Slashdot Mirror

hardly slashdotted. don't you think that all the people downloading ISOs might have something to do with it?

And of course it's running BSD (Netcraft confirms it.)

It would not appear to be a case of "GNU/Freedom".

If Netcraft is correct, then it would appear that MySpace is run on Windows systems.

http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=www.myspa ce.com

They're even using IIS, so it's quite likely that there is absolutely no open source or FSF software powering their site.

They might run their servers on Windows, if their main website is any indication.

http://www.transmediacorp.com/

Netcraft lists the servers as running Windows Server 2003, with Microsoft-IIS/6.0.

http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=www.trans mediacorp.com

It looks like your pro-Windows site runs on Linux.

http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=www.winvi stasecrets.com&probe=1

Is Windows, be it Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2003 Server, unable to cope with the minor loads your site receives?

They are running Linux, but what exact distro is unknown.

http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=linspire. com
http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=info.lins pire.com

They are running Linux, but what exact distro is unknown.

http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=linspire. com
http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=info.lins pire.com

That's why they do them.

Well, that's great news for the Windows OEM staff being put under intense pressure by their Directors to make inroads in the Linux market.

There's another interesting statistic which the /. article didn't mention - look at Top Hosting Locations and Longest Uptimes. The figures do the talking.

As Vic Reeves says, "82% of statistics are made up on the spot."

That's why they do them.

Well, that's great news for the Windows OEM staff being put under intense pressure by their Directors to make inroads in the Linux market.

There's another interesting statistic which the /. article didn't mention - look at Top Hosting Locations and Longest Uptimes. The figures do the talking.

As Vic Reeves says, "82% of statistics are made up on the spot."

Unix is a complete joke as far as security.

I don't know what you mean by "Unix", but I'm assuming it includes all POSIX-compatable operating systems (including GNU/Linux, *BSD, etc). In that case, maybe you should look at OpenBSD. It's about as Unix as they come, being BSD-derived and all. Yet it is also one of the most secure general-purpose operating systems out there. In the past 7+ years, OpenBSD has had one remote root hole in the default install (the OpenSSH off-by-one hole, I believe) and a handfull of priviledge escalation holes and the like. Compare this to Solaris or Red Hat Linux, and you'll see that not all Unixes are the same.

a.) It's ancient so most of the flaws are finally worked out.

I agree here, but I think that the point deserves more elaboration. Many of the flaws in Windows and Windows-related products like IIS stem from fundamental design problems, the kind that only massive time and energy spent reworking can fix. For example, the fact that any NetBIOS-enabled Windows machine will send you its password hashes upon request (by getting the machine to retrieve a remote file:// url) has been acknowledged by Microsoft as a pretty much unfixable design flaw. Similarly, the IIS URL parsing mechanism is overly complex, leading to holes like the Unicode ../../ problems. With Unix, most of the fundamental design issues have been worked out or worked around. True, there are still a few fundamental problems; the inflexible permissions system and the fact that many things run as root just to get one specific priviledge (ping, daemons, etc) come to mind. But most of the flaws in Unix programs come from buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, unchecked perl open() calls, and the like: little, isolated errors that are easy to make and almost as easy to fix.

b.) Nobody _gives a shit_ about Unix so there aren't a lot of hackers out there targetting it.

This point blatantly contradicts the others. If Unix is so unimportant, why (according to point a) have there been so many flaws found and fixed? Besides that, have you looked at how many companies are into Linux these days? I think that Red Hat, IBM, and HP (just to name a few) would disagree with your statement that "Nobody _gives a shit_ about Unix". With the release of Mac OS X, Unix is now also a popular desktop OS with a significant market share. As for "hackers" (I'll assume you meant crackers) targeting Unix, take a look at any security-related mailing list and you'll see that many Unix-related flaws are researched and found, and often exploited. Crackers and script kiddies do care about Unix (it accounts for over half of all webservers*, for example), and this is why so much effort has gone into and will continue to go into securing Unix.

*Netcraft says that 64.19% of sites run Apache, but does not mention the OS distribution. Since most Apache installs are on Unix systems, and since there are also some non-Apache Unix webservers, I figured that saying 50% was more than reasonable.

Why don't you check?

ad.law10.hotmail.com

Sure looks like Apache on FreeBSD to me.

There's no way you can back that statement up. Corporations generally have a few outward-facing web servers, and yes, these are most likely running apache, but the vast majority of Intranet web servers are still IIS. After that you'll see Lotus Domino and iPlanet, and then Apache.

No one's forcing you. ... you're still going to be limited by your hardware in the end. ... Give me a break.

I think he's refering to the fact that just to use the MS OS/GUI/apps requires a faster computer for every revision that Windows "advances". Would you dispute that? Did you ever go back to Windows 3.11 during the Win95 days, to see how damn fast 3.11 was over 95?

I would hazard a guess that Microsoft puts out OS'es that require more grunt and thus more PC sales, while the PC companies continue to bundle, yes you guess it... What do you think? They're trying to sell more OS'es and machines or do they really care about our system's usability?

I actually run OpenBSD as my desktop OS on my PIII-500 and my old iBook (along with Mac OSX, for the curiosity factor, which is now boring me after about 4 months). I *seriously* do not need MS Office, etc. I write my documents with html and convert them to gorgeous pdf's where need be from within any of my *nix machines.

This may have been true in WinME and previous operating systems, and perhaps I've been lucky,

I still get called to customer sites, where the customer simply installed some of their old Windows software, which then brought Win2k to a BSOD and then subsequent boot failures... I have to specifically try to fuck up a *nix to pull it off in the grand style that MS does with a natural talent. And when I have to fix a *nix, it is bloody easy. Boot "rescue" media, an install floppy or CD or whatever, get to a prompt, mount afflicted partitions, grep the logs, find the fault, fix the fault which is almost always really easy.

In MS OS, you have to decipher some cryptic core dumps or if you are really luck some really poor error logs.

If $140 is too much for Windows XP Pro, I feel sorry for you man.

Hey, my PC cost all up so far about $5000 au, notebooks total about $7000 au, you rekon we all avoid MS OS simply because of nothing more than monetary cost? Please. I paid good money for OSX, official OpenBSD CD's since 2.5 and cheap Debian cdr's from my local Linux shop.

Would the fact that I pick up thrown out P200MMX+ PC's off the street, put a free *nix on them and give them away as useful machines make me a pathetic cheapskate? I feel sorry for you.

This was only really needed with FAT(32). Windows NT4/2K/XP have all used NTFS, ... And Windows 2k/XP comes with a pretty darn good defragmenting utility.

Make your mind up will you. If it does'nt need this great defrager, then what's so great about it then?

That's fine, I've had my Windows XP desktop at work running for the past month without downtime. I only reboot when a critical hotfix comes out, and I've been fine.

Yeah, so what. It's a desktop right? If you were smart, you'd avoid problems and reboot your desktop at least once a day just because a typical MS desktop normally only has to gain stability from this. You wanna be a tool and talk about uptime?

But even that, that's pretty trivial (Add/Remove Components-->IIS)

You're pathetic.

And contrary to popular belief, disabling all of your services except for a "bare minimum" won't give you amazingly higher frame rates (Ooh, you gained 1 3d mark! So fast!)

Really pathetic.

No, I _could_ go on, but I'm tired of _this_. People who hate Windows just because it's a Microsoft product.

I'm tired too. 12 years supporting MS crap, has taken it's toll. You think people hate Windows because of Microsoft?

People hate Microsoft because of Windows. Fool.

All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!

Certainly not, in fact, according to Netcraft...

The top 10 servers with the highest average uptime are *BSD's. All servers on this list are Unix, mostly a BSD, some IRIX. There are no Linux or Microsoft servers.

The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.

The top 16 servers with the latest highest uptimes are *BSD's. All servers on this list of 50 are Unix servers. Linux and Microsoft servers did not make this list. Only BSD and IRIX appear on this list of current record holders.

This is accurate at the time of my posting.

So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?

With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).

Don't get me wrong....I'm NOT saying that Apache is perfect. Apache does however, seem to have a MUCH better track record for security breaches than IIS does.

Hell, that's one of the reasons I started using Linux, and applications like Apache and Qmail that run on Linux.

This question baits Microsoft with a presupposition that isn't even true. Take a look at the survey itself, and you'll see that while Apache numbers continue to outgrow MS numbers, MS actually holds a dominant position on SSL sites within the US. Now, given that a good percentage of the total web traffic is concentrated in the US and that most companies worth a damn have SSL sites, and you'll see that MS isn't hurting as bad as just a simple look at the first graph might tell you.

The thing none of those graphs show you is a relationship between hit rates and server usage. I'd be willing to bet that a good 60% (probably more) of those Apache servers are just people like me who run Apache at home for a small personal web server. I work for a managed hosting company, and more people request IIS than do Apache, although we generally use Apache more because we feel it's better (that's part of sales, though).

IIS is not struggling. It's gaining ground and acceptance in the corporate world, and when you pit a Wintel enterprise-class web solution against a Unix-based enterprise-class web solution (note I said "enterprise-class" which I don't feel Linux can really handle yet), they're actually rather competitive.

I'd rather see non-BS questions coming from the Slashdot community rather than questions that twist and manipulate facts to put the interviewee in a bad position before he even answers.

And now my question:

Mr. Miller, a quick trip to Netcraft's site shows that Microsoft's IIS is struggling for marketshare among web servers. Considering that corporations and businesses are a large source of Microsoft's revenue, I was wondering what Microsoft has in store in the future to help entice more business customers into using Microsoft's own products. I must admit that I'm impressed with Win2K's stability and uptime, but what else does Microsoft have in store for it's users that would justify spending several thousand dollars on a Microsoft based infrastructure as opposed to a quite capable free alternative?

First, this is a human issue, not a technical issue. The same can (and should) be said for any other operating system. One is able to tweak NT's registry, or Novell's set parameters, and fail to document the changes.

Second: This supposes that one did not make a full image backup of the system. As an administrator, I would discharge anyone that did not take this elementary and common precaution. . This is a trivial exercise in Unix, almost impossible in NT, and somewhat difficult in Novell.

I timed initiating a complete restore for the following systems:

1. AIX - 15 minutes (mostly waiting for the tape to finish booting) Extra software purchase required at unknown cost.

2. SCO - 5 minutes (2 diskettes to boot, insert tape, press 1) Extra software purchase required at $300 US per system

3. Linux - 20 minutes to configure partitions and format, then restore Used native software only at no extra cost

4. BSDi - 20 Minutes to configure partitions and format, then restore Used native software only at no extra cost

5. Novell - 1 hour 50 minutes to load OS and restore application software. Extra software purchase required at $1000 US per system Full restore from backup not possible because some files were open during backup and not backed up. Some manual intervention was required during the restore process.

6. NT - over a day to load OS and restore software, configure same. Not able to completely restore tape as some files were open and not backed up, system repeatedly locked up during restore. Manual intervention during restore process needed many times. Extra software purchase required at $1000 US per system.

NOTE: Only time spent actually completing tasks to start the backup is included in these times. This also included the time needed to configure the restore software, add the restore media device to the OS including drivers and software. The time required to actually complete the restore is not included as this is a function of the amount of data on the system and the speed of the restore media device, drivers and hardware.

Third: Gartner Groups analysis of NT shows that it takes 33% more time to administrate NT as opposed to Novell and Unix system, requiring more administrator time and cost.

Firstbrook also takes issue with Linux's most famous feature--the fact that it is free. "Our analysis says that the cost of the operating system is only 3 percent of the total cost of ownership of the server," he says.

And I suppose that once you buy a car, one never need buy gas? Only a complete idiot thinks that the purchase is the end of expenditure of any item.

Labor is a far more significant proportion of IT costs, and the very cost that is likely to be affected if employees spend time tinkering with Linux.

Or playing Quake, or Arena, or Flight Simulator. My experience is that my peers tend to tinker at home, where interruptions are at a minimum. Again, this isn't an issue of the operating system, this is a management issue. Bad management is possible in any operating system environment.

"Linux is out there and people are using it, but it is mostly because of the cool factor," he says.

And it's likin' to be seein' the survey that got those numbers I'd be.

As a class, systems people tend to ignore hype and look to the heart of the matter. "Is this the appropriate technology? Will it do what I need? Will the total cost be reasonable? Is it dependable, and will it run on equipment we can maintain?" are all questions my peers and I ask of any product being deployed. Mr. Firstbrook implies that my peers and I are idiots and will use any cool tool that comes along. My response is that most of us choose the tool best suited for the task as best we're able and given to understand that task.

A survey of over eighteen million web sites by www.netcraft.net shows that Linux is running 35.73%, Microsoft is running 21.32%.Source: www.netcraft.net/survey Further, studies show that Linux/Apachie are gaining market share from almost everyone.

"Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous," he says. --T.R.

Mr. Firstbrook must live in terror or only hire incompetent help. It is possible to "screw around" with all operating systems more complex than the one to run a toaster, and even that has an adjustment for how brown you want your toast. NT has registry settings, configuration files, and so on. Novell has it's set commands, configuration files, .NLM's. Unix has programming, configuration files, and many many other ways to "tweak" it.

My suggestion to Mr. Firstbrook is that he look for another line of work, as he is ignorant of how and why computers work, what it takes to run them, and how to choose what to run.

First, this is a human issue, not a technical issue. The same can (and should) be said for any other operating system. One is able to tweak NT's registry, or Novell's set parameters, and fail to document the changes.

Second: This supposes that one did not make a full image backup of the system. As an administrator, I would discharge anyone that did not take this elementary and common precaution. . This is a trivial exercise in Unix, almost impossible in NT, and somewhat difficult in Novell.

I timed initiating a complete restore for the following systems:

1. AIX - 15 minutes (mostly waiting for the tape to finish booting) Extra software purchase required at unknown cost.

2. SCO - 5 minutes (2 diskettes to boot, insert tape, press 1) Extra software purchase required at $300 US per system

3. Linux - 20 minutes to configure partitions and format, then restore Used native software only at no extra cost

4. BSDi - 20 Minutes to configure partitions and format, then restore Used native software only at no extra cost

5. Novell - 1 hour 50 minutes to load OS and restore application software. Extra software purchase required at $1000 US per system Full restore from backup not possible because some files were open during backup and not backed up. Some manual intervention was required during the restore process.

6. NT - over a day to load OS and restore software, configure same. Not able to completely restore tape as some files were open and not backed up, system repeatedly locked up during restore. Manual intervention during restore process needed many times. Extra software purchase required at $1000 US per system.

NOTE: Only time spent actually completing tasks to start the backup is included in these times. This also included the time needed to configure the restore software, add the restore media device to the OS including drivers and software. The time required to actually complete the restore is not included as this is a function of the amount of data on the system and the speed of the restore media device, drivers and hardware.

Third: Gartner Groups analysis of NT shows that it takes 33% more time to administrate NT as opposed to Novell and Unix system, requiring more administrator time and cost.

Firstbrook also takes issue with Linux's most famous feature--the fact that it is free. "Our analysis says that the cost of the operating system is only 3 percent of the total cost of ownership of the server," he says.

And I suppose that once you buy a car, one never need buy gas? Only a complete idiot thinks that the purchase is the end of expenditure of any item.

Labor is a far more significant proportion of IT costs, and the very cost that is likely to be affected if employees spend time tinkering with Linux.

Or playing Quake, or Arena, or Flight Simulator. My experience is that my peers tend to tinker at home, where interruptions are at a minimum. Again, this isn't an issue of the operating system, this is a management issue. Bad management is possible in any operating system environment.

"Linux is out there and people are using it, but it is mostly because of the cool factor," he says.

And it's likin' to be seein' the survey that got those numbers I'd be.

As a class, systems people tend to ignore hype and look to the heart of the matter. "Is this the appropriate technology? Will it do what I need? Will the total cost be reasonable? Is it dependable, and will it run on equipment we can maintain?" are all questions my peers and I ask of any product being deployed. Mr. Firstbrook implies that my peers and I are idiots and will use any cool tool that comes along. My response is that most of us choose the tool best suited for the task as best we're able and given to understand that task.

A survey of over eighteen million web sites by www.netcraft.net shows that Linux is running 35.73%, Microsoft is running 21.32%.Source: www.netcraft.net/survey Further, studies show that Linux/Apachie are gaining market share from almost everyone.

"Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous," he says. --T.R.

Mr. Firstbrook must live in terror or only hire incompetent help. It is possible to "screw around" with all operating systems more complex than the one to run a toaster, and even that has an adjustment for how brown you want your toast. NT has registry settings, configuration files, and so on. Novell has it's set commands, configuration files, .NLM's. Unix has programming, configuration files, and many many other ways to "tweak" it.

My suggestion to Mr. Firstbrook is that he look for another line of work, as he is ignorant of how and why computers work, what it takes to run them, and how to choose what to run.

Zope is used my a respectable number of sites, that we can verify anyway. Netcraft only reports the servers running straight Zope(Zserver), and not the cases where Zope runs behind another server. In the measured category, it tops Roxen (which may be underreported due to the config option to change the Server string) on their list of .coms in March ( March Report on Zope in .com ) Zope is quite a powerful system, content management is one of the key aspects of it. I run it in conjunction with Roxen, and it provides for a good platform.

The PTK (Portal ToolKit) is coming along nicely, and makes for a very nice, easy to use platform.

If you try it, do try to remember the recommendation that complicated logic should be done in Python, not DTML. The D in DTML does not stand for 'Dynamic', it stands for Document. DTML is a Document Template Markup Language. Python is for programming. Keeping this in mind will significantly help you keep your sanity.

IIS has crushed Netscape's web server platform, and, if you believe what M$ say, is a serious contender for the www server crown.

Not so! Apache is far more popular than IIS is, capturing a good 55% of the httpd server market, leaving IIS at a mere 22% (Netscape is stuck at about 5%). ASP is not nearly as widespread as Microsoft would like you to believe. http://www.netcraft.net has all the stats. Apache has actually had the lead since around 1996, and although usage stats have fluxuated, Apache hasn't lost much ground in the past few months.