I've seen this pattern over and over. It exists from grade schools to (to a lesser degree) universities. And students aren't always the victims, either. When I was in high school, two of the years there we had an excellent principal who got along well with the students. The school board canned him mostly because he didn't do enough suspending of students (he tried more to work out problems).
School administrators also tend to be ignorant of understanding the facts. I once was brought to a disciplinary hearing, and even found out they had already decided I was guilty. I was accused of breaking into the school's IBM mainframe because I happened to have in my file area copies of internal system files that didn't have public access. I told them I had bought them from IBM directly. Their response was that they had specifically made an agreement with the IBM office that they worked with not to sell the system to any students (I never verified that this was true or if it was even legal). But my receipt was from an IBM office in a different state, which I happened to reside in. At least they knew I won that round (and I won then next 2, but that's for future stories).
The fundamental problem is that among adults who like to be in a position of control over other people (that describes a lot of people) there are some who find they can best satisfy their need for control by controlling those who are less able to fight back, such as children. While I still believe the majority of teachers, and quite a lot of administrators really are there because they genuinely want to help provide a good educational experience, I do see time and time again cases where administrators are screwing students over with a rigged "judicial" process and very limited means for review or appeal. Mere accusal in many cases is all that it takes. And there is a pattern to those that is very top heavy in the school systems, particularly in high schools. Too bad the schools can't pay decent salaries and attract more decent people.
Extortion in a captive non-competitive market.
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 3
There is valueable research involved in these various codes. If these codes were not prepared in advance, governments would have to carry out expensive research to determine technical specifics to write into these codes. Multiply that cost (millions of dollars) by the huge number of jurisdictions (conservatively tens of thousands), and you end up with a tax expense in the high billions to possibly beyond a trillion dollars. Obviously that is not something that would be acceptable.
If all the jurisdictions got together and pooled money proportionally and shared the costs of carrying out this research, obviously the costs would be way less. But this isn't what happened.
Instead, there is a business model involved that fools taxpayers into thinking they are getting something for (nearly) free because the governments are not charged much (a few copies they have to buy) to adopt these codes. But the taxpayers actually are charged even more, overall, through commercial costs passed through from businesses that have to buy these overpriced copies. And that doesn't count the pricing people who want to express their 1st amendment rights to argue that flaws exist in proposed laws (the code).
There are two parts to the cost. One part is the cost of copying to which I will add a reasonable profit margin for a copying operation. The other part is the distributed cost of the research, that is, the whole research cost divided by the number of sold copies. Beyond that is excess profits. How can we know if there are excess profits or not?
Even the music industry is not this bad. While there is a "monopoly" on the ownership of a specific piece or performance of music, there is also a statutory rate for legally copying music which you can arrange to get a license for through the Harry Fox Agency (this applies to the composition, not a specific recording, and the rate is a bulk rate for mass production, not single copies).
And unlike music, which I can elect to totally ignore or boycott, I cannot do the same for laws. So this is particularly bad.
What we need is for some kind of statutory rate structure that allows others to make their own copies of the "composition work" involved in the code. The basic share cost of the original and continuing research still needs to be paid for, but without such a system, that is something that would be paid for directly by governments, anyway, in proportion to their applicable size, so IMHO that's where that part of the cost should be paid. This still allows governments to get quality research, and people to be able to have copies of what the law is at a fair and reasonable price for the copying, and prevents someone from extorting excess profits from the public because the public isn't given a choice either of who to buy copies from, or to opt-out of using the code.
I'm not opposed to RMS but I want to release my software without some of the impositions that GPL has. LGPL might be closer, or maybe the modified BSD licence or the Apache license.
The way I want to have my restrictions work is that if any recipient of my software (or any modification of my software), merges in their own modifications, they are not obligated to release the source code of their modifications. They will also not be obligated to distribute my original source code. If they do choose to release their source code integrated with my code, they must distribute that under the same terms (but if they distribute separate, e.g. my code and their patch, they may use any license terms they wish for their part). I want to prevent the terms of my software from being changed, but I do not want to impose any terms on anyone else's software.
And yes, I realize that means Microsoft could use my software, not distribute any source, not acknowledge it, and never even tell me about it, all legally.
Of course people are ticked off about the SYSV switch, since SYSV sucks. That's why Redhat sucks, too.
Now seriously, the existance of different distributions of Linux with different schemes shows that what Linux is, is not dependent on whether the system is SYSV or BSD. The reality is that parts of the operating system really should be selectable and pluggable, and to a great extent Linux is (though if you choose a single distribution, it may not be). I've taken Slackware and completely rebuilt the init/rc setup from scratch (and isn't either BSD or SYSV anymore). Try that with Solaris. Of course maybe you won't want to. But some people do. That's not the only thing that people want to be able to change and tweak about their systems. Linux just makes that easier, and the BSDs aren't far behind.
Now for a big multi-processor giant-RAM box running a monster database using something like Oracle, I'd be running Solaris without a doubt. I'm not into the "we only run one OS" mentality. I just put each one in its proper place. There is no one single best OS.
My old 32-bit Sparc 5's run great on Slackware and OpenBSD. I haven't tried NetBSD so that can't be judged. I also run Solaris 7, but it's quite sluggish. It might be a bit faster if I can get rid of all the window stuff (which is eating up RAM like crazy).
A cool new video card just came out. I gotta have it. I order it. It arrives. I install it. It works great!
I need more RAM. These 2 old 128meg sticks are in the way, so I buy 2 new 256meg sticks and replace the 128meg ones which go to someone else who can replace their lame 64meg ones.
Finally, the office LAN is getting rid of the crap token ring and getting a real network. My new 10/100 dual ethernet card rawqs! Anyone want something labeled 4/16?
Damn! Out of disk space AGAIN! This old 10gig HD is outa here. Well I left it in long enough for me to copy my files over to my new 60gig HD.
Stupid cheap CDROM drives. They're always breaking down and jamming up. Well at least the new one only cost me $14.95:-)
Ouch! That thunderstorm last night got me. I forgot to unplug the modem. Well that thing is toast. But until the boss gets that T1 in here, I still have to dial out to get my/. fix, so in goes another one. At least this time I can do 56K.
Why is my BIOS running the CPU at 66 MHz now? I wonder if that thunderstorm last week did more damage than I thought. So I ordered a new Athlon board and CPU and bring this puppy up to a GIGAHERTZ. And I have a target for practice at the shooting range.
Oh wait. I have a new PC. At which point was my Windows license no longer valid?
The Internet became popular not because some business decided to push it, originally. Businesses were latecoming. It became popular because there were enough people doing enough cool stuff that it attracted everyone else.
What does this have to do with domains and root servers?
If we start using non-ICANN domains for our really cool stuff, the free stuff, and resist the temptation to put anything more than instructions on how to get to the cool stuff (e.g. change your resolver hosts) on legacy TLDs, then it can more quickly build up a following.
If the.mp3 domain gets going soon, how long do you think it will take the RIAA to be using alternate domains?
It seems virtually every language falls on its face when one tries to put abstraction on top of it. And not matter how abstract some language is, someone else comes along and wants it to be even more abstract. Just admit it: you goal is to be able to assert "all problems are solved" and expect it to just be.
If you think C collapsed because of heavy macro hacks to implement more complex systems, then I say that C has not collapsed, and is running just fine for those of use that don't try to push it beyond what it was designed for. Of course C can't be everything. But it is for me an excellent tool for most of the things I need to do. Of course some things could use something better, and I do look to greater languages for that. But that does not mean C collapsed into failure. That's only for someone who expected something out of it that it just isn't for.
I didn't see any comment from you about Forth. What say ye of Forth?
Perhaps one way to describe the situation succinctly would be: The problem is network devices that don't implement ECN and fail to act passively with regard to the formerly reserved bit now used for ECN.
Re:How do I opt out of zillions of email addresses
on
Opt-in vs. Opt-out
·
· Score: 2
Thanks. These are good links with good info. Now I can see better what I am up against with with I am developing. While I don't expect to be as grand as they are, it's good to be able to see other points of view on those other web tools.
BTW, for others doing cut & paste on the URLs, there is a space in the middle of each one that needs to be deleted first.
How do I opt out of zillions of email addresses?
on
Opt-in vs. Opt-out
·
· Score: 4
I have zillions of email addresses. Since I own whole domains, any username on any of them used exclusively for myself will come to me. So I should have a right, under an opt-out system, to opt-out of them all, right? If the opt-out system won't take domain wildcards, then I have no choice but to opt-out of each and every discrete address, in advance. Assuming usernames are made from just English letters and decimal digits, and run up to 8 characters, then I will need to do 2901713047668 opt-outs. That overflows an unsigned 32-bit integer 675 times. Then there are usernames with dashes, dots, underscores. And they can be longer (I've used as long as 60 and I bet it can go way more than that). Oh wait! I also have zillions of subdomains, too, with the power of wildcard DNS entries that have MX records.
In order to opt out just with that number I gave above, and to get it done within a year, I'd have to send in, and they would have to process, 91951 opt-outs EVERY SECOND of the whole year!
Interesting. So you're opposed to powerful non-GOTO control structrues and source code that doesn't depend on counting columns
(Fortran IV) or lots of parentheses (LISP)? Because ALGOL happens to be the pioneer of those concepts.
No. I'm opposed to a failed attempt to create such a language but making it have a screwy data model (typing is too strong). If your assumption were true, then I'd be opposed to C, C++, Java, and many others (even though some have goto, they provide enough to avoid using it).
So what's your suggested replacement? There's reasons COBOL has stayed where it is; Binary-Coded Decimal (the only legal way to handle financial matters) is one.
COBOL has stayed around because so much legacy stuff is built in and around it, and there's still a sufficient supply of programmers to continue working it, that managers in the companies that use it aren't going to jump ship just yet to change things until they have to.
I'll make no one specific recommendation for a "replacement" since that would be inappropriate. Language choice depends on a lot of issues, and there are several strong choices today as compared to when COBOL was created for the lack of any others, and the lack of knowledge about computers in general. It was the right choice then, although not today. Remember Grace Hopper?
As for the legal issue, I've never heard of such a thing. In fact I know of financial stuff done in many other languages, so I think that's phoney, anyway.
I'll let Woofcat go into the speed differences more, since he said it first. But I do find PHP to run faster than Perl, and from what I read, it therefore must be faster than Java.
If you're doing DB backed stuff, then Java is probably not going to be your bottleneck unless you improperly misbalance the machines. I do agree with you that speed of development is secondary (although try convincing most project managers or CTOs/CEOs). And yes, separating logic/process/application from presentation/content is the way to go for anything short of little one day PHP knockoffs like I did with http://linuxhomepage.com/. I'm currently building up my own toolkit to do that in the language I now do my web stuff in (which is faster than PHP).
I guess we're reading this from different contexts. I wish I had the time to go through the whole thing with a point by point explanation. But I don't. Maybe another day.
Great. Now how do I plug modules of other languages in there? Or more to the point, why was this designed to be specific to just one language? My prior post did say "and total pluggability".
No, I have no intention of substantiating this claim. I don't need to because I only made the determination for myself. I tested PHP and Perl about 2 years ago, and found PHP to be slightly faster when you combined all the time factors (time to learn, time to develop, time to deploy, time to run). I didn't keep the result data because I didn't need to as I got the answer I needed and no body was offering me money to publish an article with the results. So I summarized into my own memory what those results are, and found PHP to be slightly faster overall.
Actually, BOTH HTML-in-code and code-in-HTML are dead. The one and true answer is separation of content vs. application, and total pluggability between the two. The ultimate solution will work with any content/information form (HTML, XML, etc) and application form (C, C++, Perl, Java, Scheme, etc). This is organization and the web still majorly lacks it.
Don't get me wrong here. I love PHP. I did LinuxHomePage.Com in PHP in one day as my very first PHP project. It was great and PHP was very easy to work with.
In the long run, mixing content and application is bad as systems get far more complex. One critical need will be the ability to change one or the other. By having them be fused together, it becomes more cumbersome to make those changes.
Some people are inherintly more program/application development oriented. Other people are more information/content development oriented. And still others are graphical/artistic oriented. Few people have the capability to be all that and good at all of it at the same time. So it will be necessary to divide the development (and change) functions and thus also necessary to divide up the entities these different people work with to implement and deploy the components they do.
An author of an article can't write the page layout, but she does need to write the article. She can't concern herself with what tag needs to be inerted at the top to get the properly rotated ad banner inserted. She can't concern herself with how to lay out the menus on the left side or the right side.
The very model of dividing things up at the page boundary is what is wrong. We got fooled into thinking of that with HTML itself because the tags were (at least early on) easy enough for even a non-techie document writer to work with. But today's web applications bear little resemblence to a hierarchy of documents for which HTML was designed. Our thinking needs to be along the lines of keeping separate, and dynamically merging in the appropriate way, the various components that make up what it is we are accessing. That is where we are headed and we best be prepared to deal with it, regardless of what our preferences are for things like content language or programming language.
CGI is not a scripting language. It is an environmental programming interface which many languages can use. If you want to make comparisons validly, you would compare languages to languages (e.g. ASP vs PHP vs others) and environments to environments (mod_whatever vs CGI in Apache, or Apache vs Roxen vs iPlanet vs IIS).
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen this pattern over and over. It exists from grade schools to (to a lesser degree) universities. And students aren't always the victims, either. When I was in high school, two of the years there we had an excellent principal who got along well with the students. The school board canned him mostly because he didn't do enough suspending of students (he tried more to work out problems).
School administrators also tend to be ignorant of understanding the facts. I once was brought to a disciplinary hearing, and even found out they had already decided I was guilty. I was accused of breaking into the school's IBM mainframe because I happened to have in my file area copies of internal system files that didn't have public access. I told them I had bought them from IBM directly. Their response was that they had specifically made an agreement with the IBM office that they worked with not to sell the system to any students (I never verified that this was true or if it was even legal). But my receipt was from an IBM office in a different state, which I happened to reside in. At least they knew I won that round (and I won then next 2, but that's for future stories).
The fundamental problem is that among adults who like to be in a position of control over other people (that describes a lot of people) there are some who find they can best satisfy their need for control by controlling those who are less able to fight back, such as children. While I still believe the majority of teachers, and quite a lot of administrators really are there because they genuinely want to help provide a good educational experience, I do see time and time again cases where administrators are screwing students over with a rigged "judicial" process and very limited means for review or appeal. Mere accusal in many cases is all that it takes. And there is a pattern to those that is very top heavy in the school systems, particularly in high schools. Too bad the schools can't pay decent salaries and attract more decent people.
There is valueable research involved in these various codes. If these codes were not prepared in advance, governments would have to carry out expensive research to determine technical specifics to write into these codes. Multiply that cost (millions of dollars) by the huge number of jurisdictions (conservatively tens of thousands), and you end up with a tax expense in the high billions to possibly beyond a trillion dollars. Obviously that is not something that would be acceptable.
If all the jurisdictions got together and pooled money proportionally and shared the costs of carrying out this research, obviously the costs would be way less. But this isn't what happened.
Instead, there is a business model involved that fools taxpayers into thinking they are getting something for (nearly) free because the governments are not charged much (a few copies they have to buy) to adopt these codes. But the taxpayers actually are charged even more, overall, through commercial costs passed through from businesses that have to buy these overpriced copies. And that doesn't count the pricing people who want to express their 1st amendment rights to argue that flaws exist in proposed laws (the code).
There are two parts to the cost. One part is the cost of copying to which I will add a reasonable profit margin for a copying operation. The other part is the distributed cost of the research, that is, the whole research cost divided by the number of sold copies. Beyond that is excess profits. How can we know if there are excess profits or not?
Even the music industry is not this bad. While there is a "monopoly" on the ownership of a specific piece or performance of music, there is also a statutory rate for legally copying music which you can arrange to get a license for through the Harry Fox Agency (this applies to the composition, not a specific recording, and the rate is a bulk rate for mass production, not single copies).
And unlike music, which I can elect to totally ignore or boycott, I cannot do the same for laws. So this is particularly bad.
What we need is for some kind of statutory rate structure that allows others to make their own copies of the "composition work" involved in the code. The basic share cost of the original and continuing research still needs to be paid for, but without such a system, that is something that would be paid for directly by governments, anyway, in proportion to their applicable size, so IMHO that's where that part of the cost should be paid. This still allows governments to get quality research, and people to be able to have copies of what the law is at a fair and reasonable price for the copying, and prevents someone from extorting excess profits from the public because the public isn't given a choice either of who to buy copies from, or to opt-out of using the code.
I'm not opposed to RMS but I want to release my software without some of the impositions that GPL has. LGPL might be closer, or maybe the modified BSD licence or the Apache license.
The way I want to have my restrictions work is that if any recipient of my software (or any modification of my software), merges in their own modifications, they are not obligated to release the source code of their modifications. They will also not be obligated to distribute my original source code. If they do choose to release their source code integrated with my code, they must distribute that under the same terms (but if they distribute separate, e.g. my code and their patch, they may use any license terms they wish for their part). I want to prevent the terms of my software from being changed, but I do not want to impose any terms on anyone else's software.
And yes, I realize that means Microsoft could use my software, not distribute any source, not acknowledge it, and never even tell me about it, all legally.
Suggestions?
Of course people are ticked off about the SYSV switch, since SYSV sucks. That's why Redhat sucks, too.
Now seriously, the existance of different distributions of Linux with different schemes shows that what Linux is, is not dependent on whether the system is SYSV or BSD. The reality is that parts of the operating system really should be selectable and pluggable, and to a great extent Linux is (though if you choose a single distribution, it may not be). I've taken Slackware and completely rebuilt the init/rc setup from scratch (and isn't either BSD or SYSV anymore). Try that with Solaris. Of course maybe you won't want to. But some people do. That's not the only thing that people want to be able to change and tweak about their systems. Linux just makes that easier, and the BSDs aren't far behind.
Now for a big multi-processor giant-RAM box running a monster database using something like Oracle, I'd be running Solaris without a doubt. I'm not into the "we only run one OS" mentality. I just put each one in its proper place. There is no one single best OS.
My old 32-bit Sparc 5's run great on Slackware and OpenBSD. I haven't tried NetBSD so that can't be judged. I also run Solaris 7, but it's quite sluggish. It might be a bit faster if I can get rid of all the window stuff (which is eating up RAM like crazy).
Oh wait. I have a new PC. At which point was my Windows license no longer valid?
The Internet became popular not because some business decided to push it, originally. Businesses were latecoming. It became popular because there were enough people doing enough cool stuff that it attracted everyone else.
What does this have to do with domains and root servers?
If we start using non-ICANN domains for our really cool stuff, the free stuff, and resist the temptation to put anything more than instructions on how to get to the cool stuff (e.g. change your resolver hosts) on legacy TLDs, then it can more quickly build up a following.
If the .mp3 domain gets going soon, how long do you think it will take the RIAA to be using alternate domains?
It seems virtually every language falls on its face when one tries to put abstraction on top of it. And not matter how abstract some language is, someone else comes along and wants it to be even more abstract. Just admit it: you goal is to be able to assert "all problems are solved" and expect it to just be.
If you think C collapsed because of heavy macro hacks to implement more complex systems, then I say that C has not collapsed, and is running just fine for those of use that don't try to push it beyond what it was designed for. Of course C can't be everything. But it is for me an excellent tool for most of the things I need to do. Of course some things could use something better, and I do look to greater languages for that. But that does not mean C collapsed into failure. That's only for someone who expected something out of it that it just isn't for.
I didn't see any comment from you about Forth. What say ye of Forth?
Their 486 got overloaded
Way to go. You tell 'em!
Perhaps one way to describe the situation succinctly would be:
The problem is network devices that don't implement ECN and fail to act passively with regard to the formerly reserved bit now used for ECN.
Bulk Opt Out, version 1.0.0
For people with bulk email addresses.
Can they testify that they have been doing this since prior to Feb 18, 1999?
I guess people just quit using it. Maybe it exited.
Algol did not let me tweak any of the types.
You're still using 32 bit integers?
I use long long in C. It handles up to $92,233,720,368,547,758.07. Even Bill Gates would dream of having that much money.
Thanks. These are good links with good info. Now I can see better what I am up against with with I am developing. While I don't expect to be as grand as they are, it's good to be able to see other points of view on those other web tools.
BTW, for others doing cut & paste on the URLs, there is a space in the middle of each one that needs to be deleted first.
I have zillions of email addresses. Since I own whole domains, any username on any of them used exclusively for myself will come to me. So I should have a right, under an opt-out system, to opt-out of them all, right? If the opt-out system won't take domain wildcards, then I have no choice but to opt-out of each and every discrete address, in advance. Assuming usernames are made from just English letters and decimal digits, and run up to 8 characters, then I will need to do 2901713047668 opt-outs. That overflows an unsigned 32-bit integer 675 times. Then there are usernames with dashes, dots, underscores. And they can be longer (I've used as long as 60 and I bet it can go way more than that). Oh wait! I also have zillions of subdomains, too, with the power of wildcard DNS entries that have MX records.
In order to opt out just with that number I gave above, and to get it done within a year, I'd have to send in, and they would have to process, 91951 opt-outs EVERY SECOND of the whole year!
No. I'm opposed to a failed attempt to create such a language but making it have a screwy data model (typing is too strong). If your assumption were true, then I'd be opposed to C, C++, Java, and many others (even though some have goto, they provide enough to avoid using it).
COBOL has stayed around because so much legacy stuff is built in and around it, and there's still a sufficient supply of programmers to continue working it, that managers in the companies that use it aren't going to jump ship just yet to change things until they have to.
I'll make no one specific recommendation for a "replacement" since that would be inappropriate. Language choice depends on a lot of issues, and there are several strong choices today as compared to when COBOL was created for the lack of any others, and the lack of knowledge about computers in general. It was the right choice then, although not today. Remember Grace Hopper?
As for the legal issue, I've never heard of such a thing. In fact I know of financial stuff done in many other languages, so I think that's phoney, anyway.
I'll let Woofcat go into the speed differences more, since he said it first. But I do find PHP to run faster than Perl, and from what I read, it therefore must be faster than Java.
If you're doing DB backed stuff, then Java is probably not going to be your bottleneck unless you improperly misbalance the machines. I do agree with you that speed of development is secondary (although try convincing most project managers or CTOs/CEOs). And yes, separating logic/process/application from presentation/content is the way to go for anything short of little one day PHP knockoffs like I did with http://linuxhomepage.com/. I'm currently building up my own toolkit to do that in the language I now do my web stuff in (which is faster than PHP).
I guess we're reading this from different contexts. I wish I had the time to go through the whole thing with a point by point explanation. But I don't. Maybe another day.
vanza wrote:
Great. Now how do I plug modules of other languages in there? Or more to the point, why was this designed to be specific to just one language? My prior post did say "and total pluggability".
Did I say it had anything to do with Java?
No, I have no intention of substantiating this claim. I don't need to because I only made the determination for myself. I tested PHP and Perl about 2 years ago, and found PHP to be slightly faster when you combined all the time factors (time to learn, time to develop, time to deploy, time to run). I didn't keep the result data because I didn't need to as I got the answer I needed and no body was offering me money to publish an article with the results. So I summarized into my own memory what those results are, and found PHP to be slightly faster overall.
Actually, BOTH HTML-in-code and code-in-HTML are dead. The one and true answer is separation of content vs. application, and total pluggability between the two. The ultimate solution will work with any content/information form (HTML, XML, etc) and application form (C, C++, Perl, Java, Scheme, etc). This is organization and the web still majorly lacks it.
Don't get me wrong here. I love PHP. I did LinuxHomePage.Com in PHP in one day as my very first PHP project. It was great and PHP was very easy to work with.
In the long run, mixing content and application is bad as systems get far more complex. One critical need will be the ability to change one or the other. By having them be fused together, it becomes more cumbersome to make those changes.Some people are inherintly more program/application development oriented. Other people are more information/content development oriented. And still others are graphical/artistic oriented. Few people have the capability to be all that and good at all of it at the same time. So it will be necessary to divide the development (and change) functions and thus also necessary to divide up the entities these different people work with to implement and deploy the components they do.
An author of an article can't write the page layout, but she does need to write the article. She can't concern herself with what tag needs to be inerted at the top to get the properly rotated ad banner inserted. She can't concern herself with how to lay out the menus on the left side or the right side.
The very model of dividing things up at the page boundary is what is wrong. We got fooled into thinking of that with HTML itself because the tags were (at least early on) easy enough for even a non-techie document writer to work with. But today's web applications bear little resemblence to a hierarchy of documents for which HTML was designed. Our thinking needs to be along the lines of keeping separate, and dynamically merging in the appropriate way, the various components that make up what it is we are accessing. That is where we are headed and we best be prepared to deal with it, regardless of what our preferences are for things like content language or programming language.
CGI is not a scripting language. It is an environmental programming interface which many languages can use. If you want to make comparisons validly, you would compare languages to languages (e.g. ASP vs PHP vs others) and environments to environments (mod_whatever vs CGI in Apache, or Apache vs Roxen vs iPlanet vs IIS).
Oh really? You say "peddles" so I assume it's not for free. So how much would it cost me to buy the BSD/IRIX/Linux/Solaris versions?