Slashdot Mirror
Full Frontal Assault on Apache?
MacJedi writes "Freshmeat has an excellent article about a possible Microsoft strategy to capture the web from both the server and the client ends. " The article itself does a good job of dissecting recent comments from Steve Ballmer, as well as what some of the new items in Win2k portend for our favorite web server.
I means that they are repeating history, IE was "free", then integrated into the desktop to kill Netscape. Combine a "free" server, "integrated" into W2K, with the 'copy and corrupt' tactics and M$ can leverage its Millions of installed systems to keep Linux and Apache from expanding its base into M$ 'territory'.
That doesn't make sense. I thought it was illegal to leverage your monopoly power in order to increase your stranglehold on an industry. Doesn't Microsoft have any ethics?
All the more machines for script kiddies to hack. :-) I just LOVE windows boxes with tons of services turned on. Much easier to exploit than say.. a Mac with no services. :-)
Three words: Frontpage Server Extensions.
Man, this guy needs a new crystal ball. Office 2000 also comes with free 'server extensions' which plug in to IIS and convert Office documents to HTML on the fly.
Haven't any of you guys has a look at PWS that comes with access.conf and other configuration files used in Apache and NCSA. My guess is that PWS that comes with 98/Frontpage is Apache or NCSA.
Static page serving as a kernel module and fixing TCP/IP will surely help Linux in the benchmarks. Big deal.
Web servers are not an important part of a consumer OS package (Solitaire and CD players are). If you want to put up content you use your ISP or a free hosting service.
That's where the battle for web servers is being fought. One that Apache seems to be winning.
I agree that the Office/IIS integration is going to be very compelling for many intranet users.
This in itself may be a non-issue - linux really isn't going to ever challenge Microsoft in the corporate client OS market.
Platform integration isn't something that open source software tackles very well. While there are open standards for application integration (corba, for example), frankly these have not become very popular with linux developers who typically work in isolation and hence aren't worried about intgrating their app with anyone else's.
I guess this just shows the calibre of the PhD students at Griffith Uni. UQ forever!
Office 2000 is the focus. This is where MS can introduce any feature they want. This is what an Intranet web server has to support.
How about Active-X, client-side VB Script, or NT server challenge/response authentication?
If MS really wanted to gain web server market share, they would lift that silly 10-client limit on NT Workstation (and then reinstate it once they have a comfortable 80%+ of the market). There are a lot of (misguided) people who would like to put up a web site using "what they know" (i.e. Windows) but can't afford NT server. These people might get driven to a *BSD/Linux/Apache solution instead. Once the're entrenched in the free software camp, it's pretty unlikely that they'll consider NT/IIS/ASP when it's time to upgrade.
IIS already does this. Its free it runs on your desktop (9*,NTW). What can change?
All the high profile web sites that have been cracked are UNIX.
UNIX is much better at remote admin, which is great but it makes it easier to crack compared with NT.
Agree. Web server is not browser. Most people don't need it.
I agree with you. Office2000 and IE is how they will get rid of Apache, not by some silly PWS. Both O2K and IE have the collboration/publishing features that pretty much work only with IIS.
It seems they have setup a pretty mean triangle. You need O2K for publishing and colloboration. If you dont have O2K, you can still use IE for viewing/comments/colloboration. And IIS in the back making it work. Remove anyone of these and you are SOL.
IIS is not available on NT Workstation.
Remember, NT Workstation (AKA Windows 2000 Workstation) also has a 10 connection limit licensing restriction... unless Microsoft also changes that, Linux and Apache will always win.
Perhaps someone will add "IE emulation" to Mozilla. Just like terminal emulation...
Maybe the Apache group will do something similar. The browser or server doesn't have to be Microsoft, just look like it to the outside world.
1 and 2 will be in Win2k. 3 won't
...if MS gets so preoccupied with fighting Linux and Apache
in the server arena, that they don't notice when Linux with
KDE/Gnome/Gimp/WordPerfect takes a huge chunk out of
their desktop market?
Practically Stainless... Army Intelligence... NT Stable.. eviaN Niave
maybe all this back-end, web-serving, multi-CPU, lets-overhaul-TCP/IP stuff *is* the MS agenda for Linux?
Sure MS is pushing NT on the back-end. Suprised? Linux/Apache/etc. is *already* successful on the back-end or we wouldn't be seeing all the coverage we have today. Yeah, MS/Mindcraft/stooge-of-the-week can come up with benchmks we fail in, but ever imagine there'll be a time when they can't find *something* to win if they're picking the rules?
But where does MS have the volume? On the desktop. While we're chasing the server carrot let's not forget where the MS powerbase resides...
Desktop applications and installed userbase.
Let's not forget to keep taking some serious whacks at them in that segment.
Hit 'em where it hurts the most.
As a web admin using Apache (on BSDi) these points are dead on. But the big thing is that unlike a browser (double click-surf) a web server gets into the realm of actually "using" a computer. Anyone insane enough to use a MS server for the masses is brain dead. Aside from fools who believe whatever hype is generated I can not envision a large enough market of people for this sort of server to make any difference in Apache's share.
I do look forward to the daily release of new exploits for it though. Maybe Microsoft can be convinced to start shipping a gun with each copy of their software also.
The one interesting thing though maybe how all the free page sites (with ads) will react--I'd think they'd be the ones who would be affected first. They have an already web experienced user base who are looking for a cheap way to put up pages.
according to the surgeon general sigs may cause cancer.
This raises an interesting question. When Microsoft took on Netscape, they were targeting a commercial competitor. A commercial entity with resources to fight back. A commerical entity that can be seen as 'damaged' by Microsoft.
There isn't any such thing with Apache, there's no single company that is damaged, so there's no "body" lawyers to point to (without a body, does a smoking gun have any significance?).
This could point out a serious flaw in OpenSource efforts. With no commercial entity in competition, how will monopoly laws be applied? Which entity is damaged by Microsoft?
Not a flaw in the OpenSource concept itself, but the sea change significantly changes the legal landscape (pardon the mixed metaphors, hope it makes some sense)
Netscape had/has advocates; Apache has fanatics.
Fanatics, however, have a way of looking really, really bad to businesspeople. So if Microsoft stirs up a hornet's nest, it could be that the people who have the cash will just reach for a can of Raid. Don't assume that because your religion decrees a holy war must ensue that 99% of the rest of the people give a rip.
Microsoft doesn't need bare-metal features like faster TCP/IP code. They have integration with Office 2000. Although probably very few of the readers of this site have been to an Office 2000 demo, there's a LOT of web integration in Office 2000, and businesses that embrace Office 2000 aren't gonna want to kludge in support for it's collaborative features on Apache. They'll just use the turnkey web server Microsoft provides.
And yet again, Microsoft will use Office to leverage a market. This time the Web Server market.
I am not saying it is good or bad, just that is is, and will be.
Microsoft doesn't care if their HTTP server is as "good" as Apache at serving up generic HTML to every ma-and-paw web browser out there. They care about how it integrates with Office in the commercial world. And their produce will integrate better than any outside server products. Microsoft didn't embrace HTML as their new "native" file format for Office 2000 in order to let a patchy (that's the origin of the name Apache, in case you didn't know) web server be the preferred repository for those documents.
Microsoft could frankly care less what server you connect to via your Mozilla.
Yes, but there will be other problems not related to Microsoft OSes that will also be problems. You can expect even the much vaunted Open Sores to have some problems. Anything that's only 80% complete is going to have problems.
With the advent of XML as the Lingua Franca for eBusiness Application servers is probably going to be the next battle ground. MS has a fair advantage here as the new office 2000 has XML (from what I understand ) as one of its native file formats. I suspect we will see their current offering morhp into apps servers or they will buy companies like Bluestone or the like. OSS has a couple of offerings like ExOffice but we need a concerted effort.
As others have pointed out, the Author of this article comes at the situation from a state of ignorance. I don't know why he can't be bothered to actually look at what Microsoft is producing, but so be it.
Windows 2000 doesn't include a web server on the standard desktop. At least it's not installed in Beta 3.
Windows 2000 Server does include a web server, but then so did NT 4. And it's been part of the Option Pack for the longest time.
It's Office 2000 that includes the web server integration with the end users. The full version of Office includes Frontpage 2000.
Business could care less about your religion, they just want something that works. And What Microsoft has done with Office 2000 is offer a suite of tools which allow easy publication of Office documents to an Intranet.
You can go on and on about how great Apache is, but frankly it's only a small part of the total solution.
And that is Microsoft's strength and why their software is so popular. They don't offer a bunch of individual tools that do this or that... They offer an integrated solution to solving business problems. That was the key with Office, that has been the key behind NT and Backoffice, that is the key with their development tools.
That's something that Open Source projects lack. The projects don't integrate well together, or at least not seamlessly, and there is no overall view of the forest versus the trees.
Ohwell, good luck. Metcalfe was right.
> Until the performance deficit of Apache vs IIS is corrected, users will see Apache lag behind IIS
No they won't, because Apache is only slower when run in highly contrived test situations that would never arise for 99% of the actual web sites out there.
Looking at the linux folks scramble around in such
worry has me thinking about psychological warfare techniques.
check out www.webexpert.net/vasilios/propag.htm for cool links.
anyways my pet theory is that 1. alot of linux people care alot about speed
2. mindcraft study aimed at causing emotional damage to these people
3. it has worked somewhat. linux used to say that negative linux
press showed that linux was pissing off MS. well now its the same
but negative MS press is showing that MS is pissing off linux.
4. it was not too effective in breaking up the solidarity of linux
because many linux people just have the 'well, lets improve it then' positive attitude. this attitude is foreign to the big business world. i dunno why.
This article suggests that Microsoft is going to give away a web server for free to be used on any of their software. The thing that makes this unlikely in my opinion is Microsoft's End-User License Agreement (EULA) for NT 4 Workstation. The lisence states that ", you may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers to connect to the Workstation Computer". This doesn't make it much of a platform for a web server. I don't have a copy of the Windows 95/98 EULAs, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar provisions. Windows 95 and 98 also are poorly suited to the task of a web server.
It's possible that Microsoft won't include that provision in their Windows 2000 Professional EULA. It's also possible they could change the lisence agreement. I personally would be really happy if they did change the EULA. This is something that Netscape tried to get them to do about 4 years ago.
ever heard of Comanche?
Go out and get a copy of Red Hat or whatever and you can point and click your way toward setting up Apache.
Now, I challenge you to find the user interface for adding 100 virtual servers w/separate IP addresses in Windows NT.
A heavily loaded site can hardly get by without tools like these.
...unless this web server is designed for Joe Smith, who is likely to put his silly webpage with "borrowed" gfx on it, exactly the market MS is looking for. Professional ISPs who run many virtual servers (on which by the way the Netcraft's statistics is calculated) won't bother, but it will give nevetheless 95% of other people running MS web servers.
Putting a slow, buggy TCP/IP as the documented version in Win2K would be tantamount to shooting
themselves in the foot
Well, it will be not too slow, not buggy, but not as fast as the function calls which pass special theif's sign in order to get use of some highly optimized functions, otherwise not available to other applications.
However, this situation can be rather easily found by tracing all calls. Given that TCP/IP stack doesn't feature too many of them (not in order of those in Win32). I am actually tired of people who can't code and whine that MS is using some "undocumented" functions in Word/Excel. If so, go disassemble and use them too, or at least prove they exist or shut TF up.
M$ has offered these for free for WinNT server, Workstation, and 95 for a long time. They are no threat to Apache. Apache is far superior.
In fact the NT 4.0 kernel for both Workstation and Server was the same, and only one registry setting controlled which one was running. When people figured that out they started using it, granted it was not a license breach. I suspect some SP(3)? packs changed that. There were few tools packaged with Server only, though.
You can't develop anything by cloning something is not completely documented. Wanna spend your young years in WinIce debugger tracing API calls?
Not like the current distros, which don't set up the SERVERNAME directive and completely flummox the newbies.
And while I'm complaining about lack of attention to detail, why doesn't the TCP/IP stack of RH/Mandrake 6.0, COL2.2 and others not talk to the TCP/IP stack of RH5.2 and 4.2? My dialout is 4.2, and I upgraded my pooter to RH6, and NS will trigger a dialout, but the web pages won't come back. Sometimes can ping, others not. Occasionally it will connect and work fine. Works sometime, mostly not.
RH5.2 works like a charm. MS would have checked this detail. What gives? Inquiring minds (my PHB) want to know.
With a web server on every Windoze box, ISPs (like @HOME) won't have an excuse to discriminate against Linux users. Which is a good thing.
Because MS owns 90+% of the Office market, almost no one have to pay the full price, only upgrade. The full price merely exists to give a good feel to those shelling out money upgrading their system, indeed paying $300+ or something is better then $800.
There are plenty of good arguments for Linux. Software warranties aren't among them.
Your statistics is not representative. Given that a while ago was published a major flaw in IIS, it is understood that skipt kiddies go for it. If there was a major flaw in Linux, you would see same activity, though I would reckong Unix Admins would fix that more coherently, thus leaving less weak servers aroung to crack.
You will not see a full frontal assault on Apache. You will see somthing more subtle: more tests like the Mindcraft debacle, more case studies of people moving to IIS and making use of ASP, testimonials as to the cost effectivness of have 24hour corporate support available.
The average Windows 2000 user is not the target. Frankly, my mom isn't going to be upgrading to IIS even if she finds a use for the embedded web server.
The problem Microsoft is trying to deal with is making W2K Sever/Enterprise edition and IIS easier to use and justify their cost when compared to running a server with Linux and Apache.
One point they already have is the use of ASP scripts. Use a database as a central store is much easier with ASP and IIS that it is with a combination of Perl and a local database. Companies who have bought into this use will not be convinced to switch without something better,faster,easier, and available tools to help them make the switch.
For the rest (those serving static pages), Microsoft has fear of the unknown on their side. It's safer for a manager to choose IIS than to make the bold decision to use Linux. Nobody was ever fired for choosing Microsoft.
True MS's main revenue source is Operating systems. Linux isn't currently going to compete on the highend. Generally it isn't used as a fileserver rolled out in a big multiserver environment. So where is it? ISP's and Webserving. Bettering or killing off Apache somehow rids them of Linux and gets alot of NT sold to RUN WEBSERVERS ON.
There's the money.
People will knowingly gravitate toward the software with the best usability, at the expense of security. On the Microsoft side, this means people probably would turn on their free web server. On the Linux side, have you ever wondered how many people don't bother to look at /etc/inetd.conf in their standard Red Hat installation?
Not to mention Netscape SUCKS.
(Hopefully mozilla will change that...)
Who was it who said the Hindenberg would work fine with hydrogen gas?
Who was it who said the S-100 buss couldn't be extended?
Who was it who said a teletype is good enough?
The browser or server doesn't have to be Microsoft, just look like it to the outside world.
And the only person who has to know it isn't IE is the user who has to learn to cope with it.
The upgrade to Office 2000 Professional is about $280. And there's a $40 rebate coupon inside the box. And there's a cheaper version for folks who don't need Access.
People will always run around waving the Suggested List Price as if everybody pays that.
You're spreading FUD. It's much less than $600 a seat.
But carry on.
It's cheaper to upgrade a site license than let a few luddites drag their heels.
It's cheaper to administer a single version across all users in a company.
It's cheaper, in the final run, to get rid of employees who whine about learning new software.
Ah, but Slashdot readers don't have anything better to do. And Slashdot is in the business of selling banner adspace. . .
Sure - if they want to put a web server on every desktop, so be it. Think about how many IE security patches there are. Will a Webserver do much better?
I'm curious what the longest recorded uptime for a Windows box is..
It's probably that Windows box in the Electric Company's marketing department. They put up a Windows Box and a Linux Box and keep 'em going. Trying to egg on customers to compete, keeping their personal machines up as long. (to senselessly burn tremendous amounts of billable watts). Unfortunately, only the Linux users bit on the bait, and there are so few of them that the marketing guy at the Electric Company who thought up the promotion is worried about his next paycheck.
"Microsoft will never produce Internet serving software that's as good as Apache anyway, because of inherant flaws in their platform."
Hmm, and which flaws are those? The multi-threaded IP stack that allows scalable network performance? Oh, uh, wait nevermind. Maybe we haven't been reading any of the benchmark results on web performance coming out lately.
Nothing like totally unsupported smears of a technology. You don't fight FUD with FUD.
Hey, have you slept all the time?
The "Mindcrash"-Benchmark has been a pure illusion right from the start!
Its relevance to reality is the same like that of any dumb "SUPERMAN"-Movie!
Do you want to know what happened?
How can Micro$loth discredit Linux in front of a huge publicity? - By doing an illusionists trick.
The only thing that is necessary is to win and have some guys from the media looking at it.
How can Micro$loth be sure to win? - Well, Ill explain the trick for you:
First: Go into some quiet little chamber and benchmark like hell to find a weak spot in the performance of the "enemy" (Linux in this case).
It is important that this weak spot seem to be of some importance in real life. So a webserver and a fileserver benchmark does just nice. - It is *NOT*
important that the setup will never ever be used
in the real world. Its only numbers that counts...
Once you have found a weak spot, ask your own developers, how much time will it take to fix the
problem, even for some highly experienced programmer. - It takes more than a week? - Fine!
Then you can start your trick in the public.
Order a third party to make a comparison between
Linux and NT. Order them to do exactly the benchmark you want. AND: play your role as "Evil Empire"! Let them tweak th Linux box so that everybody with a brain will cry out loud for a
revenge, since the box was obviously not installed
properly.
Publish the results, let the waves go high, wait a
couple of weeks, then graciously grant a "revenge"
for the first test.
In fact, the poor guys that have to participate in the test have no real chance to win. Witnesses are
great, especially when they are from a great publisher. (Hello, ZD! - You have been USED by M$!)
After the mist calms down, you come out of the ashes again, as the big winner!
You have a white collar with no stains on it, since you granted a revenge. It seems you have played a fair game.
And now, the media can proclaim the great new winner!
Hey, most all tricks of illusionists work this way. - It was all just a simple, cheap trick.
The german computer magazine has done its job far better, testing Linux and NT under real world conditions. In their tests, NT scaled like a piece of dead wood. - In contrast to Linux!
Go to the homepage of the german computer magazine
ct and check out their (translated into english) excellent article about their own benchmark.- Under real world conditions.
After youve read that, you can only admit that NT scales nothing at all.
The "Mindcrash"-benchmark proves nothing. Mindcraft has lost their last bit of credibility. Microsoft has new gunpowder for a new FUD-attack on Linux, and Alan Cox has now some more points on his TODO-list and a pain in the stomach because he cant understand how Linux could fail.
Hey, Alan - calm down! - You had no chance. You couldnt win!
The menu is completely backwards. After you click the start button the choice you use the least (Shut Down) is closest to your pointer. The choice you use the most (Programs) is farthest away from your pointer.
Remote DoS.
Microsoft-only virus.
ReactOS (search for it on the web).
Do I have to say more?
Then there isn't any real problem with this. Netscape lost not because Microsoft is big and evil (though I'm sure that helped). It lost because it was no longer the truly superior program. IE had the same features, it had ActiveX and stuff, etc. Netscape didn't deserve to win.
Apache won't go the same way. This personal server crap is for the people who never would have tried to use Linux or Apache anyway. People serious about their sites, like those conducting business online, won't change over, or will find it disastrous to do so. Given MS history, I'd say that this mini-server thing will be easily hacked and, what's worse, will crash whenever Windows does, making it totally impractical for any large-scale operation. I have a hard time seeing this as an attack on Apache.
I think you guys are missing a couple of other points. I must admit first that I have never use or seen Linux or Apache. I have only read articles and techinical papers about it. IMO, there are a couple of things thriving the corporate use for the internet. 1) E-Commerce 2)Better customer relationships. So, can you do E-Commerce on a Linux\Apache box? If so does it even compare to MS's ASP/IIS/Microsoft Transaction Server/SQL Server 7.0 combo in functionality and speed of development time with tools like VB and VC++. I'm no fan of MS but if I want to do E-Commerce on MS's platform I could do it probably in 3 months with good scalability. How would I even start on Linux/Apache platform? With CGI and PERL? How scalable is that combo? Also,is there anything on Linux that likes COM and DCOM on the MS platform. I know about COBRA but that only runs on the Sun's platform reliably from what I have read. I hope the best for Linux and Apache and the hold OSS community but until all of these thing are address. MS is hard to beat.
I think you got your facts wrong,
The army.mil site that was recently hacked, was running Cold Fusion for Windows NT
openlinux.com and open-linux.com are NOT owned
by Caldera. Red Hat and LSL have them. Laugh! I nearly did.
Red Hat owns:
http://www.open-linux.com
Dan Irvin dirvin@lsl.com owns
http://www.openlinux.com
Pathetic! The Caldera Mormons are morons.
(go on, moderate this down)
openlinux.com and open-linux.com are NOT owned
by Caldera. Red Hat and LSL have them. Laugh! I nearly did.
Red Hat owns:
http://www.open-linux.com
Dan Irvin dirvin@lsl.com owns
http://www.openlinux.com
What a joke!!!
openlinux.com and open-linux.com are NOT owned
by Caldera. Red Hat and LSL have them. Laugh! I nearly did.
Red Hat owns:
http://www.open-linux.com
Dan Irvin dirvin@lsl.com owns
http://www.openlinux.com
The point is that microsoft is not going to actually change the amount of linux/apache websites out there but rather spike the amount of IIS and NT sites out at the web by individuals and tiny small bussinesses and then use those spike results as corporate America chosing NT/IIS over linux/apache, even though Corporate America will be the ones chosing apache. IT will be very easy for ms to manipualte this and there will be no way to conter the fud because you would have to poll every server admin in the www and people tend to believe ms.
/.ers are right when they say this will not hurt linux in the near future but what about long term? Linux Os sales could be hurt by almost a 4th and could then be used by ms to create more fud about linux in particular and not apache.
/.ers who say ms sucks. "DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE MICROSOFT! THEY ARE VERY POWERFULL"
Most of the www is probably or at least close to half are individuals are small bussinesses using windows98, NT, Mac OS or linux/apache wich is the most popular for most small sites. Most sties people actually go on are owned by bussinesses so even though they own a huge majority of hits the actual amount of seb servers are probably home users and small bussiness or personal web pages. I know its a fact because I read it somewhere but big bussiness only only a chink of all the sites out there.
Now picture yourself as a guy in a suit rather then a nerd in a t-shirt and you look at the huge jump from apache to IIs and then see headlines that say "Corporate America is switching by storm to IIS", your IT guy comes in and says you need an additional web site. Which OS/Web server would you chose or at least consider?
I Would ignore linux and test the heck out of NT and try to use that instead so I wont get fired for investing in an OS that is going to lose and be a so called fad. If NT absolutly could not keep up with the flow then I would chose solaris or Aix and apache and NOT linux. Because a big site needs a big OS like unix.
This is the trick they are going to us agaisnt us. Do any of you remember what started the NT craze?
You all may remember it alittle bit differently but I recall NT only having 5% of the market and terrible reviews from zdnet before the craze. What changed everything was the pentiumpro. Windows95 was too slow on it. Oh know! What do we do? Well I guess we can try the other windows called NT on it.
What happened after a few months was that NT's os marketshare was spiked because all the vendors had to use only microsoft products due to exclusive deals with the giant so NT was installed almost by default. After this, IT managers and suits got scared and remembered what happened to all those poor managers who chose lotus suite and wordperfect suite instead of ms office and got frightened and said "The path is changing. ITs go all NT or die".
By using spiked results from the pentiumpro computers sold, the market share of NT went from 5% to 25% of high end Os's sold and even though they were almost exclusively workstation OS installments, microsoft twisted it into server OS installments to make it look like IT managers chose NT server over novell rather then NT over w95. This was a dirty little trick that started the whole NT server craze. The NT installations were actually mostly workstation installments back in 95 and 96.
I can picture history repeating itself in the near future in regards to web server software.
Even if IIS installments went up only 15% and apache went down 7% and the current market share would be IIS 37% and apache 48%, it would cause another panic in the IT industry and people will go IIS upgrade crazy and will have rather negative opinions over apache. I can picture IIS zealots a year from now reading benchamrks and only remembering the ones that show IIS ahead and forgetting or dissmising the favorable apache ones. This will be because of IT managers following the herd. A little false security and fud can sure go along way. After something is seen losing marketshare, people look at it as inferior or would rather look at it as inferior because they want to go with the flow and will actually become biased. THis is how NT zealots became to what they are now.
You wouldn't find NT zealots before the pentiumpro came out would you?
Apache will be around for awhile for High end servers but linux will successfully be cut out of the web server market or will only make up a small percentage. WHy do you think that microsoft decided to chose tcp/ip performance with mindcraft and pcmag? Its because they are planning a web server coop in the near future. Apache is linux's biggest strength and there are probably more installments of linux for web servering then any other reason. Linux is not ready yet and doesnt have the seal of approval of upper management for databases and most high end bussiness apps. Linux's strengths are web serving and some email servering and a few odd specific tasks. Any drop in linux market share from dataquest would send alarms in any It managers head. The reason linux is popular among bussinesses is becuase its the only OS gaining marketshare and if it gains marketshare faster then ms then IT managers will notice it and wonder about NT's future. Ms is trying to prevent this.
These scenarios are microsofts plans and it has nothing to do with selling NT but rather creating more fud by statistics of corporate america chosing IIS over unix/apache and then have fun selling NT/IIS to bussiness a year or 2 later.
Most
If you had a time machine and could go 3 years into the future and chose linux/apache, would your job be secure? I didnt think so.
First ms goes after home and tiny bussiness web server software then corporate america is ms's next stop. THen maybe a year or 2 from now when netscape is almost non existence and vbscript is everywhere, will your boss let you keep linux at work? Nope. Use windows. Then linux will be totally out of corporate America and it will return as a home OS toy thing for nerds. Once Linux is cut out of corporate america, it will be viewed as OS/2 is today? Did you know that OS/2 is the same price as readhat? Its cheap as hell but no bussiness would touch it with a ten foot pole. After mindshare takes in recovering will be nearly impossible. Name 1 product that was great and then entered into the shambles and came on top again? None.
Once lost always lost. Reputation is nearly impossible to get back in the IT industry. How many old timers still hate IBM or not hate them but would not buy only IBM? Quite a few. IBM lost its reputation years ago and still cant get it back(OS/2 included).
Microsoft is very clever with this and I said this before and I will say it again to all
This is just my take on this.
IIS and w2k will be the killer for a large enough percentage to cause this chain of events.
Stever Jobs: "But were better."
Bill Gates: "YOu dont get it do you. It doesnt matter"
-pirates of Silcon Valley
Mac adn amiga were way better then win3.o and win3.1 but it creamed apple. OS/2 was way better then windows95 and NT yet not onyl did NT cream it but w95 cremed it as well. You see it doesnt matter if your better. Microsoft uses stastics of which piece of software is gaining and which is losing to all of corporate america and they go with this rather then on current market share. NT is a clasice example. NT never really took off untill a small percentage increased in 95 and 96 because of problems with the pentiumpro but ms used this jump increase from 4% to 9% to scare IT managers and it increased all the way to 35% close to where it is today in less then a eyar regardless of Novell marketshare. IT was because novell was sliping by 1% and NT was increasing by 5% and then to 30%.
This is how also won with msoffice. Tiny marketshare increase and BAM from the ground up took over all the office suites in less then a year.
Expect almost a third of the web wich includes small bussinesses and individual pages because huge corporate ones that need telnet are a minority yet even though the get the majority of the hits. Small sites today love linux but windows200 will change this. Even if only 8% of the web choses IIS over apache, it will cause a chain reaction of fud and IT managers will flee unix/apache like OS/2. It will take a few years but afterwards it will win just like NT is the winner over OS/2 in corporate America. Ask any IT guy what he thinks about OS/2 and he will look for reasons why to hate it. IT is part of human nature to want to fit in and software is no execption. Just look at freebsd to linux. Freebsd has been known for quite some time to be a great server butmost of us prefer linux becuase its just more cool or will look for reasons to hate it like uh "unix is dead". I am using the word most and not all here. I know there are some bsd guys reading this but the majority is linux users.
By working on small sites to create fud and false stastics, ms will then try to convince our bosses on why to stay away from apache/linux totally. Then linux will lose some markstshare and then our bosses a year or 2 latter will ahve negative opinions over linux.
This is why it will probably work if the Doj doesnt stop this ir ms is not split up.
dont fall under the "were supperior" trap because ms is very good at taking superior stuff down by having us think were untouchable. IBM and Borland found out the hardway. Lets not found out the hard way ok.
Take one look at rootshell.com. They have a wide assortment of exploits for IMAP, POP, ftpd, bind, lpd, nfs/portmap, and my personal favorite, samba. All of these give a remote root shell. There is no way to even count CGI's which are exploitable due to bad programming. BugTraq posted a remote root exploit for FakeBO several months ago.
And if you are one of those "31337 firewall" people, take a look at Project Loki and it's actual source code. All traffic can be nicely hidden within ICMP or DNS query packets.
Why don't you read the article before replying?? It says nothing of MS using Apache. It's about the integration of a MS webserver into win2000.
IIRC, when IBM adopted Apache, part of the deal they made with the
Apache team was that they (IBM) would contribute their NT knowledge
base to Apache development. Thus making Apache on NT a credible
solution.
I don't know what the status of that work is, at present.
If M$ wanted to use Apache, they could. In reality, they wouldn't even have to publish source code. Apache is NOT released under the GPL. It has it's own license, which is BSD-ish. The fact is, M$ hasn't done it yet, which isn't to say it won't, but it is less likely.
There is the issue that Apache is currently process based, and processes suck on Windows. The current Apache on NT is a threaded server, but it is more of a hack than anything else. The work being done on 2.0 removes the hacks, and lets Apache on *nix be a hybrid Thread/Process, or Process based server, and on Windows a threaded server (with a monitor process).
I don't think the Apache group really needs to worry about MS taking the code, but if they do, who cares. As long as the program works when released.
It's not really explorer that Microsoft appropriated, it's the drawing of the UI elements themselves.
Windows 3.x UI drawing routines were loosly based on the Macintosh. Basically, a framed box was a button, and controls were often framed with simple black lines.
When Microsoft Office 6(or was it 5) came out about a year befor Win95, they had added the 3D look in feel. When they were integrated into Windows 95 they changed a bit, and almost all 3D elements (etched lines, buttons, etc...) were pixel perfect duplicates of how NextStep draws their 3D elements.
Frankly, it was a drastic improvement over Win3.x and really made it look like a modern graphical OS.
Aside from that one minor appropriation, Microsoft did not learn a lot from the NeXT. That's too bad, because even today NEXTSTEP holds up as a very good OS.
Since when have KDE and GNOME been mutually exclusive? This has been the only point that makes me a little upset in the whole KDE/GNOME thing... and here's my take:
Run them both. "But KDE and GNOME have different windows managers!" No! No, no, no. KDE has it's own windows manager, KWM, but it's not an absolute must. I personally don't like KWM, so I don't use it. I do like some of the "K" apps, so I use them.
I also like some gnome apps.. so I use them...
As long as you have the QT and KDE libs installed, KOffice should run.
Apache is under the BSD liscense, not the GPL. It would be perfectly legal not to publish the source for proprietary extensions.
>>>
The start menu is about the worst UI concept I've ever seen.
>>>
...which is why MacOS has had it in its original form (the Apple menu) for fifteen years,and KDE and GNOME have their own versions of it?
Come on, tell us why the start menu is such a bad concept."Because it's Microsoft" doesn't count.
Point 1: Sure, but it doesn't bother me. I guess I'm never frantically mousing around all the time. Moving my hand an extra 5 centimeters is no big deal.
;)
Point 2: Clutter isn't a problem with the interface. It's a problem with the user.
Point 3: I must be one of the 10 Windows users who actually does place frequently used apps in proper folders in the Start Menu. And the only shortcuts I place on the desktop are apps that I can drag and drop text or multimedia files onto (plus a binary file editor for everything else). Seeing a zillion icons on a Windows desktop really irritates me.
Point 4: Agreed. But I wouldn't say that WindowMaker's menu configuration (the included one and wmakerconf) is any better in its current state.
Posted by The Future Sound of London:
Has anyone ever determined how many people have actually died as a direct result of depending on Mikrosoft technology?
How much blood is on their hands?
Posted by My_Favorite_Anonymous_Coward:
I pretty much 95% sure that AOL has already made their AolToaster/AOLbox/AolOS and silently waiting for the MS anti-trust case to finish.
CY
That's the wrong way around: if they want to push IIS, they'll want to leverage support on other platforms to that end, meaning they'll go further towards IIS-only extensions in IE. They already push their own proprietary alternative to WebDAV: if you try and use it and your ISP doesn't support it, you'll get an error message suggesting you switch to a different ISP.
However, I'm pretty sure they'll fail.
--
Employ me! Unix,Linux,crypto/security,Perl,C/C++,distance work. Edinburgh UK.
Xenu loves you!
Part of the problem is that the standard installation stuff is not very start bar savvy; almost every app creates a new folder off of the programs branch and plunks everything it needs in there. If the installation tools were smarter, better use of subfolders could be made so the clutter would be hidden most of the time.
You can press the "Windows" key, if you have one, to open the start menu, and then cursor control keys to select items.
As for 4), right-clicking the start bar gives you a menu including an "explore" option. Since the start menu is represented within the file system, it opens an explorer pane to that part of the file system. Perhaps Properties would be a better name for it.
It really should have a "recent programs" thingie, where the things most recently done from the start menu or desktop shortcuts are stored.
I found I used the start menu a lot more once I created new folders on the main menu, and put my most important stuff into those folders -- so I only have one sub-menu to hit.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Face it -- Microsoft missed the Internet while
... are any of those going to included
it was already built into UNIX. Even if Microsoft
includes a web service in Windows 2000, and even
if it's faster than Apache, so what because:
1. Remote server administration: Would you be
able to "telnet" into your Win 2000 box and
reboot it??? How about general remote admin
ability??? I doubt it. To do most admin tasking
you'll have to sitting right there at the console.
2. FTP services, email services, news services:
are those also going to included in Win 2000???
I doubt it. Again, Linux wins.
3. Programming and development: compilers, perl,
python,
in Win 2000 too??? Not bloody likely. Again,
the choice is Linux.
I could prattle on for ever listing more but
I gotta go.
It's wise to be wary of Microsoft, and I'm always in favor of improving Linux, Apache, or any other free/open software. But I don't think there's cause for panic.
First off, W2K isn't that frightening- especially after Jesse Berst has all but declared it DOA. W2K won't solve any of the fundamental problems- mainly stability and cost- which are driving people away from NT and towards Linux.
Second, Microsoft _can't_ afford to simply give everything away. Gates' billions are irrelevent. They're mainly paper billions, based on the inflated price of MS stock. And MS's stock is inflated because they have been growing their sales at 20% per annum for years, and people are betting they will continue to grow their sales, and grow into their stock price.
There are two ways Microsoft can keep this rate of growth- one, they can find and conquer billions of dollars a year in new markets (tricky, even for Microsoft), or they can simply force their customers to disgorge more money for the same products.
Either way, however, you don't dare give something away for free that you used to sell- this is just ups the amount you have to grow everything else. Which is why I don't think they'll give away IIS for free.
Third, there is already a "cool new feature" in IIS/Explorer- it's called "ActiveX". And no one, outside of Microsoft, uses it. Because the fundamental reason to have a web page is for people to look at it- why deny 10%, or 25%, or 50% of your potiential eyeballs simply to use CoolNewFeature?
My, what deep pockets they have...
They're doing what they've always done, protecting their own interests. Microsoft has always been about one thing: Money. I realized it when I saw what they did back in August '95 with Windows 95. They slapped a slick NeXT'ish shell on a bloated, buggy, crackwhore of an OS. They want to draw people in with flash and fluff then gouge them for unnecessary upgrades and technical support.
.conf file seems more user friendly and easier to administer than trying to hunt through help files and an obtuse GUI to find the same setting in the laberynthine Windows Registry.
Microsoft hates their customers. They say it when they blame others for obvious flaws in their products (Word virii, IIS exploits, Back Oriface, etc). They say it when they flash vaporware at people months/years before releasing the first crappy v1.0 beta. They say it when their EULA basically says "you're stuck with us now. Like it or lump it."
Their customers want something that's fast, stable, robust, and easy to administer. Now, since I'm a bit above the average Windows user (That's actually not meant to be boastful. It gets tiring when I'm constantly picking up other people's messes because I'm the only one who knows how) so to me, changing "MaxSpareServers" to a reasonable value in some
Microsoft could care less what their customers want. As long as people continue to pay them $90 for a bug-fix that's three years late, they'll continue to pay lip service to their customers (Remember, lies cost nothing) while they continue on their merry way to their next billion.
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
Frontpage 2000 (which implements all the upload stuff which you wrote about) is going to be DAV compatible, as are the new frontpage server extensions (yuck!). Unsurprisingly Apache has a mod_dav available which implements the full DAV standard, and they've even done some work with MS to get the FPSE up to scratch DAV-wise.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
So - you'll be able to do all that with Apache too - and the usual "and more.." stuff that goes with Apache too.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
First of all, I don't even know who Jesse Berst is, why would he declare W2K, and who is listening to him anyway?
Second... W2K does address issues of stability and TCO.
Third... Microsoft is smart enough to know that web servers aren't a money making market. IIS is just a link in the chain. They'll continue to give it away for free, and then integrate nice easy hooks into it to make publishing with Office the next best thing since sliced bread, which will encourage Office and NT sales...
Fourth... ActiveX is incredibly useful for internal application development. You need to first be familiar with Windows DNA and COM to understand.
The thing a lot of people don't seem to understand is that Microsoft and IIS is #1 for corporate intranet web and application deployment.
The internet world is different, requiring totally different feature sets than intranet requires.
Launch apps / file system from a server? Sounds kinf od like X, doesn't it?
X may be a bit clunky at times, but i think the concept of a central application server is awsome. Upgrade software? 1 machine.
Four-digit slashdot ID. Recognize.
So Microsoft wins the battle for Intranet HTTP servers. So what? All they've done is buy themselves some time. The vast oceans of open standards lapping at the firewall are not going to go away.
The second weakness of this strategy is that it's based on *forcing* people to use IIS. People don't like to be forced to do things. Every time Microsoft forces someone to do something, they're breeding another convert to the Open Source Way. This is a lesson they need to learn badly.
fish and pipes
people don't need web servers on their desktop
Potentially dangerous assumption.
Who was it that said "People don't need computers!"...?
Who knows what applications/scenarios might arise to take advantage of a new scenario in which all computers (even lowly consumer ones) are *assumed* to have the ability to serve web-pages?
Keep in mind Microsoft's 'insider advantage' in terms of integrating new/little-known features of IE, Office and god knows whatall else with this new standard capability.
**>>BELCH
1) bundle/integrate a full, free and proprietary IIS into W2K,
2) use various methods, including unstable/slow publicly-available system code, to reduce or eliminate competitor's effectiveness (esp. Apache).
They'll combine this bundling with a marketing effort (already beginning?) backed by "benchmarks", to make IIS look faster and easier to use.
What to do? Maybe make Apache more ubiquitous (make it available on every ftp server in the world), publicize how easy it is to download, install and configure, etc.
Additionally, blanket them with benchmarks. Fix whatever needs fixing, and benchmark, benchmark, benchmark. Let's saturate the news with comparisons representing "real-world conditions". Make MS's efforts to sow the seeds of doubt regarding choice of the best server futile. Make it clear that users can either use the easy "built-in" web server, or freely download something much better.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
Look, go take a look at the most recent crack on ISS it's through port 80 alowing your to run ANY command AS administrator, it's not fixed yet. MS has not released a patch, there is a work around sort of but not realy.
Who needs telnet?
"Think of it as evolution in action."
What is with Micros~1's "attack" on Free Software? How can they, in all concsience, declare war on something their customers obviously want?
The real casualty here is the customer. Micros~!1 want to be our sole source for software. Micros~1, in declaring war on Free Software, has in actuality declared war on the customer.
support gun control: take guns from cops
I _think_ KOffice has a great deal of integration planned. The integration will be on the level of O2K ... it looks very ambitious. Check it out.
The only problem for Office is the price. $800 for an Office suite? Yeah, my company would love those features, but at that price, it's easy to dissuade them. Especially with Y2K and all sorts of other worries in 2K.
support gun control: take guns from cops
My only experience with NeXT is with WindowMaker (a clone), but I can't see any similarity between explorer and windowmaker. Windowmaker is very elegant and useful, while explorer is frankly all-thumbs. The start menu is about the worst UI concept I've ever seen.
support gun control: take guns from cops
When people at work or friends ask me for help with their windows machines, I tell them "no, I can't help you, but if you want me to install linux I'll do that". I can't believe the amount of time I've wasted fixing my friends broken windows machines.
support gun control: take guns from cops
1. It forces you to move your pointer to that portion of the screen to click on it. WindowMaker uses right mouse button to launch it's menu, so that you can get the menu from anywhere on the desktop. You can also "tear off" menus and stick them on the dektop. This is definitely an improvement.
2. It gets too cluttered to use.
3. I've noticed that no one ever uses it, probably due to (1). If users don't have a desktop icon for it, they think it isn't installed.
4. Users can't figure out how to change it. More consistent with explorer UI would be to have a "properties" choice by right clicking the start button.
I'm not sure if points 2,3 and 4 are fixable but they are problems nonetheless.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Is NT workstation limited to 10 workstations in a peer-to-peer workgroup for technical reasons or just because they coded in a license limit?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Is that some one who's only critical at a certain time of year?
(or maybe they meant "ardent critic")
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Cracked servers from HNN on 6/30/99
http://www.hackernews.com/
look at the bottom of the page for the cracked servers
[drew@drew drew]$ queso www.georgeabbot.surrey.sch.uk
error: unknown host www.georgeabbot.surrey.sch.uk
[drew@drew drew]$ queso chef.fab.albany.edu
169.226.46.59:80 * NT (SP4)
[drew@drew drew]$ queso altpro.pdp.albany.edu
169.226.73.101:80 * NT (SP4)
[drew@drew drew]$ queso caster.gsfc.nasa.gov
error: unknown host caster.gsfc.nasa.gov
[drew@drew drew]$ queso www.umkc-efkc.org
209.153.94.66:80 * NT (SP4)
[drew@drew drew]$ queso www.spc.noaa.gov
error: unknown host www.spc.noaa.gov
Yes, this I tested every single server on the page, I left none out.
Some of the servers won't resolve, but it seems that there is a overwhelming appearance of NT that has been cracked lately. I do these tests almost everyday for a good laugh, and this is what I usually find.
And for all of you that ask, yes queso can distinguish between SP3 and SP4/5, I needed to add that entry into my queso.conf.
Back to on-topic: I am not concerned what Microsoft will do with their products and how they will try and force everyone to use it. Microsoft _is_ evil, but I don't fear what they do.
I fear what won't be done _against_ them. As long as the DOJ doesn't know what to do really and as long as the general public thinks it's all so cool, Microsoft will be able to rule.
You cannot blames Microsoft for their tactics. Blame the rest of the world for accepting it too easily.
Xitami rocks.
It includes all source, and does some very interesting things. It also runs very quickly on ancient hardware.
It's kinda like the Mozilla of servers. You can get the source. A download is about 1/10th the size of the competitors. It runs quickly.
I never thought I'd be cheering for AOL, but the truth is, AOL/Netscape is the most powerful non-Microsoft entity out there in the client space.
If AOL really moves to a Mozilla-powered default browser, and makes switching to IE more trouble than it's worth, then no webmaster in his right mind would risk alienating the 18MM+ AOL users out there by using an "enhanced" IIS.
The real issue is any company controlling proprietary document formats such as M$ Office. Because of network externalities, one is almost forced to have a copy of MS Office on hand to read documents sent to you by ninnies who don't understand that there is a world outside of Word.
This is Micros~1's true leverage and monopoly power, not browsers or operating systems or web servers. It's Office. I think the only remedy that should be imposed on M$ in their anti-trust trial should be to force M$ to release (and adhere to 100%) a completely open, Free, document specification.
Don't let MS co-opt XML, either.
This rant brought to you by your friends at the Microsoft Corporation.
--Z.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
>The author missed the real thrust of MS's efforts to get more webserver share.
>
>It's not IIS, or some small webserver- it's Office 2k and the followups. No matter what Slashdot readers may
>think of Office, it is the office suite the world runs on. The newest version of Office have very tight integration
>with the web and IIS- for example, you can place live spreadsheets on the web using Excel. This is going to go
>over big in office intranets- it makes sharing documents really trivial.
As valid as your points are, I think MS has a serious weakness in pursuing this strategy: the new Office 2K costs an arm & a leg for what even ZDNet has labelled minor enhancements.
In this battle, MS's biggest opponent is not Apache, Linux or even the *BSDs, but older versions of Office. And the PHBs might listen this time when the techs point out buying the latest software at $600 a seat is not a good idea, & that they should stay with the current revision.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
It gets tiring when I'm constantly picking up other people's messes because I'm the only one who knows how
This is precisely my angle - we know M$ got a free ride from WAY back by taking advantage of the new breed of computer hackers made possible by inexpensive hardware - i.e., the legions of hobbyists who are willing to fix M$ bugs and quirks for free. And that's exactly what I'm doing whenever one of their latest and greatest products pukes - 1) make it perfectly clear to the person who bought the license or stole a copy that it comes with no warrenty or guarentee that it'll even run and if it damages any important info, too bad, and that it is M$ property. 2) After convencing them that the product isn't all that it's cracked up to be, ask why they purchased it. If they reply that 'why, everybody is using it', I'll ask if it isn't dangerous for a company with such an obvious quality problem to have a default monopoly on the consumer market? What if the product 'just doesn't work on my machine' and there are no alternatives available? Then I'll try to get them to shop around a little more and maybe find something a little more 'open' that we can work with, otherwise call the M$ tech support # and MAYBE they can help you. Have fun!
In other words, I'm personally avoiding fixing M$ messes as much as possible. I'm not wasting my life fixing some billionair company's broken property for nothing!
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The other point I see missing from the article is that I think Microsoft is doing this purely as a numbers game just like did with Netscape. Netscape had market share, put IE in Win98 and they can start saying that IE has market share based purely on the installed Win98 user base regardless of whether people are using IE or not.
... game set match.
... but will that change anything?
... try typing the netbios name in ...
The same will apply with this web server. Regardless if people are using it or not they will claim that every Win2k machine counts as a machine which is using their web server. One can only assume that the installed base of Win2k will grow to be larger than the installed base of Apache, they'll start telling everyone that they have the biggest market share, everyone uses their server, people will start buying into their FUD, assume there's no alternative (how could their be, didn't Microsoft create the universe anyhow) and whammo
So by my estimates, Apache will be #2 in about two years time. Of course, when this happens many of you will correctly point out that those statistics are flawed
One of the other posts mentioned that it wouldn't be useful since you'd have to enter someone's dynamic IP to see their web page on your intranet
Well, it was a well written article. Unfortunately it was written by someone who hasn't looked at Windows 2000 or talked to anyone on the IIS 5.0 team...
There will be no webserver apart from PWS for W2K Professional. IIS 5.0 will be part of W2K Server (all three versions), and is an integrated part of the COM+ application server environment. It will also come with the O2K Server Extensions - a modified version of DAV.
The IIS 5.0 team have looked very closely at Apache, and have been learning lessons from it. IIS 5.0 will now auto-reboot, run ASPs and COM in protected memory, and will pre-launch server threads.
However, from what I've been able to gather, it's just seen as a technical issue. The marketing thrust is in building knowledge management solutions around IIS 5.0, structured storage, O2K and Exchange Platinum.
It's here that Open Source developers should be concentrating. There is a need for an effective messaging system integrated with Apache, along with a search tool and catalogue with XML support.
This is what MS is building out of O2K and W2K.
S.
Why are Unix and Apache dominating the server market?
/always/ have problems. It's downright pathetic to watch them disintegrate under load. If we can hold that ground, IIS is unlikely to increase market share significantly.
Because they're stable and easy to remotely administer. And - let's face it - because we got here first, so people are comfortable with those tools and disinclined to switch.
With systems like FrontPage and ASP, Microsoft has attempted to wrest the market away from Unix/Apache. However, they have had limited success. Why? Because of the stability issue, and because many ISPs don't like what they've seen Microsoft doing to other companies. They know all too well Microsoft would love nothing more than to double-cross them and swallow them up. By not using Microsoft stuff, they limit MS's power over them.
Nothing Gates and Ballmer do in marketing terms is going to help with those issues.
Now, those feelings of inertia and fear of Microsoft are not politically correct reasons. The only reason the customer can understand is stability. So if Microsoft can make Windows 2000 stable, while adding all these features, then it might have a good shot at taking a lot of market share from Apache/Unix. Early reports from beta testers seem to be positive, but bear in mind that most of the testers are likely to be disposed favourably towards MS. I still find it hard to believe that MS will ever be able to compete with Unix on stability, since it's not their primary focus.
Assuming we can hold stability as a major advantage, I think we have little to fear. I've been checking out a number of database-driven sites, and the ones using IIS
D
----
Sure, Apache is already *stable* on NT. Perhaps it's not as stable as on FreeBSD or somesuch, but it really does work quite well. Take for instance this guy I know, who is for most intensive purpposes a Unix newbie. He was running a web server on 95 (I forget which, but it was one of the free non MS ones), and he eventually switched to Apache. After setting it up, he noted that Apache was much more stable than the previous two software packages he had tried...
The revolution will be mocked
Putting a slow, buggy TCP/IP as the documented version in Win2K would be tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot, because it would not only slow down Apache, but all other third party products. Even if the user community accepted this, it would undoubtedly spawn more antitrust cases against MS, which I doubt even they can afford right now..
Ben
all they need is one Killer Feature and Joe Public won't look anywhere else.
I believe there was some hype spouted about HTTP-DAV being just that when MS first released it. (It was mentioned in Halloween 1) However, the nature of Apache prevents any advance like that from lasting - features in Apache can be developed and added by anyone who's interested in them, just like DAV was. If there's some server interaction feature out there that someone wants, then either they, or possibly someone they know can make it as an Apache module.
>>>MS main revenue line is not going to be web servers, it is Operating Systems, hence this the value add is the reason they offer it for free.
I thought they made most of their money off of Office...
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
I've seen a lot of media attention (at least in the local news) about security issues. One resport described the ability of knowledgeable netheads to access files on your machine while connected to the net. Knowing all of the security problems that have plagued MS products, I'd have a hard time believing that people would knowingly put their own personal machines in this kind of jeopardy simply because MS offers a free web server.
You are right. I too can't figure out what advantage this strategy would bring to MS. IIS is free, runs on NT and runs quite well. If one needs to set up public www server, availability of easily usable www server software would be probably one of the last problems he/she needs to worry about.
I may have it all wrong here, but what's to stop them just using Apache, adding their proprietary extensions to Apache, and publishing the source code to those extensions.
Of course, all the extensions would just be calls to the Micro$oft API, so they'd essentially be worthless, but they'd have complied with the letter of the GPL, if not the spirit. They can then crow about how 'integrated' they are with OSS, and that people can safely and happily use OSS within the Micro$oft environment if they wish.
Until the performance deficit of Apache vs IIS is corrected, users will see Apache lag behind IIS on their machines. This is all good PR for Micro$oft.
Just a thought.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
The solution is easy. I'm sure people have thought of it before, but obviously no one with the balls.
I've worked for microsoft before. They give their employees the impression that they will treat them like God's, and that you may just be the *next one* to climb up the corporate ladder.
The corporate world is a world of suits and (funnily enough) dodgy software. Suits talk to sales people, sales people get excited and talk to clients, clients... buy microsoft. Because people tell them that it is an essential part of the computer.
So how do we break the cycle? Easy.
Make an operating system that is as easy to use as windows. Who cares if it is buggy? Just make it, make it similarly fast/stable, call it something flash and give it away for free. YES it will crash, YES people will complain.. but at least it doesn't line Bill Gates's pocket.
"Linux can do this" i hear you cry. Crap. The driving force behind linux is us, a bunch of hackers who spit on redhat because they dare take a breath of the mainstream. If i had the money i'd start up a distro called "E-z-as-windows" and market it all across the world. Not to line my pockets but to give people a READILY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE.
If you 31337 hax0rz really wanted linux to do well, you would concentrate on making a distrib that was as easy to use as windows, and had the universal appeal that it does. (Games, Office, Easy to change background colours etc).
People *ALWAYS* want something new.. they want to see it, play with it and touch it. The Linux community, although definitely applauded, are not opening up to the world.
Do this, and Microsoft will be defeated. Simple.
.PsyMonger.
I gotta say that this looks like very shrewd work on the part of Microsoft.
1. I believe that a primary reason that people leave Windows to go to Linux/*BSD etc is reliability. By accounts of other posters, it seems that their new Win 2000 is far more reliable. As such, it will stem a lot of the flow away from their products.
2. It seems like they have aimed their guns at web servers, seeming to recognise that this is where they have been losing to Linux and other free OS. The Mindcraft benchmarks were good scores for them in the publicity battles, and they did well to pick a battle they could win, even if the results are somewhat irrelevant.
3. Some posters suggest that Microsoft could use Apache for their free web server. From a technical and immediate sales point of view, this might be a good way for them to go. But from the mindshare perspective, this would be admitting defeat. I don't believe they will do this.
4. Some are saying - why cannot we coexist. I think that it would be great if there were a proliferation of operating systems out there. I would have no problems if Microsoft were a large player in the market. But they seem to be not content with this, desiring not a large share, but total share. I think that this is why so many people hate Microsoft, not because they want to have high sales, nor because their products are buggy, but because they poison the others' wells, and seek to destroy.
The fourth reason is why it is important for the DOJ's and others' lawsuites to prevail.
The first point, if valid, shows the importance of competition. If Microsoft produces good products, that is good for all of us.
Apache for NT IS stable. It may not be as stable as Apache for Linux or Solaris, but how would you know if it was, on NT? As it is, it's at least as stable as IIS on NT.
Now, what does this mean for open source software? Apache, or Linux, or Mozilla isn't going to close up shop for their is no shop to close. Since these products are open source, people can continue to build and extend forever and there's no way that Microsoft can really "win".
Other competitors that Microsoft has faced have had to deal with keeping stock holders happy, remaining profitable, etc. Eventually, they would be forced to cut their losses and run. That's a total non-issue with OSS stuff.
Microsoft may continue to win in the short term, but eventually one of two things will happen:
1) The government will come in and break them up (if they control the majority of OS's, Webservers, and Web browsers, there's no more room to argue that they aren't a monopoly).
2) Microsoft will get tired, make a mistake, and lose the race. OSS has the advantage because as it becomes better, more people use it, as more people use it, it becomes better and so on and so on...
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
After a rather lengthy discussion about this on Linuxtoday (the original article had some serious flaws, such as assuming IIS costs money), the author revised it. I still don't think it cuts it. For one thing, people don't need web servers on their desktop machines. A couple of people would set them up, but they'd still be pretty useless to them. Until Microsoft starts giving away domain names, dynamic IP addresses are going to make this too confusing for the common user. I don't know of many people that run Linux as their desktop OS because of Apache (sure it's cool, but it's a minor concern). Thus adding this to Windoows 9* isn't going to deter anyone from going to Linux.
So here we have a hypothetical web server from Microsoft, easier to use than IIS but more featue-filled than PWS. It is "free", just like those two, but it is worse than IIS. This will be the same web server used on Windows2000? I can't tell about this part from the essay. Frankly, I don't see the motivation for using this. If you're going to set up a stupid website, PWS should suffice. If you're going to set up a real website that you actually need to have up, you're going to use Apache or IIS. And there's no way you'd run it under Win9*. If people are that gullible, PWS will suffice for them too.
So the way I see it Microsoft could improved PWS or make IIS work on Win9* (does it?) and this would have the desired effect. But why bother? They're losing to Linux in the server market, not the desktop. They don't have to beef up Win9* at all. People will take it as it is. I seriously doubt they're actually concerned about the desktop market yet. They need to beef up WinNT, which they seem to be doing with Office2000. That's where the real new dependence seems to be coming from.
Also, the entire quote from Ballmer talked about how Apache was better at multiple hosting on a single machine, not in general.
And that would be why I put "free" in quotes. It doesn't come close to being free like Apache, but it's close enough for the purposes of this article. The author was assuming that Microsoft would give away the server. He made no mention of giving away the OS (which they probably will never do). Thus, for the purposes of this article, IIS and PWS are "free" to anyone who would use them anyway.
One thing that comes to mind is 'Ease of Configuration'. Like many tools under Linux, configuring them is not always easy when compared to tools found under Windows, or a number of other GUI based OSs. Since Apache is working on more than just Linux, maybe a Java interface, that also uses native code, could be created.
While many of us who visit Slashdot could, or are capable to, manage a web site without any problem, a number of companies employ people you really don't want to be in those positions. For these people Windows is great, because there is a user interface and a service contract. Although you can get a service contract for Linux, you can't get a user interface for everything that you need to administer under Linux.
MT
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I am sorry, I could find little or no insight in the freshmeat article.
1. Microsoft admitting apache is better. -- I read this a different way. When a new software version is imminent Microsoft is not shy about ripping on the old one. You should have read the reviewers guides when Win95 came out, or talked to the SQL server guys at comdex last fall when MS-SQL 7.0 came out. They were absolutley merciless in their assement of the previous version.
With this context, I see this comment as more of a way of talking up windows 2000, the implication that its webserver will be as good or better than Apache. They may elevate the status of apache, but they say that they will have something as good or better than it.
2. Windows2000 will have a simple lightweight webserver -- Personal web server fits pretty much all of these criteria already, but I hardly think that anyone thinks that apache competes in this space anyway.
3. The new webserver will be available for addition to earlier microsoft operating systems. -- I guess we will see. I think that if microsoft thinks it is something special they will use it to sell the upgrade, rather than give it away. It is possible, I suppose, but I don't see anything that compelling.
4. Personal web server doesn't cut it and is hidden away a la IE2.0 -- does not compute. First. Personal web server isn't hidden away now. If it were much more out front it would be too intrusive. IE2.0 was on the desktop anyway. Beyond this, Personal web server is simple to use and relatively competant as is, I don't see how any current or future version would be targeted at apache.
5. The new MS web server may be crippled, but it will be used as an incentive to get a full version by upgrading to windows. Again, I don't see why this is relevant when we are talking about apache, not that it matters, because it already describes the status quo. Personal webserver is in some ways a first step to IIS and NT server.
This might make sense if the people who use apache as their first web server were the same sorts of people who would use Personal web server as their first web server, but I don't beleive they are.
6. Adding windows only features that integrate between this new web server and IE. Guess what, it has been happening since microsoft released their first web clients and servers. Never the less, I will speculate as to what would be a killer app for this. Full remote access to your machine through IE a la MS terminal server.
7. The new free web server / Windows 2000 combination will reduce the appeal of Apache. --- Huh, I don't see how, especially since this new free web server, by the articles description, is targeted at the low end.
Hey, I have another idea for a killer app. What if the new webserver integrated free microsoft provided web space so that you could work with things as if they were on your machine, but they were served to the world off of a big server farm with unlimited bandwidth. This would be hard for apache to compete with.
8. Attacking Apache with this kind of tactic is not legally painful as integrating the browser was. After all, Apache isn't made by a company. To the legal system and Microsoft, Apache came out of the ether and its secretary is a website. -- I dunno what this tactic could possibly be since I find this anatomy lesson to be remarkably short of meat.
9. how, exactly, is apache better than any microsoft web server in the sort of personal web server space you seem to be talking about. You haven't made your case.
10. The mindcraft benchmarks. What thinking person didn't realize that apache isn't everything that it has been built up to be? I think rational people were already choosing apache for different reasons.
Reading back over my argument, it doesn't seem to elgant, but then I was sparring with fantoms of the air anyway.
Since they are admitting that the price/performance/features equation of Apache is better than anything Microsoft has to offer, it means they have gotten used to the idea, mulled it over, and came up with a solution
That or they're tring to convince the DoJ that there are bits of the world they don't own.
The new free web server / Windows 2000 combination will reduce the appeal of Apache
This won't be as easy as deep-sixing Netscape, for a whole bunch of reasons. Off the top of my head...
1. Targetting home users who'll just click'n'install is a lot easier than replacing entrenched, stable technology in the business world. All the PHBs in all the gin-joints in all the world won't be effective in replacing all the apache installations, but they might impinge (slightly) on new installs.
2. Apache is, and always has been, free. netscape lost out to a certain extent because it took them a year and a day to react to the freebie IE.
3. Netscape had/has advocates; Apache has fanatics.
They are applying their usual strategy to web servers: embrace and extend.
As a Win2000 user, you will get a free web server on your desktop. It will be very easy for you to publish some pages on the web, thanks to this nice tool. Maybe you will even get a few pre-installed scripts and utilities with it, such as a hit counter. Maybe also some FrontPage extensions so that it is easier for you to publish and manage your documents.
By coincidence, you will find the same set of utilities plus much more in IIS. So once you reach the limits of the free server, the only sensible way to upgrade your server will be to move to IIS. It will be easy, and you will not have to re-write any of your code.
On the other hand, upgrading to Apache will be much more difficult, because nobody told you that the nice features offered by the free server were MS-specific and were not available with Apache. So why would you take Apache if it would force you to modify several of your pages? Re-writing these pages could cost more than the price of Windows NT Server + IIS, so you will forget about this "free" Apache that requires more work from you.
And while you are at it, you will also use the nice goodies provided with the server, such as the ones that put active channels on the user's desktop. Never mind of some users cannot use these features because they have a non-standard browser (i.e. a browser that does not come pre-installed with the OS). They will be forced to upgrade sooner or later anyway, so why bother?
Sigh...
-Raphaël
I have use MS server products. I have found them to be oversize in file size, resource hogs and just plain slow. I find the webserver that is included with ICQ 99a is 1000x times better. I have use alot of thrown together webserver programs and I have used apache server on NT and 98 and find that it does alot better than IIS.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
How about this, Microsoft produce a Web Server that interacts with every other web server on the lan (read personal web server or whatever) and this allows everyone to create a list of information on every PC, so effectively there's this one big ever changing intranet, with document management and data sharing using XML etc etc, the thing to be worried about is not whether they are going to be doing the same as APACHE but what is it that they are going to be doing different, all they need is one Killer Feature and Joe Public won't look anywhere else.
One of the wonderful things about NT is how they have to be different than everybody else. The optimal solution for sockets programming under NT isn't the standard berkeley sockets stuff but IOCP. No idea if Apache is implemented this way now, but if not it would mean quite a bit of work to do the coding... for a substantial performance boost.
you're right, that's the upgrade price for the professional version.
Lowmag.net
The cost/benefit of changing older clients to the new version is not worth it in an origanisation of 500+ For a while, we requested that new machines be shipped with office 95. Now they are shipped with 97, and it's causing a nightmare. It's a nightmare caused by a lack of compatibility.
But it is still too expensive to upgrade a license. Businesses are out to make money, not toss it out the window every chance they get. That's also why arguments about linux being physically free not affecting decisions are patently inane. Of course cost matters! The minimum wage is climbing, other costs are rising, and if a free alternative that is more reliable comes along, of course they'll bite!
Lowmag.net
I would like to stay with an older version of office, but I never have any real choice. MS releases a new version, new employees and new desktop systems have the new version of office. Older versions can't read documents created by the new versions, people complain:
POOF - IT upgrades everyone for a special upgrade price.
Integrating access to Windows logins
Tying functions to MS Exchange
Proprietary formats for transfering office information via HTTP
Every one of the things that Conrad says Microsoft will do has already been done in NT4, for all the good it has done them. They cannot do very much more in this regard unless they integrate IIS with Windows 99 or 99++ or whatever they call their next Desktop OS. And we can only hope they do that, since it will push them even closer to the point at which the bubble gum and baling wire give way and their whole messy OS collapses in chaos.
The OS integration strategy was a brilliant response to the threat posed by Netscape. We should not expect them to try the same strategy against Linux. They are more likely to try things that exploit the weaknesses of the Linux community and the strengths of Microsoft, such as setting up bogus benchmarks that compare specially modified versions of an OS running a single task. That is a contest they can be expected to win every time, since they can throw as many full time, well paid engineers at it as needed, while the Linux folks must rely on volunteers - and who wants to put in hours working on a project that only makes sense to a marketdroid or a CIO? The recent PC Week tests showed nothing at all about how NT stacks up against Linux in the real world (try running IIS and Exchange on the same NT box), and have no practical value at all. They were, from an engineering perspective, a complete waste of time.
Rather than meeting this challenge on the battleground chosen by Microsoft, the Linux community would do far better to expose these "benchmarks" for the travesty they are. Then continue on the path that is leading to true greatness, making Linux better in ways that really matter.
Information is not Knowledge
I think he was just trying to say that Microsoft will respond to the threat of Apache, which they freely admit as being better, by integrating a small webserver of their own into win2000. They would hope to gain back some market share, and give people less reason to use Apache.
Yes, Dean Gaudet of the Apache Group has gotten fed up with the negative benchmarks and has committed a bunch of code for Apache 2.0. I'm just quoting him from memory, benchmarks are one of his goals. He's one of the group's OS experts.
>>>MS main revenue line is not going to be web servers, it is Operating Systems, hence this the value add is the reason they offer it for free
MS missed the whole web browser boat and has spent quite a bit of time/money/resources playing catch-up. They understand the power of the Internet and I would guess they want to control as much of it as they can.
True they aren't looking for immediate revenue from the web-server market today... It's control that they are concerned about, control of market share will lead to revenue in the future.
I know that Conrad did not explicitely mention gnome, but he was promoting KOffice as a recomendation near the end (for helping linux proliferate before w2k). I thought the forsight and clarity with which this article was written was excellent up to the very last paragraph. Ummm, office suites that go with desktop shells rot.
I am afraid that while MS may try to imitate linux in instances where Linux is better, it seems to me that linux imitates windows in situations that windows is better. I mean, of course, the desktop. People should be cautious: while Linux makes progress, but continues to fail, in desktop areas, it may come to pass that MS wins on both fronts.
Conrad is right. Open source is secondary to most. Linux is a better server out of the box than win98, but maybe not better than w2k. It goes without saying that w2k will exceed linux in the desktop. Just hope they don't include ghostscript, TeX, Perl, gnutar, and free C compilers with their Apache bundled W2k. Linux will lose all but the most diehard users then. The people that use Linux only because it is better will switch as soon as it's not better.
Peace.
Here is a free windows web server.
free windows webserver
I've got a copy waiting for the day I get
DSL/cable modem.
If Linux/apache grows in popularity, Microsoft will simply find a way to weasel into the market. Why not make a proprietary API that runs on top of Linux -- then, port a bunch (but not all) of MS applications to it?
Microsoft is sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. But you know what? I couldn't give a rat's ass how Microsoft responds to Linux, Apache, or any other open source project. Microsoft thrives because People Are Dumb, and the open source projects will continue to plod along on their own, getting better and better every month, regardless of market success. If the rest of the world wants to live as Microserfs for the rest of their little lives (and constantly bitch about it), that is not my problem (or the problem of anyone in the open source movement).
Microsoft will never produce Internet serving software that's as good as Apache anyway, because of inherant flaws in their platform.
No sig.
I mean really! How many IIS boxes have been cracked in the last 2 years? Now the network people are supposed to be happy to allow everyone in their respective company to run a weakly secure web server? Ha! And people thought Melissa, et. al. were bad.
On another note, this will really increase the numbers of support jobs out there. This past weekend there were 4 NT/IIS servers cracked (run by various departments within USDA and not the main site). Yesterday, they bring in their "experts" to fix them up and have _8_ people surrounding _2_ servers. I'm not sure what 6 of them were supposedly doing. Meanwhile, me and the only other UNIX guy here are happily playing with our 10 UNIX boxes. They claim NT doesn't take lots of people to maintain it. Sure.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
If Microsoft really want to push the web server envelope in the way the author claims they need to truly integrate it into the OS.
They've already gone the first step in that the desktop is essentially a web page with "file window" and "browser window" meaning the same thing. What they need to do now is have the file system served by their web server. that'd really complete the circle. Although I can't exactly say it'd win any medals for security...
--
Rare Window - free your photos
Does this mean that Microsoft will be useing Apache?
When every desktop user has a MS webserver running (unknown to many of them of course) and a security flaw is found that lets you read/alter files on the harddrive.....previous exploits of MS web servers etc. has been limited to mostly NT boxes running webservers (hopefully with an admin that has at least some education)......and suddenly every MS user who doesn't care about, or know how to, turn the server off is a server admin faced with a security risk (and the need of patching it).....oh I really see the benefit for the customer here....not
IIS uses ISAPI DLL's as a higher performance option than CGI's. The DLL handles webrequests and is only loaded once, thereby saving a lot of overhead since you don't need to start a new process.
I've used them. Damn annoying to debug since you basically need to shutdown the webserver and restart it before you can try a new version of the DLL. Also, bad ISAPI DLL's can easily bring down your webserver.
--
"I got it running, grabbed a rocket launcher, and fired down a hallway." --John Carmack
Of course, this only gets them halfway there. They'll still get cracking on improving the parts of real IIS that people complain about, and they'll start with doing a better job of hosting multiple domains on a single server as balmer talked about.
It's exactly how M$ does everything, it's how they work: serve up gruel to the mindless masses that gets 90% of what they need done, and then hit the top two or three needs of everyone else pretty well, and lie to cover every other case that arises. Over time they'll continue to add shiny things to distract the idiots, continue to add to the few things they do well to mollify real users, and continue to lie to everyone else (such as anyone hoping for 24x7 or enterprise scale performance.) business as usual.
Cris E
St Paul, MN
IIS is not free, because you have to buy NT to get it. This doesn't make it free in any sense of the word. Maybe it's "free" for you because you work in a place that has already purchased it for you, and thus you don't take the cost into consideration? Who knows.
Apache is free because you can download everything you need to run it without paying anything for it.
You need to reevaluate your definition of "free."
The author missed the real thrust of MS's efforts to get more webserver share.
It's not IIS, or some small webserver- it's Office 2k and the followups. No matter what Slashdot readers may think of Office, it is the office suite the world runs on. The newest version of Office have very tight integration with the web and IIS- for example, you can place live spreadsheets on the web using Excel. This is going to go over big in office intranets- it makes sharing documents really trivial.
Guess what- these functions don't run under Apache. Thus, IS staff have to maintain an IIS webserver to get the features that the various Office2k users want. (And I'll assure you they'll want them.)
Best of all, this is a no risk strategy wrt the Justice Department. All they're doing is improving their office suite, which Justice can't stop. Sure they're trying to kill Apache, but Apache isn't a company, and they aren't undercutting Apache's price to drive it out of the market since Apache is already free.
I've got to admire MS on this one. This is one seriously well designed strategy. They can't make headway against basic web stuff, so they'll leverage their real monopoly (Forget Windows- it's Office.) to make the basic web seem much less useful. It might even work.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
We should concentrate on fighting Microsoft on issues they cannot win.
Okay, so assuming W2k includes a web server, we can counter that most Linux distributions also come with a web server (apache). For someone looking to choose a platform, or for others to migrate from Windows to Linux, we need to have other compelling reasons which Microsoft can't beat us at: Stability and Reliability spring to mind. Windows crashing is something that almost all computer users have experienced, and is also one of the most difficult things for Microsoft to overcome. This is where the Linux community should take the battle. Software such as XFS should improve Linux's image here, but there's still a lot we need to learn from IBM, Sun, SGI etc.
surely, having a prominent web server in win2k will push their percentage up as legions of Win kids with cable modems put their bandwidth to use, however ill a use it may be.
Juln
no , thats not what the article means - but they were apparently forced to use it because NT was too sucky. They may know it Apache is superior, but indeed, it is strange Ballmer would actually declare that, MS being so marketing minded.
Juln
Platform integration isn't something that open source software tackles very well.
KDE is attacking this very issue as we speak. The whole KOM/CORBA integration thing is to allow apps (such as KOffice and others) to be "KDE-aware".
M$ may take the lead on this, but the Open Source versions are coming... and they will be better.
The only thing that bothers me a little about the whole KDE-integration thing is that we sort of start down that path of desktop "lock-in". In order to use some of the latest & greatest apps, we'll have to be running a certain desktop, such as KDE.
Now, if these apps can be written in such a way as to run on other desktops (absent integration, obviously) I wouldn't have a big problem with it. But I'm doubting that that will be the end result.
Does KOffice even run on GNOME?
Many people are missing the point of why Microsoft wants to develop an easy to use web server that Joe can use, increased numbers of people using Microsoft web servers.
... Microsoft knows this, they know Apache/Linux will always be developed. Microsoft just wants the people with money to spend it on their products. They need marketable numbers to increase their mindshare.
Right now the Mindcraft study is a great advertising point for the Microsoft marketing team to work on; suits see a 200% speed increase of one web server over another as huge, and don't bother to look at the specifics.
What they need are more numbers to back that up; how good would a Microsoft commercial look if over 50% of the world uses Microsoft's web server, which is also 200% faster than the competitor.
Of course, what the advertisment doesn't show is that almost all of those web servers used in that 50% are desktop machines being run by some 15 year old which distributes porn and MP3s. Suits don't look at the specifics and see that the mission critical servers are running Apache.
Of course this has no bearing on OSS developers, as they don't develop software for commercial or market gain
Check out Pi3Web by John Roy.
This is a free open source Web server for Win98/NT/Linux/Solaris and others. Very easy to use and setup (at least in Win9x and NT). It includes support for ISAPI/FastCGI/WinCGI/CGI, has a embedded pearl extension and an Apache like parsing engine. As far as I can tell, it's the only web server offering support for FastCGI on windows.
I use it on win98 for development work. It's free for both comercial and non-comercial use. Source available for download too. Blows MS personal Web server out of the water. No ten user connection limit.
Available at http://www.pi3.org
Just so MS can't claim to be the only one doing it.
I'd like to share my experiences with corporate America, relating to this topic. I am a high school student, with a job at a Web design company that uses virtual hosting on NT machines running IIS for its sites (*shudder*). We use FrontPage (*shudder*) because "it's simpler," according to my boss. In fact, my boss seems to think that Microsoft technology is superior just because it is Microsoft technology. I try to convice my boss that there are better ways of doing things, even if it means moving away from Microsoft products.
Sometimes I wonder if my boss wants to be Bill Gates. Today, he mentioned that one can only be smarter if one is running ahead of the competition dropping land mines behind, saying that Microsoft's business tactics have been fair. Also today my boss commented on some of my recent anti-Microsoft behavior, saying it was unprofessional to express those feelings in the business world. I can accept that.
My experience with this company, though, has showed me that there is more to Microsoft's "dominance" that what most of the so-called computing world realizes. Mainstream sites may comment on Microsoft, but they neglect to show people that Microsoft has a stranglehold on people, not just computers. I hope I'm making myself clear enough.
Anyway, I'm glad that Slashdot has given us a forum to express ourselves. Rock on.
I read the article in question. Based on the spoken words I would say the article was using smoke and mirrors to spread FUD about what Microsoft is planning. There is a lot of handwaving about what Mr. Balmer "meant" and nothing to really back up the authors main contentions other than vague unease at anything Microsoft might be doing.
Since the Apache Web Server already runs under Windows NT, Mr. Balmer's comments might be attributed as a simple note that Apache will run even better when Windows 2000 comes out.
The Linux community has better things to do than speculate about the motives behind every word spoken by a Microsoft executive. After all, we are not in the 'business' of selling operating systems, we are in the business of using them to their best advantage.
I think you might as well give up hope on that. If NT comes with a prepackaged, preconfigured web server, few people are going to go to the trouble of obtaining and installing apache. It's just like IE and Netscape. Or like when I installed Redhat 5.2, and all of a sudden I had apache running perfectly whenever I booted - I never considered another server.
grep -ri 'should work'
1) I really don't see how this strategy is any different than any other FUD strategy composed by MS. They are admitting that Apache is better than IIE, and that they have something that is going to be better coming out really soon. They are just trying to keep their IIE people loyal for another X years, until Win 2000 comes out. I think they are seeing a trend of people running away from IIE and towards Apache and they are just trying to keep that from happening with this "Windows 2000 will solve this problem" line.
2) Knowing MS, the number of bugs, err, special features, that they have in the first release of a new MS product will probably be overwhelming. Especially if they try to create something that is small, effeciant, and fast. Those three adjectives don't fit MS in any way. It will be a while before anything of any substance comes out.
3) We are all working on speculation. MS is playing with peoples minds, and we, including me, are letting ourselves get caught up in it. Our first priority should be to fix the problems that we had during the Mindcraft experiment, and then keep rolling on. We are already picking up steam, gaining a lot of support, and a lot of press coverage. The easiest way for MS to destroy OSS is to change our focus. If we spend our time guessing at what MS is going to do next and then trying to counter-act it we will have lost the original goal of OSS, and may not accomplish what needs to be done.
Sticks and stones may break our bones but FUD can never hurt us.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Why is the start menu a bad concept you ask?
Well, I don't have a problem with the original concept, but I find the excessive layering that occurs can be quite annoying. Going from Start to programs to Generic Software Company folder to Generic Software Utils to Acme Software Graphic... gets really old. Eventually you put all the stuff that you use on the desktop anyway.
The excessive layering in the Start menu can be just as annoying as having a message that is a far out on a thread as this on. You only want to look so far for something before getting ticked.
If there was a limit to how far down a layer in a menu could go then it would be great.
Personally I like how Enlightenment allows for three different menus depending on which button you click. It keeps things relatively close.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
The start menu has some potential, but not much. The apple menu was intended for DAs, and other utility programs. It was good at what it did. According to The Microsoft Way, the start menu is the doorway to all of the programs on your computer. The Apple menu (after System 7) could be used at that, but that was never its intention. Users were to navigate to application folders and launch programs. That is an interesting user experience item, as it requires the user to know where the program is on the drive. One of Windows main functions is to isolate the computer from the user--programs are located in the start menu and do not at all represent what is on the drive. The Open and Save UIs take the user to a cordoned-off set of folders. While the MacOS does provide the "Documents" folder, the user has to be much more aware of the directory structure of the hard drive to make use of it.
I am not saying which is better--the Mac Way certainly does have disadvantages. It makes it easy to break programs (uhh, i dragged the icon onto the desktop to make it easy to open, why don't my plug-ins work anymore?), and there is a time factor (where did I put MacWrite, again?). With Windows, though, should you move something or save something in a non-MS suggested place, it can be very difficult to find again. Both have their drawbacks.
In my experience, NeXT interfaces share more with MacOS than with windows. One has to navigate the drive (with the browser) to open a program. Or click on it from the dock (quasi apple menu). Files can be saved anywhere (with UNIX-imposed restrictions [somewhat MS-like, i suppose]), but there are suggested locations.
I dunno. I'm rambling.
-awc
User experience is far more than the pictures of the icons.
And to borrow a phrase from history (I forget where in history), "Sir you are no NEXTSTEP." Or something like that. But I'm babbling again. Someone really needs to get me to stop that.
The NeXT UI, and the Mac UI are dramatically different things from Windows, and from each other. If it was just the shape of the icons, it wouldn't matter what we did. It comes down to elegant design vs. windows. Now that's just a troll, isn't it?
Oh well.
-awc
I keep hearing that Win95's explorer is somehow related to NeXT's UI. I just don't see it.
As a regular user of NEXTSTEP 3.3 and WinNT 4.0, I find them considerably different. The NeXT's clean simplicity is far ahead of the cluttered look of the windows gui. The start menu is stupidly designed, and the NeXT, while unable to present as many applications to the user (the dock is clever, but inherently limited), does what it does in a much better (and different) fashion than the taskbar/start menu.
If i'm missing something, please tell me!
-awc
This was not mentioned in the article. The Apache Group could fend off such an attack if they get a stable port done before MS manages to pull any of these tricks off. And what with the delays in W2K, they could probably do it.
MS must have thought of this, though, and they are probably thinking of ways to hinder Apache for NT. My guess is that W2K will have undocumented system code for TCP/IP, which they'll use to make their own servers faster and more stable, while the documented code will be slow and buggy.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
M$ will try all of this, and more.
I think a good way to try to slow these kind
of tactics, is to do some of what they do;
make linux more userfriendly.
If Linux would be as easy(easier) to use as Win2k (but still allowing you to get under the hood) and more stable than win2k (as it is now) (and faster with the choice between workstation install & server install), then people would consider it sooner.
So I think programmers and graphics artists(!!!)
should get there tools ready and help KDE & KOffice get bigger.
Also massive attention should be given to projects like www.laetos.org (which is almost dead, because some people(die-hard c programmers et al) seem to think that a OS should be as difficult as possible -> that'll kill linux fast!)
And, going with the original article, it should be almost done or done when win2k comes out.
Bye,
hyp
IIS 4.0 is a component of NT 4.0 Option Pack, which is ALREADY FREE.
:- no conspiracy. I am personalising the corporate actions of Microsoft to be entirely driven to destroy Linux. MS motivation is money :- revenue and strategic positioning. This usually comes from a conjunction of factors, one of which is producing the most functional product.
All Balmer is saying is that the current version of IIS has deficiencies, and the new version will address them.
This is not a conspiracy. MS main revenue line is not going to be web servers, it is Operating Systems, hence this the value add is the reason they offer it for free.
Being the best of the breed is their job, of course they are going to attempt to rectify deficiencies in their product.
Repeat after me
So what's being done? Is Linus working on speeding up the kernel's IP support (allowing multiple threads)? Is anyone working on speeding up Apache?
.xls, .doc, .ppt, and .msg) across Linux and Win, then technical people in office situations (and there are a lot of us) would be much more readily able to use Linux in the office, and thereby spread the gospel of Linux.
The good folks at our favorite Linux dists would be wise to start up some performance improvement projects to speed up time-critical apps like Apache, protocol implementations, file servers, graphics drivers and the like.
And speaking of Office, do any Linux apps support a respectable subset of Office file formats? If documents could be readily shared (especially
Just some thoughts,
Marlboro