Yahoo, Apache, Ebay, Amazon, Netscape Celebrate 10 Year Anniversaries

tagish writes "Roy Fielding writes on the Apache dev mailing list: 10 years ago today, the Apache Group decloaked with the creation of the new-httpd archive and initial accounts on hyperreal.org. I had the lucky timing of having the first message archived on the list, though we had actually been talking about what to do for at least a week before that (sadly, without any archives)." At the same time, Mike Porter simply writes "Yahoo celebrates its tenth anniversary on March 2nd." News about some other anniversaries available via an MSNBC article.

Comments

Not Quite.

[cacepi]

Sorry, but Yahoo has been around since January 1994.

Re:Not Quite.

[DarkMantle]

They seem to be celebrating the incorperation date, which according to the link you posted was March 1995.

I hope you don't get marked insightful for not reading your own link and being able to think by yourself.

Re:Now please clean up your act

[everdred]

It's not in their business model.

From the thus far print-only Wired article (available on wired.com on March 1), the average Yahoo! user spends 4.8 hours per month on their site. And Google users spend an average of 6/10ths of an hour on Google. And that's the way they both want it.

Their approaches and goals are different. Google keeps their users coming back by getting them what they need as quickly as possible. Yahoo! seems to keep users coming back for Games! and Music! and Shopping! Oh my!

Re:Now please clean up your act

[everdred]

By the way, if it's a clean, Google-like (search-centric) interface you'd like to see on Yahoo!, try search.yahoo.com.

OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not forget OpenBSD!

Like their website says: "Free, Functional & Secure - since 1995".

Re:life before apache

[Marc Slemko]

NCSA.

http://www.apache.org/history/timeline.html

The Apache HTTP server was an evolution, not a revolution.

Re:How DOES Yahoo! make money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read their filings.

Looks like a mix of banner ads, paid services (personals and so on), and sponsored search. Maybe a few other things, but I'm not a lawyer.

Remember, they bought Overture, they company that Google borrowed sponsored search from. (I think Yahoo used Google when this happen, which is probably why it was okay with them.)

"A PAtCHy server" -- myth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone seem to want to perpetuate this myth? [ meaning the myth that 'Apache is "A PAtCHy server"'. ] It's not true.

Ah, but it IS true. Or at least it was true at the time. If you don't believe me, take a look at the archive.org archives of the www.apache.org FAQ as of October 28, 1996, where it clearly says:

4. Why the name "Apache" ?

A cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".

This is kind of an interesting development. I can see four possible explanations:

1. It could mean that the apache.org people are misinformed. They may just not know their history. I don't know how many of the original people are still involved; maybe it's a whole different set of people.
2. It could mean that the apache.org people were wrong in the past, i.e. this page as posted on October 28, 1996 was, though it was the FAQ on their own web page, not the correct description of how the name came about.
3. It could mean that the official meaning behind the name has simply been changed. This has actually happened before. For instance, "gcc" used to stand for "GNU C Compiler", but now because the compiler suite supports so many languages, the name has been changed so that "gcc" now officially stands for "GNU Compiler Collection".
4. Finally, it could mean that the apache.org people are being historical revisionists for whatever reason. I don't know for sure that this is the case, but I can't rule it out either, so I thought I'd include it.

I have to say, at the very least, the current FAQ entry is so misleading that it's bordering on deceptive. If people who believe it stands for "A PAtCHy server" believe so incorrectly, the current FAQ ought to point out that the reason they believe that is that a previous version of the very same FAQ told them so!

Re:"A PAtCHy server" -- myth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found some more information and thought I'd post it. archive.org has a page where you can see all the spidered revisions of the Apache FAQ (for as long as it was at the URL www.apache.org/docs/FAQ.html, at least).

The October 28, 1996 archive entry (the earliest that archive.org has) has this explanation of the name:

Why the name "Apache" ?

A cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".

Then, the May 6, 1999 snapshot captured this version:

Why the name "Apache"?

A cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".

For many developers it is also a reverent connotation to the Native American Indian tribe of Apache, well-known for their superior skills in warfare strategy and inexhaustible endurance. Online information about the Apache Nation is tough to locate; we suggest searching Google, Northernlight, Infoseek, or AllTheWeb.

In addition, http://www.indian.org/ and http://www.nativeweb.com/ are two excellent resources for Native American information.

Then, in the October 4, 2004 snapshot, we see that the last paragraph (with the "excellent resources") has been removed.

Then finally, in the December 15, 2002 snapshot, we see that it's been changed to make "A PAtCHy server" into an "incorrect" name.

Why the name "Apache"? The name 'Apache' was chosen from respect for the Native American Indian tribe of Apache (Indé), well-known for their superior skills in warfare strategy and their inexhaustible endurance. For more information on the Apache Nation, we suggest searching Google, Northernlight, or AllTheWeb.

Secondarily, and more popularly (though incorrectly) accepted, it's a considered cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".

So basically, it wasn't until just over 2 years ago that "A PAtCHy server" was called incorrect by the FAQ. And Apache is, of course, nearing 10 years old, so for over 75% of its lifetime, "A PAtCHy server" has been the official explanation of the name given in the FAQ.

So, I'm confused how the current FAQ can even endeavor to call it "incorrect". At the least they should say "no longer correct" or something.

Re:Now please clean up your act

[Igmuth]

Actually, Yahoo interface is done nicely with CSS layout. Google still uses tables.

anniversary = years

[1u3hr]

"10 Year Anniversaries"?? what semi-literate made that phrase up? As TFA says, it's "10th anniversaries".

anniversary: The yearly return of a noteworthy date. (Oxford English Dictionary)

(Please don't regale me with "one month anniversaries of your first date" you celebrated in high school.) This is worse than "very unique".

last time I celebrated the birthday of a dead guy.

[rdunnell]

Last Monday, February 21 (Presidents Day). My dad used to actually get both Washington and Lincoln's birthdays off but eventually that was changed to President's Day too.

Before that was Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebrated through much of the USA.

Of course, there's always Christmas (for some), and I'm sure other countries have kings or queens or saints or other people they like to have a good cheer about.

all in all I'd say a lot of people celebrate the birthdays of dead people worldwide. Unless they work in retail in the US, because then they probably have to go sell stuff to everyone else who isn't working.

I don't think so. They have the same goal.

[fireboy1919]

Both Yahoo and Google are in the business of selling people to advertisers (who may be people, but are possibly also rats or other vermin). The more clicks to advertisers sites, and the more that advertiser's pages are seen, the more money the search engines make.

This translates into "the more time spent looking at and clicking on links from a search engine, the more money the search engine makes."

The goals are the same, the approach is different.

Use the same units for comparison, won't you? Otherwise, it's difficult to see that your argument makes sense. 36 minutes of an hour on google versus 4.8 hours per month.... Is that every hour for google? Or are you picking certain ones? How many hours a month?

My guess is that people are spending more time at Google per month than at Yahoo per month, and that because of this (among other reasons, i.e. this would be a reason if all other factors were equal), Google is generating more revenue.

Now if simplifying their interface led to more revenue...it might be worth looking into even if it shoots their current business model to pieces.