Nope.
On a casual hacker's day, 60% of the sites he hacked were on IIS and 30% were on Apache.
The interesting ratio is 60/20 to 30/60, which implies that IIS is 6 times as likely to be hacked as Apache. ( as well as 4 times as likely to be down;)
I disagree. Your test is maybe the only statistically valid means of measuring customer satisfaction. If IIS somehow is responsible for a disproportionate number of bad sites, then there is a problem with IIS.
Thanks for the links. Surprising, not that Apache was much better than IIS (about 4:1), but that these large professional sites are down about as much as/. ( with new undebugged perl scripts yet;)
Right. IIS is better at serving static pages from a 4-cpu 4-nic RAID-0 box.
For anything reasonable, Apache/Linux tends to be faster. Considering the inherent robustness of Apache (pre-forked processes), Apache is really the winner even if it were a bit slower.
There is a good reason for Apache's stability, and it is at the expense of speed. The primary httpd spawns a bunch of secondary httpd's which actually service the requests. Configured normally, these child processes serve some number of requests, and then self-destruct. Works wonders for buggy modules and memory leaks.
Small minds and sound bites. As I understand it, Gore was responsible for spearheading support for the internet through congress before there was widespread usage of the internet. I think that Red Hat (in part from IBM's early funding) is heavily involved in American business' acceptance of Linux as a viable alternative.
I do believe that everything has its place.
Right.
Smallpox, Eubola, AIDS and genetic mutations of such.
Just because it exists, does not mean that it should, or that it has a "place". There are a few ways to get it right. There are effectively an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.
>>WHen a company has a product that works well with another one of theyre products, they will promote it, right? Thats what this is.
From my own experience using Outlook with Microsoft Exchange, they do NOT work well together. We have switched from internal Microsoft Exchange to external Unix Qmail for our internal e-mail. Over dialup yet.
If so, you may have discovered a very interesting security hole. In an effort to improve speed, allocated memory is not cleared, but contains prior contents. Freed memory is not cleared. Not too difficult to imagine that the TNEF data contains information that you would rather not expose to the email recipient. Similar to allocating a big chunk of disk and reading it for leftover contents.
If you have a swamp in your backyard, you do make natural gas (methane) as a natural byproduct of organic decomposition. The problem is to gather it and deodorize it.
Errrr,
What was the bug?
Seems like the bug includes all the modules and database entries that were dependent on those three lines of code. The idea of modules is to localize stuff, not smear it all over the place!
Orthogonal is the right word. Anything less is weak and confusing.
>>Having "strong central control" is orthogonal to "self-organization".
This means that having "strong central control" tells you nothing about whether or not it is "self-organized". And vice-versa.
Not sure that I agree with your premise, though. Seems like most groups are composed of followers who will take any kind of leadership they can get;)
I suspect you're right.
>>Components in a multi-threaded program can no longer be tested in abstraction...
The key to handling anything large and complex has to involve compartmentalizing, so that bugs in compartment A have almost no chance of socializing with bugs in compartment B. Beware of the term "modularity", most uses of the term have no idea of the concept. A module includes ALL the strings attached.
Slashdot Mirror
>>or somebody doesn't know what they are doing...
;)
But, how do you find out what is going on.
>> or what hardware to buy
or what software to buy
>>but don't waste the latest high end hardware on it.
You mean like the new high-end IBM mainframes???
Sorry, but NT only runs on cheap hardware.
Nope. ;)
On a casual hacker's day, 60% of the sites he hacked were on IIS and 30% were on Apache.
The interesting ratio is 60/20 to 30/60, which implies that IIS is 6 times as likely to be hacked as Apache. ( as well as 4 times as likely to be down
I disagree. Your test is maybe the only statistically valid means of measuring customer satisfaction. If IIS somehow is responsible for a disproportionate number of bad sites, then there is a problem with IIS.
Thanks for the links. Surprising, not that Apache was much better than IIS (about 4:1), but that these large professional sites are down about as much as /. ( with new undebugged perl scripts yet ;)
Right. IIS is better at serving static pages from a 4-cpu 4-nic RAID-0 box.
For anything reasonable, Apache/Linux tends to be faster. Considering the inherent robustness of Apache (pre-forked processes), Apache is really the winner even if it were a bit slower.
>>what is the point of having an administrator's account if he can't do anything?
It's Microsoft.
There is a good reason for Apache's stability, and it is at the expense of speed. The primary httpd spawns a bunch of secondary httpd's which actually service the requests. Configured normally, these child processes serve some number of requests, and then self-destruct. Works wonders for buggy modules and memory leaks.
What's worse than bad news? No news.
At least it seems to provoke a lot of controversy and a few intelligent posts (such as yours).
Small minds and sound bites. As I understand it, Gore was responsible for spearheading support for the internet through congress before there was widespread usage of the internet. I think that Red Hat (in part from IBM's early funding) is heavily involved in American business' acceptance of Linux as a viable alternative.
Native S/390 support and a journaled file system. I think we are seeing the beginnings of a new breed of Linux.
What makes you think that is the only hole? Or that all the holes are fixable?
Somehow I would expect .NET to be as complete and useful as POSIX under Windows NT. ;)
their, they're, there
Actually, I think this emphasises the point he was making. Any "sour note" distracts from the message.
I do believe that everything has its place.
Right.
Smallpox, Eubola, AIDS and genetic mutations of such.
Just because it exists, does not mean that it should, or that it has a "place". There are a few ways to get it right. There are effectively an infinite number of ways to get it wrong.
>>WHen a company has a product that works well with another one of theyre products, they will promote it, right? Thats what this is.
From my own experience using Outlook with Microsoft Exchange, they do NOT work well together. We have switched from internal Microsoft Exchange to external Unix Qmail for our internal e-mail. Over dialup yet.
If so, you may have discovered a very interesting security hole. In an effort to improve speed, allocated memory is not cleared, but contains prior contents. Freed memory is not cleared. Not too difficult to imagine that the TNEF data contains information that you would rather not expose to the email recipient. Similar to allocating a big chunk of disk and reading it for leftover contents.
When Microsoft has a monopoly, actually it is.
How many nationalized versions of EBCDIC are there? Seems like there are many, and extremely hard to get ahold of.
Consider how much of the popularity of the automobile (in the general public) is due to hacks on engines, etc and auto races.
If you have a swamp in your backyard, you do make natural gas (methane) as a natural byproduct of organic decomposition. The problem is to gather it and deodorize it.
Errrr,
What was the bug?
Seems like the bug includes all the modules and database entries that were dependent on those three lines of code. The idea of modules is to localize stuff, not smear it all over the place!
Different skill sets:
1. Finding that a bug exists.
2. Finding what the bug is.
3. Fixing the bug.
Orthogonal is the right word. Anything less is weak and confusing.
;)
>>Having "strong central control" is orthogonal to "self-organization".
This means that having "strong central control" tells you nothing about whether or not it is "self-organized". And vice-versa.
Not sure that I agree with your premise, though. Seems like most groups are composed of followers who will take any kind of leadership they can get
I suspect you're right.
>>Components in a multi-threaded program can no longer be tested in abstraction...
The key to handling anything large and complex has to involve compartmentalizing, so that bugs in compartment A have almost no chance of socializing with bugs in compartment B. Beware of the term "modularity", most uses of the term have no idea of the concept. A module includes ALL the strings attached.