Slashdot Mirror

Looked at GreyMagic's web site with Opera cookie notification on?

Replaced with Xs to protect the innocent. Not only www but also "security". It's brave of them to be the lab rats for their own research-- or something.

Just because *you* have no use for any of the above, it doesn't mean they're pointless.

Over half of the internet's webservers run on apache, a large percentage of those use PHP. I'd put money on the fact that Squid caches more traffic than all the other web cache applications combined, and we all know that real web/ftp servers run either FreeBSD or Linux, if they don't run a commercial Unix.

smash.

Just because *you* have no use for any of the above, it doesn't mean they're pointless.

Over half of the internet's webservers run on apache, a large percentage of those use PHP. I'd put money on the fact that Squid caches more traffic than all the other web cache applications combined, and we all know that real web/ftp servers run either FreeBSD or Linux, if they don't run a commercial Unix.

smash.

Public source code for software that is designed to protect isn't a great idea IMO. Would you want your home security system, complete with sensor locations, schematics, etc. posted in a book on your front porch?

Have I stepped out of Slashdot and into some kind of paralell universe where open source doesn't exist?

The schematics for my firewall and all public daemons ARE available, some of them even "at my front door".

Publicly available anti-virus and firewall software would be great (source code witheld), but then you run into the same problem MS has. Huge user base = greater draw to those looking to undermine the software = more security issues.

So there are twice as many Apache vulnerabilities as IIS vulnerabilities? And don't give me that "there are more Windows users ... " excuse. If you want to affect the WWW at large, you attack that which comprises more than half the entire WWW, that being Apache. Were your logic correct, there would be a plethora of Apache vulnerabilities. The fact remains that a quality codebase, rather than a small userbase, defines the relative security of a product.

Nice troll, though. It looked really sincere.

Well, I was intrigued by this because I had thought that they had been running apache for a while. However, I went over to netcraft and found this page, http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.micr osoft.com Seems IIS is able to take the load. I'm no microsoft fan, but I was impressed.

The link you provided, http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200106.html, doesn't seem to support your conclusion that "...IIS *IS* the most popular web server." The graph half-way down the page states that windows runs 49.2% of computers running public Internet web sites (which is not 50% and not a majority). But it doesn't say anything about what web server is being used. Apache runs on windows in addition to *nix; however, IIS only runs on windows. Therefore, the statement "...IIS *IS* the most popular web server" is plain and simple a false statement, supported neither by the facts you link to nor any conclusions that can be legitamitly drawn from these facts.

Actually, IIS *IS* the most popular web server, or at least variants of it (Even Microsofts Personal Web Server for Win9x is based on IIS Code).

See Operating Systems used by Computers running public Internet Web Sites

Windows runs about 50% of all public web servers (servers, not hostnames. The netcraft survey normally counts hostnames not physical servers)

You can chalk this up to whatever you want, but it's still a fact that Windows runs the majority of web servers, and as such SQL Server probably runs the most DBMS's, at least for public services.

Operating System and Web Server for www.powerlabs.org The site www.powerlabs.org is running Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_log_bytes/0.3 mod_bwlimited/1.0 PHP/4.2.3 FrontPage/5.0.2.2510 mod_ssl/2.8.10 OpenSSL/0.9.6g on Linux.

Results from a test like that will have the power to change vendors' minds from trying to run IIS and MS SQL for a high volume site.

I think looking at the table at the bottom of this page should convince people.

"If it's good enough for Microsoft, it's good enough for you" makes a good slogan.

I like the following quote, "3. Stability. Netcraft has announced that Windows 2000 server has finally gone for over 2 years without a reboot." After checking netcraft, we can see their server is at byteandswitch.com. So fellow slashdotters, want to give them a hand?

Yes, they are using M$ $erver $000 unfortunately, as demostrated by this Netcraft survey.

And altough everything worked out fine, I personally think this issue is important enough to be discussed at tomorrow's final party convention.

Actually, its funny, but the riaa's site is currently down. But its proably due to the ms sql exploit, as they are running IIS.

By the looks of the .NSF in their URL they are running Blowtus Goats (Lotus Notes to the lay-person who was lucky enough never to have worked with Lotus "databases"). I'd rather use MS Access through WINE on a Linux box with an AMD processor through a dialup connection.

LOL, while taking a break from typing this, I did a Netcraft lookup on their domain. It says, they are running Windows NT/98, which isn't too surprising, but this was:

"NT4/Windows 98 users include ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and Ernst & Young International"

I guess Chernobyl can't blame their disaster on a BSOD, but maybe these guys can. I mean, christ, upgrade to Millenium Edition already.

holding up okay against ./ effect !

LinuxLover

www.regulations.gov runs Windows 2000

The United States Government... Proudlt wasting tax payers $$ for over 200 years.

Oops

They're running their site on IIS5/w2k. I can almost hear the p2p warez s'kiddies sharpening their root kits from here... ;)

Have fun boys!

are you sure its win2k?

...run Windows 2000? :-)

1. The site uses blink tags. yick.
2. The title of the page is New Page 3.
3. It's being hosted on Win 98! with IIS!

MSN, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc will be off-limits to anyone using anything other than windows.

Since MS can't get Hotmail to RUN from Windows, I don't see them requiring it.

For a good laugh, look at the "OS" and "Netblock Owner" columns in the table.

willhill@hesiod:~$ ping www.d128.com
PING d128.com (64.227.2.228): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.227.2.228: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=57.8 ms
64 bytes from 64.227.2.228: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=39.6 ms
64 bytes from 64.227.2.228: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=42.5 ms

--- d128.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 39.6/46.6/57.8 ms
willhill@hesiod:~$ whois 64.227.2.228

OrgName: Interland
OrgID: INTD

NetRange: 64.224.0.0 - 64.227.255.255
CIDR: 64.224.0.0/14
NetName: INTERLAND-5
NetHandle: NET-64-224-0-0-1
Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: A.NS.INTERLAND.NET
NameServer: B.NS.INTERLAND.NET
NameServer: C.NS.INTERLAND.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE

But so what? My complaint is that I can't use the wires that hook up to my house.

willhill@hesiod:~$ ping www.d128.com
PING d128.com (64.227.2.228): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.227.2.228: icmp_seq=0 ttl=51 time=57.8 ms
64 bytes from 64.227.2.228: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=39.6 ms
64 bytes from 64.227.2.228: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=42.5 ms

--- d128.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 39.6/46.6/57.8 ms
willhill@hesiod:~$ whois 64.227.2.228

OrgName: Interland
OrgID: INTD

NetRange: 64.224.0.0 - 64.227.255.255
CIDR: 64.224.0.0/14
NetName: INTERLAND-5
NetHandle: NET-64-224-0-0-1
Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: A.NS.INTERLAND.NET
NameServer: B.NS.INTERLAND.NET
NameServer: C.NS.INTERLAND.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE

But so what? My complaint is that I can't use the wires that hook up to my house.

GNU.Free [free-project.org]?

That site says boldly "WE RUN GNU" yet according to this Netcraft report the site runs FreeBSD!!! If they would really run GNU, they would use The Hurd. Well, I guess The Hurd can't do the job... LOL!

If Netcraft is not decieved, that would be the way to "fix" it. Netscape on NT, I'm amazed that it has not blue screened yet and is so responsive. If it was IIE, it would be all over by now for the second or third time. Thanks for the insight.

The site www.goatse.cx is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Linux, according to Netcraft

Openbsd is a horiblly disorganised piece of junk not sutible for any real use, even the openbsd server runs on solaris

Getting into recommendations, however... Saying that everyone should NMAP with OS detection every e-commerce site they go to is pretty unsound advice. Besides which, he's making a huge blanket statement that IIS admins all suck, and that any site using IIS/MS on the backend is a huge risk that no one should take.

He must not buy much on the web then, unless he keeps a root shell around to run with -O. Quicker to just use NetCraft.

But even the characterization of all the Operations staff at Ebay, Staples.com and Barnes and Noble as being completely inept soup-fed-droolers, since they run IIS and therefore are risking their customers, is childish and whiny. Why should I trust a Linux admin over an NT admin, in the context of ECommerce? One would hope that if Barnes and Noble runs an ECommerce site, that they would have the foresight not to hire a wet behind the ears MCSE.

If Staples, bn.com, and Ebay all get owned, I might have to rethink my rant I guess...

The way towards security is not in me as an admin saying "Buy Linux servers, they're going to be 'secure'". The way towards security is in an admin saying "What you running, w2k? We can secure that". Security is not a product, and Linux does (clearly) not equal security.

The crux of the Right to Read is that publishers would use technology to own all information. The idea is that you are so greatful to have access to that information that you will give everything that you create back to the publisher. In order to do this publishers have to make copying their information difficult and convince us all that sharing infomation is moraly wrong, that our own intelect is not worth much and most importantly THAT THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SHARE INFORMATION. Compared to the vast wealth of everyone else's intelect one person is not much, so the publishers will always win that one. The other notions are absurd, moraly reprehesible and must be fought every day. We can publish information ourselves for free if we wish and there are other ways for publishers to get along.

The Clevland library should be ashamed of itself for working for disreputable publisher who demand more than their due for an electronic copy. Electronic information is easier to publish than any other form of information ever. It can be coppied efortlessly, editied easily and transormed into many forms. Reputable publishers will have to find some way to use their reputations for profit and libraries, which exist as you point out to share information, should work to support and encourage them. Where's the link to Project Gutenburg and other free libraries on the Clevland site? The over simplified and distorted globe that sits on their front page is appropriate to the way they are running themselves. Yeah, they use M$ crap, it figures. They are so greatful their computers sort of work that they are willing to relinquish control of them when there are superior and cheaper free alternatives. Get with it, Clevland.

"with where microsoft makes their browsers go faster"

And slower with non-IIS servers.

"they're getting MOST content faster than they would with crapzilla"

So you're saying most webservers run IIS, not Apache? Funny, last month Apache had a market share of 60%.
If you don't believe me, check out NetCraft: --> IE users actually get MOST content slower because MOST servers are running Apache. Apache has twice as much market share as IIS. Not to mention all the other small non-IIS web servers.

"If people can't stand that 1/10 of a second difference, then they would try to get a new browser."

If they know there is such a thing called "browser". For average users, that 'E' icon is the Internet itself. And the percentage of people who know that alternative browsers even exist are becoming smaller and smaller.

>they caught the guy too

You just summed up the difference between using a credit card at a restaurant and using one online.

I do not think he is paranoid. Three months after CodeRed first appeared, one out of ten "secure" or "comercial" IIS websites were still infected. (Note the word "secure" as in encryption and the word "infected" as opposed to merely "vulnerable".)

So does some non-slashdot propaganda.

You put a lot of work into that. But alas, Yahoo isn't using IIS so its all a moot point. The idea is that the combination of IE and IIS will cause this. Netcraft shows that Yahoo is running FreeBSD, and thus NOT IIS.

.... that a free software product *might* gain market share. What market? It's free, so there's no market, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. What are the bean counters counting? Some people sound like they are just itching to sell out.

No matter how badly you want to see Microsoft Windows remain the only desktop OS on PCs, you can at least admit to understanding what is meant by the term "market share" rather than playing silly word games (to somehow "prove" your point?)

By this logic, Opera would have nearly 100% of the web browser "market share", because Microsoft gives IE away for free, and AOL/Netscape gives away Netscape and Mozilla for free. But it is a well recognized fact that today, Microsoft's IE enjoys about 90-95% of the browser "market", despite the fact that Microsoft gives it away for free.

Likewise, Apache is well recognized to have 61% of the web server "market", even though it is a free program. If there were "no market" for Apache simply because it is free, then you could conclude that all websites are hosted on Microsoft IIS and a few other servers. But the facts are clear (actually, Apache is commonly deployed to vitual host many sites, so it has a smaller but still very respectable portion of the "market" if you count by number of physical servers instead of number of served websites).

Wether kde/gnome/linux will ever get a larger portion of the "desktop market share" is a good question. But playing silly word games to say it will never have any "market share" because it is a free program is definately not the answer to that question. A pile of factual errors (as other have pointed out) is also not a good answer.

Of course, all of this ignores the fact that Redhat and others do SELL linux distributions. Even if they're not profitable or only just barely breaking even, product is being sold.

Server: Netscape- Enterprise /3.6 SP3

As we speak, someone is changing the news options on the RIAA website. However, they don't seem to be stopping them from doing it. I did grab a shot of a particularly amusing one though.

Oh, and just so everyone knows.

Aparently he a Microsoft supporter.

The site ninenine.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000

Shown here

Ease of use? Face it. Ease of use became a moot point with the introduction of Windows95.

Plus, the fact that when most Mac-heads talk about ease of use nowadays, what they're really talking about is familiarity. If you're more familiar with the Mac interface, it's easier for you to use than the Windows UI. And vice-versa.

Do you have any Macs with that kind of uptime?

Ease of use? Face it. Ease of use became a moot point with the introduction of Windows95.

Plus, the fact that when most Mac-heads talk about ease of use nowadays, what they're really talking about is familiarity. If you're more familiar with the Mac interface, it's easier for you to use than the Windows UI. And vice-versa.

Do you have any Macs with that kind of uptime?

Yeah, we are well aware that apple's corporate website is Solaris. Apple has never hidden that. In fact, Apple has always had a fairly good relationship with Sun! You will note that .mac runs Apache/Darwin. I have found that, other than occasional slowness on weekday evenings, I have no complaints whatsoever about this service. The original posted clearly did not *telephone* Apple about his problems, which I suspect are caused by a misconfiguration of his machine, or his LAN.

You say this and a lot of other negative stuff about Apple:

A lot of my dislike of QuickTime has to do with their shitty, buggy, windows viewer program

What do you expect? It's windows, right? Try getting Media Player to behave. I'll spare you, it looks something like this. Broken OLE, poorly implemented file system, non implemented portable net graphics rendering, look at my advert, download my crap, ad nauseum (that's latin for party till you puke).

You don't work on libpr0n, do you? Nah, no one running win2k has a real clue, though you do seem to be catching on (if that's you) how painful sounding. Wait, this is you, "But in all seriousness I know my life would be a lot nicer if everyone used truly open, independent file formats and codecs." Bing, bing, bing, Gold Star for you.

Oh well, thanks for crapping on Apple. It's always nice to see a postive post, full of insight on how to make things work right. It's almost as good as a porn meta site that crams banner adverts accross real porn sites. To be fair, the ratings system is value added, but some people might get the impression you are simply pimping pimps. That's much better, however, than pimping M$ especially by simply crapping on everyone else.

Hmm, netcraft says www.idontgiveashit.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000. Seems appropriate somehow.

Apache/1.3.26 on IRIX

If you really are a proponent of 'the best tool for the job' dogma, you would want to sort out your web site (isn't that a tool?), so it doesn't ask me to upgrade the latest version of the most advanced web browser. Ugrade to what - IE?

Looking at the history, it seems that they actually changed their server TODAY from Windows NT to Windows 2000. This morning, their site was so badly Slashdotted, I never saw it. Looks like they migrated it over to Windows 2000 pretty quickly, possibly as a result of the Slashdotting. As far as I can tell, their server is flying right now.

Maybe this would be a good product to use as a server. If their server is one of these it seems to be handling the /.ing just fine, and has an uptime of 245 days.

If your environment is setup in a unix/linux friendly way, TCO of unix/linux will be low. If you take an environment setup for windows, and try to plug linux or unix into it, the TCO will be higher.

Interesting to note that downtime was the second highest cost in TCO. Are they saying that windows has better uptime than Linux? (Which is absurd, even if you don't factor in the downtime cost due to viruses). Look at http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/isp.avg.html The first windows machine comes in at 14th place.

This study is just dumb. It's a projection, nothing more. Probably funded by m$.

Maybe this is due to the fact that Linux is used in more "Mission Critical" applications. Therefore, the companies running Linux boxen are going to be more likely to keep their boxen secure and up to date.

For instance, most corporations have went to using Win2k for their desktops, yet it is rare to find a desktop Linux box. The TCO of a desktop is certainly less than that of a web server!!!

I'm going to guess that the lack of detail is intentional...

Of course with a little sleuthing, you can find out they're running IIS...and this page describes themselves as a marketing company (hey, it's the same company that owns TechWeb).

Go a little further and you find they're handing out awards for M$ ... but I think they way their site held up to a good slashdotting shows how good Win2k solutions are...

Guess who probably got a free IIS/5.0 license out of the deal? December 3, 2002. Cute.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mo de_w=on&site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crn.com&submit=Exami ne