Slashdot Mirror

No AdWords, but a search for "goatse" yields the following helpful hint:

Category: Society > Religion and Spirituality > ... > Scientology

Scroll down a bit further and you get a link to the Netcraft page that says goatse.cx is running IIS on Linux. That's as wrong as the "stinger" image.

Apple are using a bsd core for OS X, not linux. Thus they are safe.

Check netcraft before you post. They run Linux.

Last time this issue came up, I ran a check based on Alexa's top site listings, and Netcraft's assessment of what these sites were running.

Results. Of the top 100 English language sites, there were: 44 GNU/Linux, 25 Microsoft Windows (NT, 2K, XP, 2K3), 13 Sun Solaris 8, 7 Sun Solaris, 4 unknown OS, 4 FreeBSD, 1 Sun Solaris 9, 1 Apple MacOSX, and 1 HP-UX operating systems.

Webservers were: 43 Apache, 26 Microsoft-IIS, 13 Netscape-Enterprise, 3 GWS, 3 AOLserver, 2 Zeus, 1 unknown, 1 thttpd, 1 Stronghold, 1 Squeegit, 1 Roxen, 1 Resin, 1 Rediff, 1 Bellsouth PWP server, 1 AV, and 1 Apache Tomcat.

If you like tabular layouts and want to see methods and scripts (Slashdot's crapfilter prevents this), look here.

Point: for high-volume sites, Linux or FreeBSD and Apache are preferred 2:1 over Microsoft solutions.

Why are everyone complaining about netcraft surveys based on domain names when every netcraft monthly survey also has statistics for active servers See this months survey for example, especially "total for active servers"

Netcraft says they're running "Yes we are using ServerMask on Windows 2000." Considering Port80's bias, and that they're on Windows 2000, and that ServerMask only works on IIS, their own security by obscurity isn't working. It's obvious that they use IIS 5. In fact, the only way to actually fool anyone with ServerMask is to hide your Windows server behind a *nix load balancer or reverse proxy. Without a *nix box in front, anyone using Netcraft or Nmap will see you're running Windows, and almost all Windows web servers are running IIS.

If you need security by obscurity, you're not secure at all.

So, actually, it does seem to be weighted

Thank you. I was going to post some of that info but now I don't have to. Also, it's important to note that Netcraft also does an MD5 for the "tag structure" of a page and compares the results to all other results from the same IP. At least for "active sites" as described here (look half way down in the methodology section.)

I don't claim Netcraft has perfect sampling methods, however, they don't appear to be as brain dead as other posters would like to claim. Based on their published methodology I would expect templated park pages and "user hasn't yet set up a site" pages to be consolidated. Even the "example" of counting www.yahoo.com and yahoo.com as seperate servers doesn't seem likely to be true.

The original netcraft article on the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003 hints at the fact that that most of the migration is occuring on hosted systems, where the hosting providers have received very favorable terms ( read as bribes ) to switch to Windows2003. Myhosting.com continues to be the top hoster of active Windows Server 2003 sites, and now has over 98% of their active sites migrated to Windows 2003. The month before, Myhosting.com was hosting 13,504 , in comparison to last months 32,810, an increase which accounts for the 5%. Yes, one provider.

What the Microsoft spin doctors do not mention is the continuing market share loss to Apache overall

Today, a new bunch of Microsoft advocates use the opposite argument as was used in September, by NOT counting deployments on hosting providers to spin the numbers in their favor.

Meanwhile the overall drop in Microsoft's share continues.

The original netcraft article on the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003 hints at the fact that that most of the migration is occuring on hosted systems, where the hosting providers have received very favorable terms ( read as bribes ) to switch to Windows2003. Myhosting.com continues to be the top hoster of active Windows Server 2003 sites, and now has over 98% of their active sites migrated to Windows 2003. The month before, Myhosting.com was hosting 13,504 , in comparison to last months 32,810, an increase which accounts for the 5%. Yes, one provider.

What the Microsoft spin doctors do not mention is the continuing market share loss to Apache overall

Today, a new bunch of Microsoft advocates use the opposite argument as was used in September, by NOT counting deployments on hosting providers to spin the numbers in their favor.

Meanwhile the overall drop in Microsoft's share continues.

true but teensluts.com,
wetteensluts.com and asianteensluts.comare running apache.

true but teensluts.com,
wetteensluts.com and asianteensluts.comare running apache.

true but teensluts.com,
wetteensluts.com and asianteensluts.comare running apache.

true but teensluts.com,
wetteensluts.com and asianteensluts.comare running apache.

There are some notable exceptions, of course...

I'll ignore for the moment the question of the quality of their data. I'm sure others will endlessly debate it (and I'll probably join in). Let's look at something else: The quality of their presentation.

First, let's take a look at the most recent Netcraft server survey. Let's see, clean display. The scale grid is subtle and doesn't draw attention to itself, but makes it easy to see exactly where a line falls. There is little wasted pixel data. It's easy to see trends and make comparisons. For the curious the exact numbers for the last two samples is listed (regrettably one two samples are listed). The graph labels the data it shows ("Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - November 2003") leaving the reader to form his own opinions. On the down side, the scale confusingly marks 7% increments and the yellow line for Netscape/SunOne almost disappears into the background. Still, a well above average for graph. Definately room to improve, but better than most people expect to see.

Now let's example the Port80 server survey. Wow, what a difference. The grid is a much more dominant element. The 3d effect means that bars further in the back appear taller (by up to 15 pixels, or about 7%) and makes it hard to compare a specific data point against the scale. The complexity of the 3d bars complicates things, the "top" of the bar is actually larger than the month to month shift in the numbers. The "area" of the bars implies size (intellectually you know it isn't, but your gut says otherwise), this means that the largely obscured middle bars (Netscape and Apache) seem smaller. Ultimately bars are the wrong choice, we're examining points over time (suggesting a line chart), not clusters of data. The chart is labeled with a conclusion ("Microsoft IIS Maintains Dominance Of the Corporate Web Server Market"), suggesting interpretations to the reader. On the up side, they provide heavily broken up information for the most recent sample point (regrettably it's a graphic). They include a worthless pie chart. If you want to show market share a line chart showing historical data would be much more enlightening.

Conclusion? Port80's graphs suck. Hard. It's a stunning example of how not to create high quality graphs. The creators need to be beaten with copies of Tufte's information display books until they get it. This is the sort of amateur crap I expect on PowerPoint slides from people more interested in being cool than being useful, or perhaps from the graphics department at USA Today. As an engineer I'm disappointed.

The site www.scoatse.cx is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000

By the looks of it AC needs to fine-tune his FAQ-reading skills.

If all the people crying above about BSD being dead why bother about it, why write about? If you people think your favourite OS is better than BSD think again, since i don't think windows, linux or BSD are the cutting edge OS'es. As for *BSD is dying. The latest Netcraft survey shows over 2 million active sites, and almost 4 million active hostnames all running on FreeBSD. Combined with the report that 5 of the top 10 hosting companies in terms of reliability were FreeBSD based.

If all the people crying above about BSD being dead why bother about it, why write about? If you people think your favourite OS is better than BSD think again, since i don't think windows, linux or BSD are the cutting edge OS'es. As for *BSD is dying. The latest Netcraft survey shows over 2 million active sites, and almost 4 million active hostnames all running on FreeBSD. Combined with the report that 5 of the top 10 hosting companies in terms of reliability were FreeBSD based.

Microsoft outsources CD duplication, like most major software companies. I understand that they outsource to a number of different vendors because of the volume of duplication they need.

It's entirely possible that the CD pressing work used in the outsourced companies' systems is Unix/Linux driven, but the analogy is kinda lost when you consider that they also outsource caching services to Akamai, who use Linux - so if you look on Netcraft's website, you'll see that microsoft.com uses IIS/Linux.

They are.

For those of you saying "this shows Linux is just as insecure as Windoze", look before you speak...

It's obvious that M$ knows just how secure linux is...

However, I'ld just like to point out that this is a result of social engineering. The only thing this proves is that someone on the debian project doesn't know how to keep their passwords safe...

As for those who are asking for answers...just wait...they are dealing with the problem at hand (cleaning their servers)...you can bet that there will be more than one interview/article on this topic as soon as everything is restored...at least they took time out from what I'm sure has become a pretty eventful day to inform everyone what was going on...

Headline: Cat chases tail...

In a strange turnabout SCO sues itself for using Linux http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=sco.com

Fourth quarter earnings will show a revenue of 1 billion dollars from litigation of company using Linux and a writeoff of 1 billion dollars worth of shares.

How does SCO explain running Linux and Apache for it's web servers? If it loves MS so much, why doesn't it move to IIS on windows server 2003? At least in June, the Netcraft server listing shows Apache/1.3.14 (Unix), which I guess is some kind of in house branch of Apache, but the last few months, Netcraft just lists Apache on Linux. Can anyone do a more detailed scan of sco.com and see what it runs? Oh, by the way, all these sites are running Apache on Linux as well.

How does SCO explain running Linux and Apache for it's web servers? If it loves MS so much, why doesn't it move to IIS on windows server 2003? At least in June, the Netcraft server listing shows Apache/1.3.14 (Unix), which I guess is some kind of in house branch of Apache, but the last few months, Netcraft just lists Apache on Linux. Can anyone do a more detailed scan of sco.com and see what it runs? Oh, by the way, all these sites are running Apache on Linux as well.

How does SCO explain running Linux and Apache for it's web servers? If it loves MS so much, why doesn't it move to IIS on windows server 2003? At least in June, the Netcraft server listing shows Apache/1.3.14 (Unix), which I guess is some kind of in house branch of Apache, but the last few months, Netcraft just lists Apache on Linux. Can anyone do a more detailed scan of sco.com and see what it runs? Oh, by the way, all these sites are running Apache on Linux as well.

How does SCO explain running Linux and Apache for it's web servers? If it loves MS so much, why doesn't it move to IIS on windows server 2003? At least in June, the Netcraft server listing shows Apache/1.3.14 (Unix), which I guess is some kind of in house branch of Apache, but the last few months, Netcraft just lists Apache on Linux. Can anyone do a more detailed scan of sco.com and see what it runs? Oh, by the way, all these sites are running Apache on Linux as well.

How does SCO explain running Linux and Apache for it's web servers? If it loves MS so much, why doesn't it move to IIS on windows server 2003? At least in June, the Netcraft server listing shows Apache/1.3.14 (Unix), which I guess is some kind of in house branch of Apache, but the last few months, Netcraft just lists Apache on Linux. Can anyone do a more detailed scan of sco.com and see what it runs? Oh, by the way, all these sites are running Apache on Linux as well.

How does SCO explain running Linux and Apache for it's web servers? If it loves MS so much, why doesn't it move to IIS on windows server 2003? At least in June, the Netcraft server listing shows Apache/1.3.14 (Unix), which I guess is some kind of in house branch of Apache, but the last few months, Netcraft just lists Apache on Linux. Can anyone do a more detailed scan of sco.com and see what it runs? Oh, by the way, all these sites are running Apache on Linux as well.

Don't bother writing SCO, they don't seem to be using it.(*)

Interestingly enough, they've changed their server banner to return less information. Maybe as a response to a bunch of hacking attempts. The less information they give, the harder it is to punch holes.

(*) the information given in Netcraft is to be taken with a grain of salt. One, it can get confused by proxies, which sometiems results in folks seeing IIS on Linux (Linux proxies in front of Windows IIS servers). The other thing is this seems to be hosted externally through an outfil called NFT. Still seems stupid that SCO didn't tell them to use SCO servers.

Seriously... I think it's good news for Sun, hopefully instead of spending millions chasing MS in court, they could put that money into R&D and kick some ass/arse/arslet/culo ..

By the way - here is the link. It is two years old but they never seem to publish this one anymore. I think it is part of their pay service. If you look at the time since then IIS (which has to be on Windows) has held pretty much the same percentage despite some peaks and valleys.

Either way, my other point is that Microsoft never had the lead in the first place. If anything they have taken from Apache not vice versa.

Better check your facts!

Most servers huh? Look again!

Better check your facts!

Most servers huh? Look again!

That's because you use the ignroamous definition of "hacking":

They never performed any exploits though, like actually trying to access the web server in russia to see what information they actually had...

instead of the nomral meaning, dissasemble and understand. The people who figured out what was going on with their spam did a better job of understanding a scam than the people being scammed. It was damn good hacking

Now run along and play with that scam site of your own and the Windoze crap that runs it. You, Bill Gates and Peter Tippett can fold that deffinition of yours till it's all sharp corners and stick it up each others declining sales.

Ooops!

Umh, actually M$ Linux (or more likely BSD) can't actually be ruled out.

It's well known that M$ uses BSD within its own walls...you don't actually think the whole of M$.com is running on IIS do you? Gee, who'd have thunk it? M$'s primary backends look to be Linux.

And what would make them do this? They would simply write proprietary apps that work seemlessly with Windoze systems (M$ SQL Server for M$ Linux, etc) which would make managers who bought new servers feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

The most likely method of imlementing this would be to come out with a new version of Windoze that was Linux/BSD under the hood and market it as Linux compatible (M$ Windoze Advanced Linux Server) or something similar...

You can be certain that if M$ were to develop their own *NIX distro (Xenix doesn't count, it was too early) they would be at the top of the market. It's the whole idea of "if you can't beat em, join em"...

Having said that, if as many computers ran Linux as the various Win versions, we would also be seeing more problems that at present - they just would not be as serious.

One very telling fact, IMHO, is that currently Apache holds over 3x the market share for web servers compared to MS's IIS. (Source November Web Server Survey - 67% vs 21%.) Yet look at the number and type of security alerts for each over the past year or two.

He says his entire web team runs on Mac OS X, but Netcraft says he is a liar!

And yes, he does use Slash, but he also ripped out the X-Fry header quotes. YOU BASTARD.

And all that is far worse, to me, then his lies about Bush not doing anything about North Korea and making the situation worse when it is clear that the Bush administration has been heavily engaged with North Korea and had a huge success in getting six-way, multilateral, talks going for the first time in many years (bilateral talks have been a major part of the problem with North Korea). Sure, there's work to do, but it is excellent progress, and it's a simple lie to say Bush has been "disengaged" with North Korea, has not been making significant progress, and to say that the ongoing diplomacy has been a "failure."

When asked what Edwards would do, he said, "I would sit with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiate." Right, because aligning Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, and the U.S. against North Korea, all in the same room, is not "sitting with North Korea in a very tough way and negotiating." He's so full of it.

He's also full of it on tort reform (he, a former trial attorney himself, gets most of his campaign money from attorneys and their employees), on support for the war (he fully supports the war, but think Bush did it the wrong way, even though at the time he fully supported it), and on the economy (Bush's tax cuts HURT the economy before they went into effect, but now that they have taken effect and the economy is coming back, they certainly can't get any credit!).

But I could vote for him regardless of his position on North Korea, and taxes, and tort reform, and the war, if only he would come clean on his use of FreeBSD!

Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year.

.. sure, but I'll also note that The site www.itc.org.uk is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4/Windows 98. It's a ploy by Microsoft to bring that 36% number 'under control'..

..where's my tin foil hat?

Funny, I can ping the site but apparently Apache borked. Netcraft stats

I'm not saying that any of the companies below actually employ the platforms listed in their VoIP applications/implementations, but I definately think it's interesting to see the comparison (IBM vs Mainstream Market).

Packet8 runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
WebPhone.com runs Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on Windows Server 2003.
Sonexis runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Skype runs Apache on FreeBSD.
SIPphone runs Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.12 mod_perl/1.27 mod_ssl/2.8.14 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on unknown.

Does anyone have information on other corporate VoIP-PBX solutions?

I'm not saying that any of the companies below actually employ the platforms listed in their VoIP applications/implementations, but I definately think it's interesting to see the comparison (IBM vs Mainstream Market).

Packet8 runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
WebPhone.com runs Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on Windows Server 2003.
Sonexis runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Skype runs Apache on FreeBSD.
SIPphone runs Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.12 mod_perl/1.27 mod_ssl/2.8.14 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on unknown.

Does anyone have information on other corporate VoIP-PBX solutions?

I'm not saying that any of the companies below actually employ the platforms listed in their VoIP applications/implementations, but I definately think it's interesting to see the comparison (IBM vs Mainstream Market).

Packet8 runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
WebPhone.com runs Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on Windows Server 2003.
Sonexis runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Skype runs Apache on FreeBSD.
SIPphone runs Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.12 mod_perl/1.27 mod_ssl/2.8.14 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on unknown.

Does anyone have information on other corporate VoIP-PBX solutions?

I'm not saying that any of the companies below actually employ the platforms listed in their VoIP applications/implementations, but I definately think it's interesting to see the comparison (IBM vs Mainstream Market).

Packet8 runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
WebPhone.com runs Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on Windows Server 2003.
Sonexis runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Skype runs Apache on FreeBSD.
SIPphone runs Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.12 mod_perl/1.27 mod_ssl/2.8.14 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on unknown.

Does anyone have information on other corporate VoIP-PBX solutions?

I'm not saying that any of the companies below actually employ the platforms listed in their VoIP applications/implementations, but I definately think it's interesting to see the comparison (IBM vs Mainstream Market).

Packet8 runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
WebPhone.com runs Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on Windows Server 2003.
Sonexis runs Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Skype runs Apache on FreeBSD.
SIPphone runs Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.12 mod_perl/1.27 mod_ssl/2.8.14 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on unknown.

Does anyone have information on other corporate VoIP-PBX solutions?

They do run OpenBSD on the servers they pay for bandwidth on. They just don't have the option of choosing the OS on the servers that they don't have direct control over (such as the www and ftp at U Alberta).

Netcraft confirms the fact that hotmail.co.uk was running Linux-Apache combo. It's also saying the domain hotmail.co.uk "Failed to resolve hostname" since 6-Nov-2003. Netcraft on hotmail.co.uk

they are working on legislation to make free software impossible

Won't fly. The web site of the CEO of the United States runs Apache on Linux.

Very strange that while netcraft states netdog run openbsd their own stats say netdog runs Solaris 8
http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performanc e/Hosters?tn=october_2003&reverse=0
as can be seen on line one.

> I can really only warn of using OpenBSD for scalable network servers.
> Don't use OpenBSD for network servers.
> ...again, I would advise against using OpenBSD for scalable network servers.
> If you are using OpenBSD, you should move away now.

Hey, this is damn right. After all, even www.openbsd.org does not run OpenBSD. ftp.openbsd.org does not either. If they don't trust their own OS enough to run their oiwn web and FTP server on it, who should?