidentally, the official line from Microsoft regarding Netscape's
Tor> release of source code includes the statement that "Netscape will have
Tor> to spend a lot of effort ensuring the quality and security of
Tor> contributions". To compare, Linux is both more secure and more stable
Tor> than Windows.
IMHO this is larely due to Linus's skill. After all, saying "Linus
will have to spend a lot of effort ensuring the quality and security
of contributions" is pretty fair.
Steve Cole
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, John Black wrote:
> I'm not a pro-Microsoft zealot, but while releasing the source code
> does help, people still stick with Microsoft products. Sales of NT
> have been making major inroads of UNIX.
I hear this all the time. It is a fabrication.
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services
|(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T1 URL: http://www.kos.net/
|Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario
|
|"Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
|backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net."
|(forgive me if I'm terse, I answer hundreds of e-mails a day)
Roger Christie
Tor Slettnes wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Loren" == Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> Loren> Could Linux and GNUware in general be these hobbyists'
> Loren> revenge on Chairman Bill?
>
> Not quite yet. Linux is merely a little insect on his radar screen.
> (After all, we are still talking about vastly different markets).
I don't think thats true. I think Linux is a rather larger blip
on his radar screen, because it directly threatens NT. Which
is not a vastly different market, and /doesn't/ require all that
much more user friendliness.
The sentiment of the sysadmins here is certainly that they'd rather
deal with Linux any day.
>
> It is just a question of time before Linux becomes more userfriendly
> (also for novices) than Windows, though. Application support is
> already pretty good, and more being created every day. It's free,
> and it's rock solid.
>
> So gradually he will see some competition.
>
> Incidentally, the official line from Microsoft regarding Netscape's
> release of source code includes the statement that "Netscape will have
> to spend a lot of effort ensuring the quality and security of
> contributions". To compare, Linux is both more secure and more stable
> than Windows.
>
> -tor
r.e.b...@usa.net
In article <34cc0e98...@news.mindspring.com>,
nospam@nospam (John Black) wrote:
> >The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
> >hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
> >stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
Mosaic completely derailed Microsofts plan for an "All Microsoft
Internet". Linux is already making a dent in the NT server market.
In addition, there are several realy good GPL web browsers, but any of
them that wish to use SSL will have to pay royalties to Netscape anyway.
> I'm not a pro-Microsoft zealot, but while releasing the source code
> does help, people still stick with Microsoft products. Sales of NT
> have been making major inroads of UNIX.
There was a big rush to switch to NT because it appeared to be a cheap
alternative to the $50,000 Sun Enterprise servers and had the
"credibility" and "support" of being a Microsoft product. If the same
product had been released by a small company, NT would never have made
the first cut.
Companies are starting to get some unpleasant first-hand experiences with
NT as a server. While it's pretty good at trivial tasks, it can take 10
different servers to provide the functionality of a single UNIX box. It
can take 20 different boxes to provide comparable reliability. When you
start computing the price of boxes, NT Server Licenses, Software
Licences, CALs, and/or Seat Licences, NT becomes much less attractive.
When you add the prices of Domain management and reconfiguration, custom
development, and the risks of adding non-Microsoft software, the costs
get unreasonable.
Meanwhile, Linux has been proving itself in the marketplace and is
winning millions of satisfied customers every month. Sun, who has never
been an agressive player in the Intel market is finally getting serious
about Solaris for Intel, and is pricing SparcStations to be competitive
with NT/Intel boxes. Meanwhile BSDi and SCO are trying to cash in on the
success of Linux by offering the combination of the features of Linux
with their own enhanced user interfaces.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jeff Read
Zico wrote:
> Why is it a tragedy? Do you think everyone should keep using
> Netscape even if it's inferior, just because you hate MS? It's
> it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
> gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
> the browser race.
What are you smoking? And can I have some? Internet Explorer 4 sucks on
toast, man! I've tried IE4 and Communicator, and IE4 is the klunkiest
browser I've seen that wasn't in an early beta stage.
Jeff Read
Zico wrote:
> MSIE not only supports style sheets, but has supported them longer
> than Netscape (since IE 3), and supports the W3C CSS spec better.
> Every review I've seen has proclaimed Microsoft's "psudo-Java" JVM
> faster and less buggy than Netscape's. And being on more platforms
> doesn't make something superior. That's like saying that The Gimp
> is superior to Photoshop just because it runs on more platforms.
> I'd like to be able to use MSIE on Linux (I use Communicator 4.04),
> but it doesn't mean that I find MSIE inferior to Communicator when
> I use them both on 95 and NT.
Well... The Gimp *is* superior to PhotoShop for numerous reasons... but
that's another newsgroup...
Shawn
In article <34CC2950...@geocities.com>, bit...@geocities.com
says...
IE4 is crap. Active desktop is crap on crap & it was when I first
discovered what would crash NT...hehe...a microsoft product...can't waiit
for nt5 hahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I'll say netscape has a bug or two, but it's crappyness PALES in
comparison to IE4 crappyness & the communicator interface rocks.
speed comparison: Opera, Netscape, IE4 dead last.
Ie4 is dog beggin for a bone.
But those who like to open a page on thier drive, here's the procedure:
"click here" "click here" "ok, now click here" "are you sure you want to
do that" "click here again" "no wait, I meant click here" "ok now click
here" "ok, select the file" "are you sure that is the file you want to
open?" "click here" "click here again" "don't you get tired of this?
click here" "because I'm, laughin my ass off" "ok lastone I promise"
"Sucker! CLick here" crash & take the rest of the partition with it.
Erik Funkenbusch
>The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
>hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
>stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
How can a web server stomp on an OS? Or did you mean to say the same
Brian Knotts
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:31:22 -0500, Zico wrote:
:>And being on more platforms doesn't make something superior.
It does if you're using one of those platforms.
:>That's like saying that The Gimp is superior to Photoshop just
:>because it runs on more platforms.
It is. :-P
--
________________________________________________________________________
Brian Knotts bkn...@europa.com http://www.europa.com/~bknotts/
Bob Hauck
In article <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>,
chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
> IIS.
That statement is simply not true. Check the Netcraft survey:
http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Changes/ALL
--
Bob Hauck bo...@wasatch.com
Wasatch Communications Group http://www.wasatch.com
Marco Anglesio
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:00:56 -0500, Zico <Zico...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>This is the tragedy of the whole thing. Seeing MS win because of their
>>sheer weight and thuggery is troubling to me; I prefer to see quality win
>>over thuggery, but that is not to be.
>
>Netscape even if it's inferior, just because you hate MS?
*Shrug*
So far as I know, everyone that I know that uses the web for money prefers
Netscape; they downloaded IE because they have to, to check pages, but
it's a menace. The active desktop is especially a menace. IE won't even
redraw the screen properly on my K6 (which is hardly a graphical 90-lb
weakling - it has a 4Mb S3 Virge and a 4Mb Matrox m3d for 3d work). Its
failings far outweigh its virtues.
>It's
>it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
>gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
>the browser race.
YM leveraging market share in the OS business into market share in the
office suite business, in the database business, in the web browser
business ...
Is that the market operating as it should? I take it you have no problem
with a MS hegemony, because that is exactly what is happening and that is
*profoundly* anticompetitive (which I assume is the market operating as it
should).
You're not a fan of central planning, too, are you?
marco
marco anglesio m...@squawk.ml.org http://cauchy.home.ml.org
Idiot: someone who disagrees with you. - Gustave Flaubert
Erik Funkenbusch
Bob Hauck wrote in message <6aic98$p5k$1...@twin.wasatch.com>...
>In article <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>,
> chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>
>> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
>> IIS.
>
>That statement is simply not true. Check the Netcraft survey:
>http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Changes/ALL
What's not true? Apache in the last year has gone from 48% to 51% of the
market share. That's a change of +3%.
IIS has gone from 16% to 22%. That's a change of +8%.
Fact is, IIS is growing much faster (2.5x) than Apache is. That is not
"stomping all over MS".
These aren't relative numbers either, they are overall market percentages.
Roger Christie
Zico wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Roger Christie wrote:
> >Zico wrote:
> >>
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >>
> >> Chris wrote in message <34CA33F3...@surewould.com>...
> >> >No one'd really brought this up, so I thought I'd raise the question:
> what
> >> will
> >> >MS do in response to this? Will they GPL Internet Explorer? Will Mr.
> Gates
> >> >slander freeware in general? Will they do nothing?
> >> >
> >> >What do the PEOPLE think?!
> >>
> >> Why would they bother doing anything of the sort? They're
> >> already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
> >> share away.
> >>
> >
> >Because this stands to change that.
>
> How? Waving the free software wand over Communicator is
> suddenly going to make it stop losing market share? Please
> explain. Past examples of this happening are appreciated.
>
> Z
There are no historical examples, because there are no analagous
historical situations.
I expect netscape to now undergo much the same development explosion
that characterized Linux. I expect this, coupled with it being made
free, to ensure that it will be on desktops everwhere, and not just
Windows
desktops. I expect Netscape the company to leverage this with their
backend products.
Turn the question around. Why /wouldn't/ you take Netscape, if you knew
it
was going to be enhanced substantially faster and in more innovative
ways
than the competition? If you thought it was going to be a cross-platform
standard? If you could have the source code?
Roger Christie
Zico wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> boo...@ibm.net wrote:
> >Zico said:
> >
> >
> >>Why would they bother doing anything of the sort? They're
> >>already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
> >>share away.
> >
> >sheer weight and thuggery is troubling to me; I prefer to see quality win
> >over thuggery, but that is not to be.
>
> Why is it a tragedy? Do you think everyone should keep using
> it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
> gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
> the browser race.
>
>
> >Still, someone will outflank MS and MS will end up as a big, but lawful,
> >competitor.
>
> More power to 'em. I don't wed myself to any company. But I don't expect
> to see the challenge coming from IBM, Netscape, Oracle, Sun, or Apple.
>
> Z
If the fight was purely based on technical merit, thats exactly
what you'd see, and you'd throw in the Linux and FreeBSD camps
to boot.
Tracy R Reed
Zico <Zico...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
>gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
>the browser race.
And the fact that they bundle the browser with the OS has absolutely nothing
to do with it? Yeah, that's the ticket. It's all a big coincidence.
>More power to 'em. I don't wed myself to any company. But I don't expect
>to see the challenge coming from IBM, Netscape, Oracle, Sun, or Apple.
You've wed yourself to MS. You don't have source for any of your
applications and if you did it wouldn't be portable. You are screwed.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
Chris Black
In article <slrn6cpf1...@squawk.ml.org>, m...@squawk.ml.org says...
> >>sheer weight and thuggery is troubling to me; I prefer to see quality win
> >>over thuggery, but that is not to be.
> >
> >Why is it a tragedy? Do you think everyone should keep using
> >Netscape even if it's inferior, just because you hate MS?
>
>
> So far as I know, everyone that I know that uses the web for money prefers
> Netscape; they downloaded IE because they have to, to check pages, but
> it's a menace. The active desktop is especially a menace. IE won't even
> redraw the screen properly on my K6 (which is hardly a graphical 90-lb
> weakling - it has a 4Mb S3 Virge and a 4Mb Matrox m3d for 3d work). Its
> failings far outweigh its virtues.
Netscape can't even figure out how to render HTML correctly. This is
basic, basic stuff. I'm speaking as a web designer who needs things to
render correctly on a single pixel level. I literally have spent hours
trying to fudge a page together so that Netscape will render it in an
acceptable manner. MSIE renders HTML flawlessly every time. Netscape is a
huge hindrance to webpage design, and until they admit that their browser
needs to be fixed, I won't use it. I've submitted several obvious bugs
that have been around since 2.0 and they simply will not fix them.
This is reason enough to call Netscape pure crap. I won't even mention
it's lousy java performance.
Chris.
Bob O
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:51:45, for...@west.net (Forrest Cameranesi) wrote:
> WRT IE's Java implementation:
>
> It may be faster than Netscape, actually that's what all reports I've
> heard say, but what about compatibility? Isn't that what Sun's lawsuit is
> all about, MS removing some peices of Java and replacing them with their
> own?
That is a problem. I haven't examined the issues closely enough to comment
on it other than from the standpoint of Microsoft's own announced
intentions from time to time that they have no intention of fully
supporting Java. That just leads me to the inescapable fact that my time
would be better served learning how to use other options.
And there are plenty of options out there.
See Nicolas Petreley's column this week:
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/petrel/petrel.htm
Some good stuff in there. I couldn't think of a thing to disagree with him
on nor really add.
Jason S.
Chris Black wrote:
>Netscape can't even figure out how to render HTML correctly. This is
>basic, basic stuff. I'm speaking as a web designer who needs things to
>render correctly on a single pixel level. I literally have spent hours
You're obviously part of the problem. Web pages should not be designed
to display things on the "single pixel level". I wonder how well your
pages display on Lynx, for example. How well do your pages display
on systems that substitute a font for the one that you have specified?
>trying to fudge a page together so that Netscape will render it in an
>acceptable manner. MSIE renders HTML flawlessly every time. Netscape is a
What's "flawlessly"? Haven't you noticed that there's no such thing
as rendering "flawlessly," since HTML is a language not designed to
render exactly the same on every client?
>huge hindrance to webpage design, and until they admit that their browser
>needs to be fixed, I won't use it. I've submitted several obvious bugs
>that have been around since 2.0 and they simply will not fix them.
See http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9705a.html ("The Difference Between
Web Design and GUI Design")
Chris Black
In article <6aiosp$6ks$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, bdwh...@indiana.edu
says...
> In article <MPG.f36abfbf...@news.interport.net>,
> no...@m.com (Chris Black) writes:
> >
> > Netscape can't even figure out how to render HTML correctly. This is
> > basic, basic stuff. I'm speaking as a web designer who needs things to
> > render correctly on a single pixel level.
>
> for exact layout. Because netscape won't render to a 'single pixel level',
> I can bet big money that lynx won't.
I'm not talking about lynx, I'm talking about Netscape.
> > I literally have spent hours
> > trying to fudge a page together so that Netscape will render it in an
> > acceptable manner. MSIE renders HTML flawlessly every time. Netscape is a
> > huge hindrance to webpage design, and until they admit that their browser
> > needs to be fixed, I won't use it. I've submitted several obvious bugs
> > that have been around since 2.0 and they simply will not fix them.
>
> __What__ obvious bugs? I'm curious. I'd be willing to bet that
> they amount to layout not being exactly as you think they should be. If that's
> the case, then _its not a bug because HTML is not a layout language_
Ever tried to do a borderless frame with an image that fills the entire
frame in netscape? It doesn't work. MSIE displays things _exactly_ as I
code them, every time.
> > This is reason enough to call Netscape pure crap. I won't even mention
> > it's lousy java performance.
>
> No, pure crap is people who design flashy web pages who are more
> concerned with pixel alignment than actual content.
>
Regardless of your rant and namecalling, it still doesn't render HTML
properly. Or maybe this is a better description for you.. It doesn't
deliver to the user what the designer intended. In my opinion that really
sucks because it makes my job twice as hard as it needs to be. I'd rather
spend my time designing than tweaking my code and graphics so netscape
can display it as per HTML specifications.
Chris.
jim frost
>Turn the question around. Why /wouldn't/ you take Netscape, if you knew
>it
>was going to be enhanced substantially faster and in more innovative
>ways
>than the competition? If you thought it was going to be a cross-platform
>standard? If you could have the source code?
One reason that freeware products are not adopted more often is because
there is the perception that the product is not supported -- ie if it
doesn't work you have nowhere to go for help. In addition you never know
who did what to the product nor any idea if it has even been tested.
NetScape may be able to avoid that by continuing to release "official"
versions of the product, but if they fail to do this they will have shot the
product in the head.
jim
James Himmelman
> >it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
> >gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
> >the browser race.
Is that what you believe? You don't think that giving the thing away
for free and getting it bundled with Win95 had something to do with
getting it on a lot of desktops? You can't be THAT naive. Even if what
you say is true (IE passing NN in features/performance), nothing short
of PRELOADS could have given MS so much market share so fast.
[[[ James Himmelman - jhi...@i-2000.com ]]]
jim frost
Forrest Cameranesi wrote in message ...
>WRT IE's Java implementation:
>
>It may be faster than Netscape, actually that's what all reports I've
>heard say, but what about compatibility? Isn't that what Sun's lawsuit is
>all about, MS removing some peices of Java and replacing them with their
>own?
IE's Java is *substantially* more compatible than Sun's implementation. In
fact, NetScape's Java is the least compatible I've ever seen, by far.
This is one of the things that irritates me about the Sun/MS Java lawsuit.
If Sun were really interested in compatibility they would have hammered
NetScape first. The Microsoft version might have some incompatibilities but
they are few and far between whereas NetScape has gaping holes and blatant
incompatibilities.
Speaking as a Java developer, of course.
But we all knew that the real reason for the lawsuit has nothing to do with
incompatibilities and everything to do with making Microsoft look bad.
That's ok IMO, but it really doesn't make my job any easier.
jim
Erik Funkenbusch
James Himmelman wrote in message ...
So fast? IE has been available since mid95, NS since 94. That's a year's
difference. And it's been 2 1/2 years since it's introduction. You call
that fast? NS had the market sewn up within a year, and there were several
freeware browsers (including NCSA Mosaic which NS is based on) out before it
for a few years.
That's fast.
Bob O
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:20:36, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus) wrote:
> > And can I have some?
> > Internet Explorer 4 sucks on
> >toast, man!
>
> Why? I find it fairly comparable to Netscape 4.03. In what *ways* do
> you think it 'sucks'?
>
> > I've tried IE4 and Communicator, and IE4 is the klunkiest
> >browser I've seen that wasn't in an early beta stage.
>
> That's probably because you didn't give it a fair shakedown.
>
Well the opinion is rather widespread. IE4 was voted the most hated
product for 1997 by PC Computing readers.
Robato Yao
In <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>, chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:53:13 -0800, Paul Rickard <ms...@abctec.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
>>hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
>>stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
>
>How can a web server stomp on an OS? Or did you mean to say the same
>way Apache is stomping on IIS? You do realize that Apache also runs
>on NT, right?
>
>decreasing.
>
>That's not counting Intranet's either.
>
Who says IIS' numbers are increasing? It seems to me its neck to neck,
with Apache gaining an increasingly slight edge. In fact as the Third
World becomes more Internet enabled, they tend to choose Linux and
Apache more as both web server and ISP servers.
Rgds,
Chris
Erik Funkenbusch
Bob O wrote in message ...
No it wasn't. It was voted the product with the most hated useability. Two
different things.
jim frost
>>Is NT moving into Unix territory? The little bit i have seen is that NT
>>is moving into territory that wasn't Unix, and never would be unix. NT
>>seems to me to be going into new situations, mostly, and places where the
>>minimal unix staff left for greener pastures.
>
>Yep - I think NT has been moving into Novell sites, but I'm not
>convinced that it's threatening unix in a big way.
This depends a lot on the particular market segment you're talking about.
UNIX has made serious -- very serious -- inroads into workstation UNIX. In
1997 commercial UNIX workstation shipments fell (negative growth) for the
first time ever while NT grew to 20% of that market.
UNIX has also seen sales taken in the small server market, hence Sun's price
cuts and new product introductions in that space. How much damage it has
done in that area is difficult to quantify; that whole market segment has
been exploding so there's growth all around.
NT hasn't done squat in the midrange to large server markets, at least not
yet. It probably won't do anything there for several more years while it
matures.
>While I was skeptical at the first, I really do believe that it's
>the other way round: Linux threatens NTS. I'm seeing more and
>more Linux - heck I recently decided to install it on a whim
>(I'm sure no experienced unix sysadmin) and I *really* like it.
I don't think Linux threatens NT/S at all; certainly NT/S shipments do not
indicate any trouble at all in that market segment, having grown to exceed
Novell's best ever sales rate. Rather Linux is something of a problem for
Sun et al because many UNIX sites that used to buy Suns are now buying (or
recycling) PCs and running Linux on them.
>Given the flakey nature of our NT servers and some of the other
>MS offerings (like that piece of trash, Exchange) I have no
>trouble believing that Linux presents a bigger threat to NTS
>than anything else out there. At least until Rhapsody ships :-)
Ideally (meaning that if technical superiority actually meant something in
the marketplace) you'd be right, but the fact of the matter is that NT is
doing just dandy in the small server marketplace. Linux may be doing well
too, but it's hard to compare how well each is doing since nobody has hard
figures on Linux's installation rate.
jim
Jason Earl
chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:53:13 -0800, Paul Rickard <ms...@abctec.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
> >hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
> >stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
>
> How can a web server stomp on an OS? Or did you mean to say the same
> way Apache is stomping on IIS? You do realize that Apache also runs
> on NT, right?
Coolest "beta" software on the planet. I am actually running this
strange beast. My employer wanted something that ran on NT, and I
didn't feel like paying for NTS when all I needed was a web server.
> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
> IIS. That is, IIS's numbers are increasing, while Apaches are
> decreasing.
Check again sparky. Apache continues to dominate the web server
market, and for very good reasons. Combine Apache with a machine that
accepts secure shell logins and you've got a secure, highly
configurable, easily remote administered webserver that also happens
to be free and include source code. Check out:
http://www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey/
This should give you the hard numbers, and it clearly shows that
Apache continues to outstrip IIS in total numbers of installations and
total numbers of NEW installations. Not only that but Personal Web
Server (both for 95 and NT) gets counted as IIS, and we all know that
comparing PWS with Apache is ridiculous.
> That's not counting Intranet's either.
No it's not. The fact of the matter is that Apache continues to grow
at a phenomenal pace. Eventually Microsoft is going to have to face
the fact that Free Software like Linux or Apache is stable and cost
effective and much more responsive to most users needs than Microsoft
products. As a consultant (who happens to know Linux), I use
Microsoft as little as possible for the simplest of reasons, Microsoft
takes money out of my pocket. Why in the world would I pay for IIS
when I can set up Apache for free, and can then easily administer it
over a phone line or over the internet.
Don't talk to me about remotely administering IIS 4.0 beta either. It
is not NEARLY as useful.
Jason Earl
Erik Funkenbusch
Jason Earl wrote in message ...
>chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:53:13 -0800, Paul Rickard <ms...@abctec.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
>> >hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
>> >stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
>>
>> How can a web server stomp on an OS? Or did you mean to say the same
>> way Apache is stomping on IIS? You do realize that Apache also runs
>> on NT, right?
>
>Coolest "beta" software on the planet. I am actually running this
>strange beast. My employer wanted something that ran on NT, and I
>didn't feel like paying for NTS when all I needed was a web server.
Interesting, so your employer approves of you violating your liscense
agreement?
>> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
>> IIS. That is, IIS's numbers are increasing, while Apaches are
>> decreasing.
>
>Check again sparky. Apache continues to dominate the web server
>market, and for very good reasons. Combine Apache with a machine that
>accepts secure shell logins and you've got a secure, highly
>configurable, easily remote administered webserver that also happens
>to be free and include source code. Check out:
>
>http://www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey/
Yup, it's pretty clear from that graph that IIS is growing at a faster rate
than Apache over the last year. Looks like a sligh downslide this month
though, should be interesting to see next months.
>This should give you the hard numbers, and it clearly shows that
>Apache continues to outstrip IIS in total numbers of installations and
>total numbers of NEW installations. Not only that but Personal Web
>Server (both for 95 and NT) gets counted as IIS, and we all know that
>comparing PWS with Apache is ridiculous.
Sure, and Netscape continues to outstrip MS in browser market share too.
>> That's not counting Intranet's either.
>
>No it's not. The fact of the matter is that Apache continues to grow
>at a phenomenal pace. Eventually Microsoft is going to have to face
>the fact that Free Software like Linux or Apache is stable and cost
>effective and much more responsive to most users needs than Microsoft
>products. As a consultant (who happens to know Linux), I use
>Microsoft as little as possible for the simplest of reasons, Microsoft
>takes money out of my pocket. Why in the world would I pay for IIS
>when I can set up Apache for free, and can then easily administer it
>over a phone line or over the internet.
Because it's illegal to break your liscense agreement?
>Don't talk to me about remotely administering IIS 4.0 beta either. It
>is not NEARLY as useful.
I happen to like using the frontpage extensions to maintain my web site.
boo...@ibm.net
>>More power to 'em. I don't wed myself to any company.
Chuck, we can believe there won't be a wedding, but you can bet there'll
be a wedding night, and boy, are you going to get screwed!
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
boo...@ibm.net
on 01/26/98at 10:12 AM, br...@nospam.pfc.forestry.ca (Bill G. Riel) said:
>Given the flakey nature of our NT servers and some of the other MS
>offerings (like that piece of trash, Exchange)
Speaking of Exchange, I was flabbergasted a few days ago to look in my
outbox and see e-mail with the flag still up from last fall. I'd bet
close to a third of the mail I'd sent to people at that site never got
there. I never look in my outbox; why should I? The only undelivered
mail was the mail to an Exchange site.
How can anyone use an e-mail system that just flat-out doesn't work?
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
boo...@ibm.net
on 01/27/98at 02:18 AM, chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) said:
>>Let me ask you a straight-forward question. Do you deny that giving IE
>>away for free, and bundling it with Win95, had anything to do with
>>getting it on so many desktops? Your answer is likely to reveal a
>>great deal.
>Sure, of course it did. But that's MS's right.
ahhhh.... but is it MS's right? Aren't we waiting for a decision on that
area of the issue right now? Isn't this the very issue where MS was
forced just last week to back down from their incredibly asinine behavior
to the judge?
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
boo...@ibm.net
on 01/26/98at 06:48 PM, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> said:
>Why in the world would I pay for IIS
>>when I can set up Apache for free, and can then easily administer it
>>over a phone line or over the internet.
>Because it's illegal to break your liscense agreement?
In what way is he breaking a license agreement?
----------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin
---------------------------------------------------
Brian Knotts
On 27 Jan 1998 00:02:08 GMT, Robato Yao wrote:
>Imagine three free-source code items:
>1.) Operating System --- Linux
>2.) Object Frameworks --- OpenDOC
>3.) Browser --- Communicator
>Imagine if someone would decide to put all three together---Linux with
>the kernel, OpenDOC/SOM for the interface, plugins, document and object
>infrastructure, and Communicator for the rest of the user interface and
>browser. Imagine an OS with the speed and stability of LInux, plus a
>WPS type interface and OD component infrastructure for the shell, with
>Communicator or Constellation integrated with the UI.
Yes! This is why I want IBM to release the OS/2 source code. Then, the best
parts of OS/2 (WPS, etc.) could be rolled into Linux along with Netscape,
resulting in a truly awesome platform!
In return, IBM would have something they could offer with AIX, that would put
CDE to shame.
Forrest Cameranesi
In article <6aistt$k...@news2.newsguy.com>, "jim frost"
<jimf@delete_me.atg.com> wrote:
> IE's Java is *substantially* more compatible than Sun's implementation.
WTF!? Sun DEFINED THE SPEC, it's THEIR LANGUAGE, therefore their
implementation is THE MOST COMPATIBLE with their own implementation, which
is what we mean when we say "Java-compatible". That doesn't mean
MS-mangled-Java-compatible, it means 100%-Pure-Sun-Java-compatible. Sure,
MS is the most compatible with their own pseudo-Java, but certainly not
more compatible with Sun than Sun is.
Sheesh.
--
-Forrest Cameranesi
forrest[at]west[dot]net
Obsius / Static Dreams, Inc. - Writer, Designer... Chief Dreamer
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Tiny Green Frog
Roger Christie wrote in message
>The sentiment of the sysadmins here is certainly that they'd rather
>deal with Linux any day.
I agree - I've administered both NT and Linux and Linux seemed simpler and
easier to control. Definitely faster and more stable too. My new Cyrix 686
with 32mb RAM and NT performs about the same as my old Linux 486-66 with
8mb.
Eric Bennett
r.e.b...@usa.net wrote:
> Mosaic completely derailed Microsofts plan for an "All Microsoft
> Internet". Linux is already making a dent in the NT server market.
Back when Mosaic was the premier browser, Microsoft had no plans for an
all-MS Internet, since it didn't think the Internet would take off. Big
online services like AOL, MSN, etc. were the future according to MS
doctrine of that time.
Did Mosaic derail a plan that didn't exist? :-)
--
Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com), Cornell University Biochemistry
Department
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb (Follow "About Me" link for PGP key)
There is no such thing as a useless feature, only computers too slow to
deal with them. - Nathan Hughes
Robato Yao
In <MPG.f353f2bb...@news1.mnsinc.com>, dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com (David H. McCoy) writes:
>In article <DRm1WlwhvoWd-p...@guili-26.kuentos.guam.net>,
>cro...@kuentos.guam.net says...
>> Far less noticed by the press is that IBM had already silently
>> released OpenDOC into the source code public domain, as I heard. Some
>> of the technologies in OD can be profound if it found a home in Linux
>> or any free OS.
>>
>>
>
>This is hardly sainthood on IBM's part. They released the source because
>they are not supporting OpenDoc.
>
>Are there any examples of IBM releasing the source to any thing that they
>are continuing to support?
I am not saying that IBM is a saint. Rather, what I am saying is that
there is an opportunity here for outside developers.
Imagine three free-source code items:
1.) Operating System --- Linux
2.) Object Frameworks --- OpenDOC
3.) Browser --- Communicator
Imagine if someone would decide to put all three together---Linux with
the kernel, OpenDOC/SOM for the interface, plugins, document and object
infrastructure, and Communicator for the rest of the user interface and
browser. Imagine an OS with the speed and stability of LInux, plus a
WPS type interface and OD component infrastructure for the shell, with
Communicator or Constellation integrated with the UI.
Wouldn't you desire an operating enviroment truly worthy of the Ominor
name?
Rgds,
Chris
>
>
>--
>-----------------------------------
>David H. McCoy
>dmccoy@REMOVE_MEmnsinc.com
>-----------------------------------
John Rudd
Then you'd have 3 pieces of crap in one box!
bleh.
How about:
1) BSD/utah-lites on Mach (4 or gnuMach?)
2) Gnustep
3) convince Omnigroup to GPL Omniweb.
--
John "kzin" Rudd jr...@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~jrudd
=========Intel: Putting the backward in backward compatible.============
"The hardest thing about being you isn't what you can do, it's living
with still not being able to do all of the things you can't" - Lois Lane
James Himmelman
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:30:10, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x>
wrote:
> James Himmelman wrote in message ...
> >> >it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
> >> >gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
> >> >the browser race.
> >Is that what you believe? You don't think that giving the thing away
> >for free and getting it bundled with Win95 had something to do with
> >getting it on a lot of desktops? You can't be THAT naive. Even if what
> >you say is true (IE passing NN in features/performance), nothing short
> >of PRELOADS could have given MS so much market share so fast.
> So fast?
That's what I said.
> IE has been available since mid95, NS since 94. That's a year's
> difference. And it's been 2 1/2 years since it's introduction. You call
> that fast?
Yes, when competing against a product that, to a large extent, already
owns that market.
> NS had the market sewn up within a year,
Yes, but not by eating into an already established products market.
*BIG* difference! Netscape sold into a "new" and RAPIDLY GROWING
market with no established "leader". MS sold into (GAVE AWAY into) a
market that was already "sewn up" (to use your words) by another
product. MS started gaining market share before they had anything that
many would have considered "superior" to Netscapes offering. They did
it by giving it away for free and eventually bundling it with WIN95
preloads. Only a blind man would fail to see these factors.
Let me ask you a straight-forward question. Do you deny that giving IE
away for free, and bundling it with Win95, had anything to do with
getting it on so many desktops? Your answer is likely to reveal a
great deal.
[[[ James Himmelman - jhi...@i-2000.com ]]]
Shawn
In article <Yqzh521VLZKl-pn2-fYqiKZvTdKp3@slip129-37-242-
243.ca.us.ibm.net>, osb...@deletemeibm.net says...
> Well the opinion is rather widespread. IE4 was voted the most hated
> product for 1997 by PC Computing readers.
oh ahhhh......you actually read that?
I suppose you believe the computer 'experts' aka: "I have no experience
whatsoever yet they hired me from my dominoes delivery job but I still
manage to pull parttime at the piggly wiggly" at compusa too :)
Matt Kennel
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:57:27 -0500, jim frost <jimf@delete_me.atg.com> wrote:
:
:One reason that freeware products are not adopted more often is because
:there is the perception that the product is not supported -- ie if it
:doesn't work you have nowhere to go for help. In addition you never know
:who did what to the product nor any idea if it has even been tested.
:
:NetScape may be able to avoid that by continuing to release "official"
:versions of the product, but if they fail to do this they will have shot the
:product in the head.
They've officially said they will do so.
Netscape will become to Navigator what Redhat is to Linux.
The first thing I'll attempt with the source is to get it to compile
with the Boehm-Weiser garbage collector.
Unfortunately it doesn't work at present, setting LD_PRELOAD and
'malloc' to GC_malloc. The executable segfaults immediately.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* Quoth the X Consortium: "Mechanism Not Policy"
*
* Translated: "Once ze windows go up, who cares why push MouseDown. That's
* not my department!" says Wehrner von Braun.
Bob O
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:48:13, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> wrote:
> >Check again sparky. Apache continues to dominate the web server
> >market, and for very good reasons. Combine Apache with a machine that
> >accepts secure shell logins and you've got a secure, highly
> >configurable, easily remote administered webserver that also happens
> >to be free and include source code. Check out:
> >
> >http://www.netcraft.co.uk/Survey/
>
> Yup, it's pretty clear from that graph that IIS is growing at a faster rate
> than Apache over the last year. Looks like a sligh downslide this month
> though, should be interesting to see next months.
Growing at a faster rate is meaningless if you are still gaining fewer new
users each month. Over the last 6 months Apache has added over 300,000
sites and IIS has added under 200,000.
If you look at the graphic on all Apache Servers versus all Microsoft
servers the Apache is outstripping Microsoft almost 3 to 1 in the last 5
months adding almost 600,000 to about 200,000 for MIcrosoft.
Bob O
Not a chance those guys on minimum wage can't even afford a computer.
Shawn
In article <Yqzh521VLZKl-pn2-d5dhuGJdSqsx@slip129-37-55-
49.ca.us.ibm.net>, osb...@deletemeibm.net says...
this means nothing. You guys read to many magazines & pc computing most
of those mag writers probably can't install dos. All new wieny admins
first use nt & IIS, hell IIS comes with NT. But most switch..
I had nt server on a decent box (not multicpu) at 45k hits/day it would
start croakin, script errors, failed http request, etc.. bought netscape
commerce, tried IIS, put differnt cpu's in there, different scsi's,
bought new boxs... ad nausem. Finally I put bsdi & apache on the same box
& immediatly could take 100k/day ...scripts, fastcgi & all.
NT might be running mom & pops sanford & son website, but if you need to
serve down serious traffic it's time to bring in the reeeallllll dogs!
I didn't need to read that in no pc magazine or see no chart.
Later,
SHawn
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 01:08:26 GMT, jhi...@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:30:10, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x>
>wrote:
>
>> James Himmelman wrote in message ...
>> >> >it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
>> >> >gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
>> >> >the browser race.
>
>> >Is that what you believe? You don't think that giving the thing away
>> >for free and getting it bundled with Win95 had something to do with
>> >getting it on a lot of desktops? You can't be THAT naive. Even if what
>> >you say is true (IE passing NN in features/performance), nothing short
>> >of PRELOADS could have given MS so much market share so fast.
>
>> So fast?
>
>That's what I said.
That much is clear.
>> IE has been available since mid95, NS since 94. That's a year's
>> difference. And it's been 2 1/2 years since it's introduction. You call
>> that fast?
>
>Yes, when competing against a product that, to a large extent, already
>owns that market.
I see. So what you're saying then is that there is no way that MS
could have garnered that much market share by playing fairly, so they
must have cheated, right?
Strange that another company that owned it's market lost it just as
fast. That company was called Borland. They owned the C++ market.
In just 2 short years MS took it away from them, and they didn't ship
a C++ compiler with the OS.
>> NS had the market sewn up within a year,
>
>Yes, but not by eating into an already established products market.
>*BIG* difference! Netscape sold into a "new" and RAPIDLY GROWING
>market with no established "leader". MS sold into (GAVE AWAY into) a
>market that was already "sewn up" (to use your words) by another
>product. MS started gaining market share before they had anything that
>many would have considered "superior" to Netscapes offering. They did
>it by giving it away for free and eventually bundling it with WIN95
>preloads. Only a blind man would fail to see these factors.
So, you are saying that IE is replacing the already established
Netscape market? I don't think so. I think IE is going into the new
user market that happens to be getting on the internet.
Sure, there's plenty of people jumping ship from NS, but not enough to
make that kind of difference.
>Let me ask you a straight-forward question. Do you deny that giving IE
>away for free, and bundling it with Win95, had anything to do with
>getting it on so many desktops? Your answer is likely to reveal a
>great deal.
Sure, of course it did. But that's MS's right. They can give away a
product if they like, as long as they don't charge for it later. MS
has already stated that IE would always be available for free. I
don't see this changing. If the DOJ is concerned about MS charging
for IE later, make them sign a consent decree that forces them to
always give it away.
Now that MS has made the browser part of the OS, it'll be harder than
ever for them to remove it from the OS to charge for it.
BTW, it's standard operating procedure in the computer universe to
give away clients and charge big bucks for the server. NS is the only
company I know of that charges for client software.
Washi Des
"Zico" <Zico...@hotmail.com> said,
>Are there any java apps that you want to run that don't work
>with IE but work with Netscape? A goal of true compatibility
>is nice in the theoretical realm, but in reality Netscape's
>JVM implementation chokes much more often. It was so
>poor that Sun even made Netscape remove the Java
>logo. I can't recall whether or not they've gotten it back.
>For people who want to use Java under Netscape, stated
>compatibility isn't so great when you have to endure the
>crashes.
Your story is not quite accurate, although I tend to agree with the
sentiments. Netscape removed the logo on their own because of a
technicality -- they were no longer in strict conformance to the version
they said they had been. Sun did not make them remove it due to a poor
implementation.
--
Washi <n...@washi.nu> <http://www.washi.nu>
Shawn
In article <MPG.f36ff406...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
gs2...@bellsouth.net says...
> In article <Yqzh521VLZKl-pn2-fYqiKZvTdKp3@slip129-37-242-
> 243.ca.us.ibm.net>, osb...@deletemeibm.net says...
>
> > Well the opinion is rather widespread. IE4 was voted the most hated
> > product for 1997 by PC Computing readers.
>
opps I take that back....I just realized this was against IE4..
ok. in that case.....yeah! & PC computing knows thier sh*t!
foot in mouth :(
shawn
forgeltd
>>>>>> "Tor" == Tor Slettnes <t...@lanminds.com> writes:
>
> Tor> Incidentally, the official line from Microsoft regarding Netscape's
> Tor> release of source code includes the statement that "Netscape will have
> Tor> to spend a lot of effort ensuring the quality and security of
> Tor> contributions". To compare, Linux is both more secure and more stable
> Tor> than Windows.
>
>IMHO this is larely due to Linus's skill. After all, saying "Linus
>will have to spend a lot of effort ensuring the quality and security
>of contributions" is pretty fair.
>
Autorejecting all contributions from *@*.msn.com will do wonders for
the security of OpenScape
( http://www.openscape.org
>
>
Raymond N Shwake
todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus) writes:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 01:12:32 -0500, Jeff Read <bit...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>Zico wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it a tragedy? Do you think everyone should keep using
>>> Netscape even if it's inferior, just because you hate MS? It's
>>> it's nice to see the marketplace working as it should. Microsoft's
>>> gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
>>> the browser race.
>> And can I have some?
>> Internet Explorer 4 sucks on toast, man!
>Why? I find it fairly comparable to Netscape 4.03. In what *ways* do
>you think it 'sucks'?
I usually steer clear of what-I-like-is-better-than-what-you-like
discussions, but I'll offer my experience here.
I find pages display slower under IE4 than under Communicator. The
graphics always strike me as a bit "off". I don't at all like the IE4 mail
interface; I work quite comfortably with Messenger.
IE4 consumes system resources *even when it's not been started*!
(I found a 5 MB increase in "committed memory" according to Task Manager
following installation of IE4.) Communicator performs a *real* uninstall if
I so choose. IE4 leaves its footprint permanently.
IE4 is designed for only two platforms: Win95 and WinNT. Every other
platform is a mockery. Netscape supports the range of platforms I use.
>> I've tried IE4 and Communicator, and IE4 is the klunkiest
>>browser I've seen that wasn't in an early beta stage.
>That's probably because you didn't give it a fair shakedown.
>Judging from your .sig, I'd say you were a UNIX user :-)
UNIX users tend to be more technically proficient and open-minded
than NiT-heads, because they tend to be more broadly experienced.
Chris Allen
In article <6aj6g0$o...@usenet41.supernews.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> wrote:
>James Himmelman wrote in message ...
>>> >gaining market share because they've passed by Netscape in
>>> >the browser race.
>>
>>for free and getting it bundled with Win95 had something to do with
>>getting it on a lot of desktops? You can't be THAT naive. Even if what
>>you say is true (IE passing NN in features/performance), nothing short
>>of PRELOADS could have given MS so much market share so fast.
>
servers (8 NT and 1 Linux) under my care. Out of that mix, I can count on one
hand the number of users who actively use IE (I am one of them). IE and
Netscape came preloaded, btw. IE could come preloaded and netscape could be
download only and many people would ignore IE. I don't think being preloaded
means a damn. People choose what they like.
Chris
>
>So fast? IE has been available since mid95, NS since 94. That's a year's
>difference. And it's been 2 1/2 years since it's introduction. You call
>that fast? NS had the market sewn up within a year, and there were several
>freeware browsers (including NCSA Mosaic which NS is based on) out before it
>for a few years.
>
>That's fast.
I agree. I tried Netscape first too. After IE3.0 came out, I switched to it
and found I preferred it for general browsing. Damned free choice...
Chris
Erik Funkenbusch
It just means you don't know how to tune it.
MS runs IIS on www.microsoft.com, and they take over 100 million hits
a day on only 8 servers.
Bob O
> Later,
> SHawn
Actually this site seems pretty credible. It electronically contacts
almost 2,000,000 servers a month and confirms the server. The only
weakness is that each server needs to be registered into the system for the
monthly check.
Erik Funkenbusch
On Mon, 26 Jan 98 21:37:59 -0500, boo...@ibm.net wrote:
>on 01/27/98at 02:18 AM, chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) said:
>
>
>>>Let me ask you a straight-forward question. Do you deny that giving IE
>>>away for free, and bundling it with Win95, had anything to do with
>>>getting it on so many desktops? Your answer is likely to reveal a
>>>great deal.
>
>>Sure, of course it did. But that's MS's right.
>
>ahhhh.... but is it MS's right? Aren't we waiting for a decision on that
>area of the issue right now? Isn't this the very issue where MS was
>forced just last week to back down from their incredibly asinine behavior
>to the judge?
Hell no they are not waiting for a decision on wether they can give
the product away for free.
You need to stop trimming the context of a quote to suit your needs
booth. I clearly explained my meaning in the part you trimmed.
Erik Funkenbusch
On Mon, 26 Jan 98 21:42:35 -0500, boo...@ibm.net wrote:
>on 01/26/98at 06:48 PM, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> said:
>
>>Why in the world would I pay for IIS
>>>when I can set up Apache for free, and can then easily administer it
>>>over a phone line or over the internet.
>
>>Because it's illegal to break your liscense agreement?
>
>In what way is he breaking a license agreement?
By acceepting connections from more than 10 clients.
Bob Hauck
In article <6aihtl$f...@usenet41.supernews.com>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> writes:
> Bob Hauck wrote in message <6aic98$p5k$1...@twin.wasatch.com>...
>>In article <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>,
>> chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>>
>>> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
>>> IIS.
>>
>>That statement is simply not true. Check the Netcraft survey:
>>http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Changes/ALL
>
> What's not true?
That Apache is losing market share to IIS, slowly or otherwise.
Increases in IIS share seem to be coming mainly at the expense of
other commercial offerings rather than Apache.
> Apache in the last year has gone from 48% to 51% of the
> market share. That's a change of +3%.
> IIS has gone from 16% to 22%. That's a change of +8%.
Sure, if you pick the right period you can show anything you
want. There was undoubtably a time when Apache grew 3% and IIS
grew 50%.
But the survey shows that the market share gains of IIS have
tapered off to where it is basically in a holding pattern at just
under 25% of the market.
> Fact is, IIS is growing much faster (2.5x) than Apache is. That
> is not "stomping all over MS".
Not anymore. Go look at the graphs before you shoot off your
foot. IIS share actually decreased by a fraction in the last
month while Apache increased (again by a fraction). You'll need
to read the summary to find this as the graphs are too coarse to
show it. The last couple of quarters have been a virtual
stalemate in terms of market share of IIS vs Apache.
While I agree that Apache isn't "stomping" IIS, it is doing
pretty damn well considering the marketing budget behind NT and
IIS. The so-called "mainstream" press hasn't exactly told this
story either. Reading the rags might give you the idea that
nobody uses Apache anymore, which is totally false.
--
Bob Hauck bo...@wasatch.com
Wasatch Communications Group http://www.wasatch.com
Bob Hauck
In article <34cd474b$9$obbguz$mr2...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
boo...@ibm.net writes:
> How can anyone use an e-mail system that just flat-out doesn't work?
Because it is the "wave of the future" and "will be fixed in the
next release"?
My favorite Exchange mis-feature: I have my Exchange account set
to forward my mail to another server because I can get to that
other server from anywhere on the Internet, while Exchange is
behind a firewall. The other server supports IMAP as well, which
is nice because I read mail from a lot of different places.
Anyway, Exchange takes all the forwarded mail and makes the
original header a comment block in the body of the mail. It then
changes the "from" header so that all the forwarded stuff looks
like it was originated from my Exchange address. This makes
replying to the true sender somewhat of a pain because I have to
remember to cut and paste the address.
Why does it do this? Seems pretty idiotic to me. Maybe one of
the NT experts here can tell me how to make it work correctly.
Frederick or Claudia Haab
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Bob Hauck wrote in message <6aic98$p5k$1...@twin.wasatch.com>...
> >In article <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>,
> > chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
> >
> >> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
> >> IIS.
> >
> >That statement is simply not true. Check the Netcraft survey:
> >http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Changes/ALL
>
> market share. That's a change of +3%.
>
> IIS has gone from 16% to 22%. That's a change of +8%.
>
> "stomping all over MS".
>
So then it's simply not true! Do you even understand
what you first wrote? You said *LOSING MARKET SHARE
TO IIS*. I don't even know what the argument is about,
but anyone that can read will see that if Apache
gained 3% it's not *LOSING* anything to anybody.
Another product may be *GAINING*, but that's hardly
the same thing.
And I'd say any product that has 51% market share
is stomping all over a competitor with 22%.
If a football game ended 51 to 22, I'd say the
winning team stomped all over the competition.
Fred
Shawn
In article <34d35e57...@news.supernews.com>, chu...@isd.net_x
says...
> MS runs IIS on www.microsoft.com, and they take over 100 million hits
> a day on only 8 servers.
well on thier page they total up 44 for all services, 14 for ms.com each
a p6 quad processors, with 512megs of ram, now consider how many of
those hits get spawned over to search's 4 servers, http downloads 3
servers, the 6 servers which are the default homepage for ie3,
etc..www.microsoft.com recieves 55 million, plus add the millions they've
probably spent on load balancing, analysis, etc. I do not know but they
say 120 million so they must be including hits to all servers. Not to
mention the mega dollars they probably have in managed hubs, routers, &
the ocassional white lie...nor that fact that after all that it has
become the slowest site on the web, barely surfable & forget searching
for tech reports...surely nt can scale better right? I mean
www.netscape.com gets alot of hits right being the default homepage for
netscape with 60%? & they haul ass. www.novell.com gets alot of hits I
think.
Now...I am not a guru at mathmatics so I will not try to break down a
comparison of thiers & my lonely pentiumpro my brain would hurt. I prefer
what I see in real life & it is strange how myself & the gurus I
approached for advice who have years & years of experience in Unix,
webservers including networks & nt all say the same thing.
You are right...maybe I didn't tune it. ALl I know is I installed bsdi &
apache & my capacity doubled. I do not like to squeeze oranges for last
bit of juice...too much work, I buy gallons presqueezed. But maybe you
are right, but I don't understand if nt & IIS is so great why do I have
to tune it when bill says it is ready for the world & as much as I would
like to believe you because NT's screen savers are much cooler than
bsdi's I'd like to know what magic secret there is to increasing nt & IIe
to take 50-75,000 more hits a day because I did not see that button in
"my computer". Bsdi I've seen 500 request at one time out of the box..
it seems apparent that I am going about this all wrong, I need to work
harder with nt? this does not seem like great deal to me...it seems like
I've said all along...NT admins work harder while I surf the web.
btw I like the quote on MS site about thier nt monitor...it is very cute
thing they have there...
-S
Emil Briggs
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> It just means you don't know how to tune it.
>
> a day on only 8 servers.
You ever hear of load balancing with DNS round robin?
If you're going to lie at least try to make it something
that isn't trivially easy to disprove.
Regards
Emil
P.S. The output below shows 16 IP address's answering
for www.microsoft.com
EB>nslookup www.microsoft.com
Server: uni00ns.unity.ncsu.edu
Address: 152.1.1.22
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.microsoft.com
Addresses: 207.68.156.73, 207.68.156.61, 207.68.156.16, 207.68.156.58
207.68.137.53, 207.68.137.59, 207.68.143.192, 207.68.143.193,
207.68.156.49
207.68.137.56, 207.68.156.51, 207.68.156.52, 207.68.137.62,
207.68.156.53
207.68.156.54, 207.68.137.65
Shawn
> P.S. The output below shows 16 IP address's answering
> for www.microsoft.com
>
>
> EB>nslookup www.microsoft.com
> Server: uni00ns.unity.ncsu.edu
> Address: 152.1.1.22
>
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name: www.microsoft.com
> Addresses: 207.68.156.73, 207.68.156.61, 207.68.156.16, 207.68.156.58
> 207.68.137.53, 207.68.137.59, 207.68.143.192, 207.68.143.193,
> 207.68.156.49
> 207.68.137.56, 207.68.156.51, 207.68.156.52, 207.68.137.62,
> 207.68.156.53
> 207.68.156.54, 207.68.137.65
>
DAM! that was better than mine & much shorter to write!
Curse you!
:)
-Shawn
Shawn
> Actually this site seems pretty credible. It electronically contacts
> almost 2,000,000 servers a month and confirms the server. The only
> weakness is that each server needs to be registered into the system for the
> monthly check.
interesting...but I really don't read those things, I like my real life
experieinces. Last time I listened to articles they said bill would start
me up & take me somewhere. After having 100+ users on a nt & 95 network I
didn't like where he took me. I took myself to novell & unix.
He said he would make me more productive with office...I found him
sneaking ie4 in the server installs of office, then he told me Office 97
would not open the thousands of documents we made in 95. Then everytime
bill took me somewhere IE would show up as icon on the users desktops...I
install excell to server...ok. cool, install it to local...hey this
wasn't mentioned about putting this setup IE4 icon on my users computers
when my users like netscape...I thought I was installing a spreadsheet, &
I thought I was the admin. Then I switched back to Corel perfect Office.
I told bill I needed something to manage my servers & users & bill gave
me The entire 1,000-page Office 97 Resource Kit. Novell gave me NDS with
the click of one icon, SCO gave me sysadmsh & the man command.
& then bill tried to tell me that when he couldn't make my job easier
like Novell does with NDS. SO Novell came out for NDS for NT because bill
wouldn't yet. But bill doesn't want to make my job easier so he said he
would not support any NT systems running Novell NDS.
Boy, that bill is a sneaky boy I said. Bill said, NT WOrkstation is for
you, it will take you somehwere, but bill didn't tell me that when I
remove an application it is still in the registry like 95. But bill said
NT is the future, I said ok, but bill why when I uninstall an application
on a server OS it is still in the registry? This seems bad...like I will
have to reinstall it often. Now bill said wait! I'm going to implemement
the best things about 95 to the coming nt5 like plug & play which bill
said would ease all my woes, but when you boot into safe mode after 2
months it has loaded all this extra stuff & drivers in system hidden in
which you can oddly only see it in safe mode, ie4 active desktop, which
uses most of the cpu's resources & took my nt workstation to a blue crash
screen for the first time...that's when I said to myself...you
know...bill is full of shit.
now I bs on the web allday & play around with Novell & SCO & informix &
linux in my office while deskjockeys write articles on the miracle of MS,
NT, IIS because of the add budget they have with the magazine. I also
have warp5 pc's running software, but I don't know much about warp
because they've never crashed.
& I still have a NT database server, but trust me NT is a single
application server....start fooling around with installing stuff & you
will reinstall within a year. My SCO box has been on original
installation since 94' & all I know is the webserver capacity doubled
without having to perform guru black magic.
Not knockin your views but I prefer personal experience. I would really
like to like microsoft products & I would even say I like nt to a degree
( though not for a webserver or big server ) but above all ....the day MS
installed IE4 on MY server without telling me was when I got fed up.
I've never been one to much care what everyone else is switching too,
everyone says os/2 is dead...but I've never had problems with it. So what
that site say may be correct .... but I will never be one of them...
( don't take this as I mean post I thought the conversation was
interesting & I like the friendly sig :)
afterall it is
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Have a great day!,
Shawn
Robato Yao
In <6aj8d0$p...@usenet46.supernews.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> writes:
>Bob O wrote in message ...
>>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:20:36, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus) wrote:
>>
>>> > And can I have some?
>>> > Internet Explorer 4 sucks on
>>> >toast, man!
>>>
>>> Why? I find it fairly comparable to Netscape 4.03. In what *ways* do
>>> you think it 'sucks'?
>>>
>>> >browser I've seen that wasn't in an early beta stage.
>>>
>>> That's probably because you didn't give it a fair shakedown.
>>>
>>
>>product for 1997 by PC Computing readers.
>
>
>different things.
So it still means people hated it or some big part of it. I don't see
much of a difference.
Rgds,
Chris
P.S. Look to http://www.32bitsonline.com for my reviews of IE 4 and
Communicator 4.04 under the Macintosh side.
Scott Wood
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:13:07 -0800, Forrest Cameranesi
<for...@west.net> wrote:
>In article <6aistt$k...@news2.newsguy.com>, "jim frost"
><jimf@delete_me.atg.com> wrote:
>
>> IE's Java is *substantially* more compatible than Sun's implementation.
>
>WTF!? Sun DEFINED THE SPEC, it's THEIR LANGUAGE, therefore their
>implementation is THE MOST COMPATIBLE with their own implementation, which
<snip>
Well, if their implementation isn't consistent with their published
specifications, then it is not compatible. I don't know the whether
this is or is not the case, however.
--
Scott Wood, Alt.atheism atheist #1000 (SA)
Stop Micro$oft Now! http://darkflame.ml.org/teamhates/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS/M>P d- s:+ a19 C++ UL++++>$ P L++>+++ E- W++ N++ o? K- w--- !O M-- V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t+ 5? X R(+) tv b++(+) DI+++ D+ G e* h!(*) r* y
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Tim N. van der Leeuw
Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> >on 01/24/98at 08:54 PM, "Zico" <Zico...@hotmail.com> said:
> >>Why would they bother doing anything of the sort? They're
> >>already gradually (if not faster) taking Netscape's market
> >>share away.
> >
> boo...@ibm.net wrote in message
> <34cb5fd8$2$obbguz$mr2...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...
> >This is the tragedy of the whole thing. Seeing MS win because of their
> >sheer weight and thuggery is troubling to me; I prefer to see quality win
> >over thuggery, but that is not to be.
>
IE might be the better browser; quite a few people who have the choice
and who have seen both prefer it over NetScraper. However, IE being
better is not why it's winning marketshare, it's M$'s politics and
pressure on market/OEMs. And that bothers me.
[...]
> Finally, newsreaders. I kinda like Collabra, except that it's a pain to
> start. Start Communicator, start Collabra, choose a newsgroup, close the
> groups window, actually get to work. Ugh. After the reader is going,
Here's what I do:
-The netscape mail-notifier runs in the Win95 taskbar. I start it
manually, but you can have it in your startup group.
-Double-click on the icon, and your mail comes up (I use NS for mail as
well).
-After I checked my mail, I go to the popup menu and select the
newsgroup I want to read... and there I am :-). I could even just hit
the 'n' key and hit 'enter' when asks me to go to the next group.
I avoid having to open Netscape and then the newsgroup overview window
etc. and when I start Netscape directly I get a browser window like I
want (you can set in your preferences wether you want NS to start as
browser, mailreader, composer, or newsreader...).
I get to my mail _and_ news fast, even if I have no new mail waiting.
The only nuisance is that it wants me to select a user on startup. Duh.
Single-user setup, Mr. Netscape...
> however, it's pretty nice for a bare-bones reader. Start at the first group
> and keep pressing N to go through the messages in all groups. Nice.
>
> Outlook Express is almost as good, except for two things. First, "Next
> Unread" is Ctrl-U. DUH! What's the most common reader function, Microsoft?
> Use ONE KEYSTROKE please--preferably the N key that all other newsreaders
> use. Also: on switching newsgroups, I have to click on the first unread
> message; using Next Unread doesn't work at all yet. And then I have to click
> in the preview pane again in order to scroll it with the keyboard (otherwise
> it scrolls the thread pane). Quit making me reach for the mouse unless I
You can use tab to go to the preview pane, but... if you switch to
another app (using alt-tab) and then switch back to NetScrape, then it
activates the pane that you last clicked in with the mouse... even tho I
tabbed to the preview pane it still makes the threads list active again,
unless I clicked somewhere in the preview pane. That's my major gripe
with NetSrapers newsreader.
> need to point at something!
>
> That last criticism applies to all Windows newsreaders: Let me go through
> ALL the unread messages using only the N key. In all newsgroups.
NetScraper does this, but it asks you for confirmation before going to
the next group. The enter-key is pretty easy to hit tho :-)
Without
> touching my mouse. While you're at it, give me a one-key shortcut for
> scrolling the VIEWING pane exclusively. That's the one I scroll the most
> often. Put the shortcuts on some alphabetic key.
>
> In my ideal newsreader:
> 1. You can start the reader directly, unlike Collabra or (to some extent)
> OE.
> 2. The reader automatically downloads the headers from the first newsgroup
> in my subscribed list and shows them in the thread pane. With all messages.
> With threads expanded. I like context! And let ME order the subscribed
> list--don't just use alphabetical order.
Another gripe of me with NS, heheh :-)
[...]
> ---
> Bradd W. Szonye
> bra...@concentric.net
> http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
--TNL
Erik Funkenbusch
On Mon, 26 Jan 98 21:28:53 -0500, boo...@ibm.net wrote:
>on 01/26/98at 10:12 AM, br...@nospam.pfc.forestry.ca (Bill G. Riel) said:
>
>
>>Given the flakey nature of our NT servers and some of the other MS
>>offerings (like that piece of trash, Exchange)
>
>Speaking of Exchange, I was flabbergasted a few days ago to look in my
>outbox and see e-mail with the flag still up from last fall. I'd bet
>close to a third of the mail I'd sent to people at that site never got
>there. I never look in my outbox; why should I? The only undelivered
>mail was the mail to an Exchange site.
>
>How can anyone use an e-mail system that just flat-out doesn't work?
What the hell are you talking about?
You claim to have never used Win95 until very recently, so how could
you have sent email "last fall"?
And what do you mean "with the flag still up"? Exchange has no flags,
and certainly will not deliver some mail but not others. Mail is sent
to the server for delivery, if it can't be delivered it get's sent
back to your INBOX. It doesn't stay in your outbox.
I've said it over and over again booth. If you're going to make
things up, choose something you know something about. You're just
making yourself look foolish.
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 03:45:30 GMT, bo...@wasatch.com (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>In article <6aihtl$f...@usenet41.supernews.com>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> writes:
>> Bob Hauck wrote in message <6aic98$p5k$1...@twin.wasatch.com>...
>>>In article <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>,
>>> chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>>>
>>>> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
>>>> IIS.
>>>
>>>That statement is simply not true. Check the Netcraft survey:
>>>http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Changes/ALL
>>
>> What's not true?
>
>That Apache is losing market share to IIS, slowly or otherwise.
>Increases in IIS share seem to be coming mainly at the expense of
>other commercial offerings rather than Apache.
Not true. Apache is growing at a very slow rate. This is not in
comparison to it's already installed base, it's in comparison to the
overall market share. a 3% growth in 5 months compared to IIS's 8% is
telling.
>> Apache in the last year has gone from 48% to 51% of the
>> market share. That's a change of +3%.
>
>> IIS has gone from 16% to 22%. That's a change of +8%.
>
>Sure, if you pick the right period you can show anything you
>want. There was undoubtably a time when Apache grew 3% and IIS
>grew 50%.
The right period? The period is shown on the graph. over the last 5
months IIS has gathered 8% more marketshare, while apache has had a
nearly level market share growth at 3%.
Over the last year, IIS has gone from about 1% to 22% while appache
has gone from 41% to 51%. That's only a 10% market share. Again,
that is percentage of market, not percentage of growth.
>But the survey shows that the market share gains of IIS have
>tapered off to where it is basically in a holding pattern at just
>under 25% of the market.
That is most likely due to the time of year. End of year sales on big
ticket items slow due to draining budgets. It should be interesting
to see the january statistics.
Apache grows fairly flat because it's free.
>> Fact is, IIS is growing much faster (2.5x) than Apache is. That
>> is not "stomping all over MS".
>
>Not anymore. Go look at the graphs before you shoot off your
>foot. IIS share actually decreased by a fraction in the last
>month while Apache increased (again by a fraction). You'll need
>to read the summary to find this as the graphs are too coarse to
>show it. The last couple of quarters have been a virtual
>stalemate in terms of market share of IIS vs Apache.
That's still not "stoming all over" IIS.
>While I agree that Apache isn't "stomping" IIS, it is doing
>pretty damn well considering the marketing budget behind NT and
>IIS. The so-called "mainstream" press hasn't exactly told this
>story either. Reading the rags might give you the idea that
>nobody uses Apache anymore, which is totally false.
I've seen plenty of reviews of Apache.
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 04:06:58 GMT, bo...@wasatch.com (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>In article <34cd474b$9$obbguz$mr2...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
> boo...@ibm.net writes:
>
>> How can anyone use an e-mail system that just flat-out doesn't work?
>
>Because it is the "wave of the future" and "will be fixed in the
>next release"?
>
>My favorite Exchange mis-feature: I have my Exchange account set
>to forward my mail to another server because I can get to that
>other server from anywhere on the Internet, while Exchange is
>behind a firewall. The other server supports IMAP as well, which
>is nice because I read mail from a lot of different places.
>
>Anyway, Exchange takes all the forwarded mail and makes the
>original header a comment block in the body of the mail. It then
>changes the "from" header so that all the forwarded stuff looks
>like it was originated from my Exchange address. This makes
>replying to the true sender somewhat of a pain because I have to
>remember to cut and paste the address.
>
>Why does it do this? Seems pretty idiotic to me. Maybe one of
>the NT experts here can tell me how to make it work correctly.
Sorry, this is a client issue, not a server issue. If you want to do
this, you should set your account on the server to forward your mail,
not use your client.
If your pop3 or imap client had the same feature it would result in
the same problem.
Erik Funkenbusch
>In article <6aistt$k...@news2.newsguy.com>, "jim frost"
><jimf@delete_me.atg.com> wrote:
>
>> IE's Java is *substantially* more compatible than Sun's implementation.
>
>WTF!? Sun DEFINED THE SPEC, it's THEIR LANGUAGE, therefore their
>implementation is THE MOST COMPATIBLE with their own implementation, which
>is what we mean when we say "Java-compatible". That doesn't mean
>MS-mangled-Java-compatible, it means 100%-Pure-Sun-Java-compatible. Sure,
>MS is the most compatible with their own pseudo-Java, but certainly not
>more compatible with Sun than Sun is.
Sun sure has defined their own spec, but guess what? Their
implementation doesn't follow it as well as other implementations do,
therefore their spec is *NOT* the most compatible.
>Sheesh.
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 07:05:09 GMT, cro...@kuentos.guam.net (Robato Yao)
wrote:
>In <6aj8d0$p...@usenet46.supernews.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <chu...@isd.net_x> writes:
>>Bob O wrote in message ...
>>>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:20:36, todd_...@hp.com (Todd Kepus) wrote:
>>>
>>>> > And can I have some?
>>>> > Internet Explorer 4 sucks on
>>>> >toast, man!
>>>>
>>>> Why? I find it fairly comparable to Netscape 4.03. In what *ways* do
>>>> you think it 'sucks'?
>>>>
>>>> > I've tried IE4 and Communicator, and IE4 is the klunkiest
>>>> >browser I've seen that wasn't in an early beta stage.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably because you didn't give it a fair shakedown.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well the opinion is rather widespread. IE4 was voted the most hated
>>>product for 1997 by PC Computing readers.
>>
>>
>>No it wasn't. It was voted the product with the most hated useability. Two
>>different things.
>
>So it still means people hated it or some big part of it. I don't see
>much of a difference.
The difference is that you can like a product, but hate parts of it.
For instance, you may really like suburban sport utility vehicle, but
hate how it steers (like a boat). You might like a corvette, but hate
how it can't carry furniture.
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 11:34:17 +0000, James Youngman <JYou...@vggas.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <chu...@isd.net> writes:
>
>
> Erik> MS runs IIS on www.microsoft.com, and they take over 100
> Erik> million hits a day on only 8 servers.
>
>No they don't. Make that sixteen servers:-
>
>;; ANSWERS:
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.58
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.137.53
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.137.59
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.143.192
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.143.193
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.49
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.137.56
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.51
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.52
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.137.62
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.53
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.54
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.137.65
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.73
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.61
>www.microsoft.com. 419 A 207.68.156.16
>
>;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
>microsoft.com. 80305 NS dns3.nwnet.net.
>microsoft.com. 80305 NS dns4.nwnet.net.
>microsoft.com. 80305 NS dns1.microsoft.com.
Alright, my information is out of date. But then, my information on
number of hits is out of date too. They probably get many more hits
these days too.
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 11:27:05 +0000, James Youngman <JYou...@vggas.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <chu...@isd.net_x> writes:
>
> Erik> Bob Hauck wrote in message <6aic98$p5k$1...@twin.wasatch.com>...
> >> In article <34d634c7....@news.supernews.com>,
> >> chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
> >>
> >>> Apache has had a HUGE head start, and is slowly losing market share to
> >>> IIS.
> >>
> >> That statement is simply not true. Check the Netcraft survey:
> >> http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Changes/ALL
>
> Erik> What's not true? Apache in the last year has gone from 48% to
> Erik> 51% of the market share. That's a change of +3%.
>
> Erik> IIS has gone from 16% to 22%. That's a change of +8%.
>
> Erik> Fact is, IIS is growing much faster (2.5x) than Apache is. That is not
> Erik> "stomping all over MS".
>
> Erik> These aren't relative numbers either, they are overall market
> Erik> percentages.
>
>A change of +3% cannot be a "loss of market share" at all!
Yes it can. In the least 12 months, Apache gained 10% market share.
that's roughly .9% growth per month. In the last 5 months Apache has
gained only 3% market share, that's roughly .6% growth. Apaches
growth is slowing while IE's is climbing.
Compare that to IE's growth of 21% in the last 12 months ( roughly
1.8% growth per month) and 8% in the last 5 months (roughly 1.3%
growth).
Yes, this last month ie slipped, but most likely that is due to end of
year financials. I'd like to see the febuary reports before I call it
a trend.
In any event, this is not "stomping all over" IIS.
Erik Funkenbusch
On 27 Jan 1998 11:31:12 +0000, James Youngman <JYou...@vggas.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <chu...@isd.net_x> writes:
>
> Erik> Jason Earl wrote in message ...
> >> chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:53:13 -0800, Paul Rickard <ms...@abctec.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >The ultimate revenge will be when Netscape's hundred-thousand new
> >>> >hobbyist programmers kick IE in the head, the same way Apache is still
> >>> >stomping on NT Server for the rame reason.
> >>>
> >>> How can a web server stomp on an OS? Or did you mean to say the same
> >>> way Apache is stomping on IIS? You do realize that Apache also runs
> >>> on NT, right?
> >>
> >> Coolest "beta" software on the planet. I am actually running this
> >> strange beast. My employer wanted something that ran on NT, and I
> >> didn't feel like paying for NTS when all I needed was a web server.
>
> Erik> Interesting, so your employer approves of you violating your
> Erik> liscense agreement?
>
>*What* "license agreement"?
His NTW liscense agreement. He said he's running apache on NTW.
Trevor Zion Bauknight
Forrest Cameranesi wrote:
>
> In article <6aistt$k...@news2.newsguy.com>, "jim frost"
> <jimf@delete_me.atg.com> wrote:
>
> > IE's Java is *substantially* more compatible than Sun's implementation.
>
> WTF!? Sun DEFINED THE SPEC, it's THEIR LANGUAGE, therefore their
> implementation is THE MOST COMPATIBLE with their own implementation, which
He probably meant "compatible" to mean "compatible with Windows on Intel."
That's what Microsloth wants, anyway...to redefine Java in terms of Windows so
that it runs best on Windows, thereby completely missing the
platform-independence promise of Java...MS can't stand that. Reason? They
know if platform-compatibility is not an issue, nobody in their right mind
would choose their platform.
Trev
Fraggle
In article <6aistt$k...@news2.newsguy.com>,
"jim frost" <jimf@delete_me.atg.com> writes:
> Forrest Cameranesi wrote in message ...
>>WRT IE's Java implementation:
>>
>>It may be faster than Netscape, actually that's what all reports I've
>>heard say, but what about compatibility? Isn't that what Sun's lawsuit is
>>all about, MS removing some peices of Java and replacing them with their
>>own?
>
>
> IE's Java is *substantially* more compatible than Sun's implementation. In
> fact, NetScape's Java is the least compatible I've ever seen, by far.
>
> This is one of the things that irritates me about the Sun/MS Java lawsuit.
> If Sun were really interested in compatibility they would have hammered
> NetScape first. The Microsoft version might have some incompatibilities but
> they are few and far between whereas NetScape has gaping holes and blatant
> incompatibilities.
>
> Speaking as a Java developer, of course.
>
> But we all knew that the real reason for the lawsuit has nothing to do with
> incompatibilities and everything to do with making Microsoft look bad.
> That's ok IMO, but it really doesn't make my job any easier.
>
> jim
>
>
>
IMHO, the difference is that Microsoft's is intentionally incompatible in some
ways, and Netscape's is unintentionally incompatible.
(Oh, and Netscape and SUN are allies ;)
Now the Netscape source will be released, I think that Netscape will probably
use Kaffe (www.kaffe.org) for Java.
------------------------------------
Jeffrey Lee: Linux has some thing to work on before its ready for "prime time".
Eugene O'Neil: I think "prime time" has some thing to work on before it is
ready for Linux.
------------------------------------
Kevin Brown
chu...@isd.net_x (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
> On 27 Jan 1998 01:08:26 GMT, jhi...@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)
> wrote:
[...]
> >Let me ask you a straight-forward question. Do you deny that giving IE
> >away for free, and bundling it with Win95, had anything to do with
> >getting it on so many desktops? Your answer is likely to reveal a
> >great deal.
>
> Sure, of course it did. But that's MS's right. They can give away a
> product if they like, as long as they don't charge for it later. MS
> has already stated that IE would always be available for free. I
> don't see this changing.
And you *believe* them? I suppose you believed them when they
announced release dates for Win95 and various versions of NT, too?
Do you *really* think that if Microsoft manages to sew up the web
browser and server markets (they have to do both) in such a way that
they can't be challenged (i.e., they manage to convert the web to
Microsoft-proprietary standards), they'll continue to release IE for
free? No for-profit company, especially one as greedy as Microsoft,
would be able to keep themselves from charging for IE in that
situation. I guarantee you that such a situation is *exactly* what
Microsoft is aiming for.
> If the DOJ is concerned about MS charging
> for IE later, make them sign a consent decree that forces them to
> always give it away.
The DOJ are a bunch of stumbling morons. What they do will have no
effect on Microsoft because they don't truly understand the nature of
the computer and software markets, nor do they appear to understand
the unique nature of software itself. Microsoft does.
> Now that MS has made the browser part of the OS, it'll be harder than
> ever for them to remove it from the OS to charge for it.
No, it'll be *easy*: it's just code...all you have to do is modify it.
It'll be especially easy for Microsoft:
1. They ship a new version of Word (or something. They could
use this trick with multiple applications simultaneously
if necessary) that supplies a new version of the DLL that
contains the IE control. But this new version also
happens to contain new functions that Word relies on that
didn't exist in previous versions of the DLL. It also
happens that this new DLL no longer has the IE controls in
it.
2. Bundled with this version of Word is a new IE that is a
Mandatory Install -- if you want the upgrade to Word (or
whatever) and you want IE at all, you have to install the
new version. It's linked against a new set of DLLs, one
of which contains the IE controls. The DLL that now
contains the IE controls no longer ships with the OS.
3. The next version of Word doesn't come bundled with IE
anymore -- you have to buy it, and if you want Word to be
"internet enabled", you have to install IE.
See? It might be take a little time but it's easy to do. All you
need is a strong enough presence in enough markets. Microsoft has
that.
> BTW, it's standard operating procedure in the computer universe to
> give away clients and charge big bucks for the server. NS is the only
> company I know of that charges for client software.
That may be standard procedure, but it's *not* Microsoft procedure.
Remember: Microsoft's primary source of income is their
*applications*, i.e. clients. Think they've forgotten this?
--
Kevin Brown ke...@unixperts.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
Any questions?