Slashdot Mirror
Perens Launches 'OpenSourceParking'
miller60 writes "Open source evangelist Bruce Perens has launched OpenSourceParking, a service designed to boost domain parking on open source software. The project is a response to a large gain by Microsoft in the April Netcraft survey, with Windows' share jumping 5 percent as domain registrar Go Daddy moved 4.5 million parked domains from Linux to Windows Server 2003. To regain that share, Perens is calling on open source users to park undeveloped domains at OpenSourceParking, with the advertising revenue being used to fund political advocacy efforts on behalf of open source software. Parking-for-profit has grown into a significant business in recent years. Despite ambivalence over the value of these sites, Perens appears to believe it merits a focused effort for the open source community."
Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?
We all know that all the vast majority of high performing websites run Apache on a free unix-like O/S.
Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Parked domains exist and aren't going away any time soon, so we might as well make the best of it.
http://outcampaign.org/
Every time Microsoft gains ground, they drive that point home with advertising campaigns and news releases. This adds to consumer confidence for their products. If IIS is serving on more than 50% of all websites, there must be something to it. Or so the logic goes.
So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins? Do you really think anyone besides you is looking at the realities of webserving? Or is your manager going to buy into the press release hype and make IT decisions for you to implement?
It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache. If you're posting here on Slashdot, you're most likely not the guy who is signing the paychecks in your company, and since you're not that guy, you're beholden to his decisions. Better to cut MS off at the pass than to face them down once they've got their foot in the door.
Precisely. All we need are more parked domains chock full of Google ads and banners. Google should just block all of them so that they stop clogging up search results, and especially so if the page contains the words "This Doman For Sale!"
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The real problem with this plan (idealogical arguments aside) is that the vast majority of those who will bother to switch will naturally be the open source advocates. These are the ones who are most likely to be running an open-source web server on an open-source OS anyway, so the stats will hardly be shifted at all.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Symptoms are information. Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server? Can something be done about it? Those are IMHO the questions.
If the Netcraft survey is clouded by artificial parking, then the survey loses utility (assuming it has any in the first place, as the domain parking numbers make seeing usage statistics difficult). You can correct with Photoshop your bank account receipt, and that won't make you any richer.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?
Such stats are the reason Windows is in the place it is today.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
90% of the things you do in life just flop or simply do not bring the success you expected. That's no problem as long as you keep trying.
Also, you can not really tell, until you have tried an idea.
Bruce has been doing great things and maybe this is another big story. Maybe not. At least he tries.
I think it's pretty clear that this is perhaps the dumbest idea that has ever been put forward by anyone, ever. I would be a little ashamed to have mentioned it as an idea to some reporter, a little bit more ashamed to have actually coded something to do it, and finally I wouldn't ever even consider wasting thousands of people's time by putting it up as a news story.
.com TLD. Duh.
First of all, if Apache is at the top of the Netcraft survey *because* of domain parking, why would any "open source advocate" draw attention to this fact by staging some sort of war to see who can get the most unused domains to show a useless page with AdSense links on it? The massive disaster that is ICANN's UDRP requiring everyone to have some horrible "under construction" web site is not a reason to choose a web server; and the people who would choose a web server by raw numbers are probably too dumb to do even that much research.
Second of all, why would anyone attempt to remedy the problem by asking open source users who are almost certainly already using Apache if they have a domain in the first place to park their unused domains at an Apache parking service? What? Furthermore, it's not like real people are parking huge numbers of empty domains, it's resellers who are looking to auction off single dictionary words in the
If it's so important to fight Microsoft's publicity machine, why not simply discredit it? Sure, it's hard to get through to some people, and some will never get the message. If you just try to mislead them further, though, you're not getting through to them at all, and those people will just go scurrying back to Microsoft again after its next media release.
A good way to start would be to compile some real information that's backed up by verifiable and reputable citations, clearly and concisely demonstrating that Microsoft's claimed advantage is due to a small number of large companies that use IIS to host vast numbers of identical, useless parked websites that contain no information. After this, it might be useful to compile and present additional information that shows the real distribution between Apache, IIS, and whatever else, based on a clearly stated and reasonable definition of what makes a useful production website. ... and if you happen to go this far, make it look more reputable than Microsoft's arguably baseless claims.
Throw it together on a straightforward, direct-to-the-point website that gives Microsoft credit where it's due, but explains clearly where and why credit isn't due. Provide the information so that people can easily be referred to it, and it'd be much more helpful than trying to beat Microsoft at it's own spin and misleading of the consumer.
If there's a weakness in Microsoft's marketing techniques, it's not that someone else can out-market them by providing even more fluff. The biggest weakness is that Microsoft's claims often don't really have any substance. If it's important to you to stop Microsoft from misleading consumers, you should really start by pointing out to them that they're being misled.
I have a lot of respect for what Bruce Perens has done in the past and the stances that he's taken on issues, but I don't really understand this one at all.
Here's an idea, a novel one, I know. How about lobbying Netcraft to, say, better track and determine which domains are parked, versus 'real'? It shouldn't be too hard. Some regexs, bayesian stuff, and then they could differentiate servers with 'real' content, which is a win win situation - their statistics are more relevant, and "we" solve the problem.
In other words, you're a domain squatter. I don't think many people would have much sympathy for you not reaping in a five digit income due to ads on your parked domains.
There is a bigger issue here... Netcraft should not be counting parked domains at all. It should be counting sites that actually have valid content. The big registrars parking services are well known and easily identifyable. You don't need to weed out 100% of parked domains, just the majority. When netcraft counts parked domains, the results lose meaning.
It's like a pollster calling phone numbers sequentially, and claiming that all unanswered calls indicate that the person has "no opinion" on the subject.