longevity - people should still be talking about it 20 or 30 years later, or even beyond. social and/or technological impact - it should change some aspect of life, either by directly changing every-day life or indirectly by changing how people view the world
Ok, so it hasn't been around for 20 or 30 years. But I believe that it will be. And did it have an impact, well there was an article on/. a little while back that said if it wasn't for Apache, then we would all be using NT servers.
"eleganc e" - note however, that this does not necessarily equate simplicty. (Some people may consider the Saturn V booster a truly moby hack, as it got its job done precisely well with no doubt as to its purpose, but was anything but simple.)
Look, it was done with patches. It wasn't until they realized that they had a full web server that it became a program. How more elegant is that
that not-easily definable quality of "I shoulda thought of that!" A Great Hack doesn't have to be "not immediately obvious" - it may just be something nobody else has done yet. For example: the WWW - there's nothing "unobvious" about defining a set of page layout macros that include text and graphics and a way to transmit and view them, but it didn't become commonplace until Tim Berners-Lee made it a big deal.
Hey, right after WWW became big, I should have wrote a "free" web server and I could have been famous!
There you have it. Thats my vote for one of the Top Ten Greatest Hacks!
Stated in the article, there are different reasons to set up a network. Where *nix will be better in one case and NT could be better in another.
I don't know what problems you had with Unix, but I never had any problem setting up networks for file servers, web servers, print servers, etc. In fact it takes but a day to do most. But what software you run does matter. The things I do can be accomplished mostly with Perl. I also write my own applications and have a suit of apps to choose from. It would probably take a lot longer for me to do the same on NT. That is because of experience or lack of. If you don't have good Unix admins, then it would be harder to do something with Unix. But same goes for NT.
You also can purchase several e-commerce appliations for Unix, you don't HAVE to always get the apps with the company you bought the OS from. There are better ways;)
After reading the article I quickly understood that this was not a competeing product with WINE. Then I read the few comments that were posted at the time and it seemed that others felt the same way. I just took it up as one of those "Exagerated Headlines" the/. usually posts.
I have read a lot of comments talking about little shops that take advantage of customer's ignorance. And I have no doubt that there are many. But I have to give an example of an honest one. The shop I go to has been around for several years. And there's good reason that it has been (as the other comments state the bad ones fold). Its name is Unicorn (plug, plug) and is filled with the most honest techs you can imagine. No I don't work there, I just seem to live there. If something doesn't work, they replace it with no questions asked. Once I bought a power supply that had the wires marked wrong. After not listening to my Upgrading PC book about not trusting the colors of wires, I almost got electricuted and destroyed the power supply. They replaced it free, even after I explained what happened.
Moral: If the shop has been around a while, and you hear good things about it, Then go there. Don't trust any "new" shops, unless you really know your stuff. But of course, all/. people know there stuff, now don't you;)
Oh please....you are comparing your site with that of Yahoo or some huge internet portal/search engine/retail outlet.
No, I'm not comparing my site to Yahoo. But he did mention his personal workstation. So I am comparing my site to that:
, my personal workstation (too difficult to manage, no clean, coherent environment is presented), my mail server (no OS should crash once a month),
But to compare to Yahoo, what about Slashdot?
Also, if I can't say that BSD is better because XYZ Corp is using it, you can't say Linux is better because Burlington Coat Factory, or company ABC uses it instead of Windows.
I (and really no one else I know) says that Linux is better because Burlington Coat Factory is using it. We say that Linux CAN be used in an enterprise system showing Burlington Coat Factory as an example. I'm not knocking BSD, I like it. But I like the license of Linux better since it gives more to the enhancement of knowledge. When something is closed, knowledge is lost. But when something is opened, knowledge is gained. Taking something that is free/open and making it closed is what can cause unnecessary forks. If all the Unixs had to be kept open/free, I would highly doubt that there would have been the fork that was created. Steven Rostedt
Mot users do not care about source code. You guys are so geeked out, you think everyone wants source. Most people don't even know where to plug in a mouse
Lets see here, are all his users Mom and Pop types. Better yet, are his customers Mom and Pops or are they businesses. Sure, my mom doesn't care about the source. But if I was running a business, I would like to have access to the source, and be able to modify it. Am I a geek that likes to play with the code? Maybe, but if I was a manager, I would not want to be dependant on a single source for updates. If I don't like the vendor, or that vendor goes out of business, I would like to at least hire someone to take over. The point about GPL is not that you can access and modify the source. But you can always find someone who can.
That's the problem with Microsoft. If you buy their products, they are the only ones who can support you. I don't mean help you with using the product. But being able to change the product to suit your needs. If Microsoft decides to come out with another version of the product that no longer supports your application so you need to stay with the older product. Will you still get support for it? The idea of open/modifiable source is that I am not stuck with one option for who supports me. I can go anywhere.
If you were running the project, it would be history because you would be releasing your hard work to the public, and would be broke in no time, as no one would then be required to pay
If you need support, you need to pay. Software could be considered a product, or it can be considered a service. I like to think that software is a service. Who says that if I create an application, that I can rest on my laurels and sit and take from everyone without having to keep it up to date. Software is something that should be paid to create. Its hard today since we are stuck with the idea that software is a product. And it has been produced that way. If it started as a service, then it can be increased and advanced as a service. Like gcc.
Yahoo, Walnut Creek, Hotmail, my personal workstation (too difficult to manage, no clean, coherent environment is presented), my mail server (no OS should crash once a month), Best.com, USWest, Ipsilon, AltaVista, Microsoft, Apache, Whistle...
All of these have tried Linux first?
I understand that they use *BSD but the claim you make is that Linux couldn't handle it. If that is the case, then they must have tried it first without success.
My web site acts as a firewall, a ftp server, a web server, a DNS server and even a Team Fortress server. It runs on a sorry Pentium 133 with 24 megs and has (so far) an uptime of 36 days. The reason for my last reboot was installing a new fridge, and had to install a new curcuit breaker, thus shutting down the power to my house (and server). I have yet to crash it. Something must be wrong if you crash yours once a month!
Don't get me wrong, I like *BSD, but don't go yipping that *BSD is better than Linux just because its being used by commercial sites. Also I would like to note that the suggestion of using the BSD license so you don't have to give the source is the reason I don't like the BSD license. This takes away the rights of the users. But thats another story.
Those that prefer the BSD license seem to be the ones taking someone elses work, changing it a little to make it theirs. Those that prefer the GPL license seem to be the ones that create something from scratch, and thus, does not like it when others take their work and don't give back to the community. Steven Rostedt
I believe you will see alot more of this in the future. With the Internet, we can connect hundreds, if not thousands, of computers to perform a single task. Well, actually, each computer will perform a segment of a single task. With more and more computers hooked to the Net doing nothing, we could use these machines for advancing technology. I would prefer to have the source to these programs that get installed, or atleast an outside inspection of the code, since you could abuse this access into other's machines.
This contributed effort I think is a Good Thing. But like I said, it should always carry the source with it. I know that this could cause problems with those that tweak the code and create problems with the final project. There should be a way to check against this. Like randomly giving the same tasks to different computers, and comparing the result of both.
Who knows, maybe someday this will help in curing diseases and diagnose DNA.
But I believe that the main difference in this case is that www.xenu.net was just using the terms in Meta tags. Now I know there has been a lot of arguements about what goes in these tags, but I always thought the purpose of these tags were to state the topic of the web page. Now if people constantly sue over what goes in these tags, then we will still have to rely on the actual content. And thus go back in progress.
They are not using the term Scientology to compete with them. But to actually talk about them. A better analogy would be to say that another paper started writing articles about the New York Times. Can the New York Times sue because they are using their name? Its not to be confusing but actually the opposite. They are using the Scientology name to show EXACTLY who they are talking about.
Yeah, I read the directions/Help file after getting the.xinitrc file back. I was a little excited about the product. I like it a lot. Like a little kid at X-mas, I didn't want to read anything before playing. At least I know my backups work;^)
I wish there was more documentation about how to configure.xfwmrc. I took the example from the/var/XFCE directory but it doesn't list all the options. I would be nice to see an example that shows all the key bindings and menus. Maybe if I get mine fully finished, I'll send it to them, so they can use it as an example.
Becareful about running xfce_setup. It removes your.xinitrc file. This is what I get for not reading directions and just playing;0) Time to pull out the old backup tapes.
Hey, after reading this article I downloaded it (had to use a mirror because/. was slowing it down;-) I compiled it and I now have it running. It is a lot like CDE, unfortunately that part I don't care for. But I actually like this better. It is quick. And now I'm going to go look at how to configure it. I've been using just fvwm2 with gnome panel running. Now I have gnome panel running with this. I don't care for enlightenment since it seems to slow my machine down. I used Afterstep for a while, but nothing seemed to beat fvwm in speed. Which is what I need.
So, I like this. If you like the fast window manager, and don't really care about the extras, I recommend this. (you must realize my experience with this is about 2 minutes)
Anyway it is GPL so it may work nicely with other gnome apps. And maybe KDE as well, since the two seem to be kissing and making up.
I wouldn't say that his complaint is with the OpenBSD folks not supporting the Linux OS. He just stated that they didn't incorporate the PAM standard. He is mainly complaining that they didn't give credit to the poor Australian chap for his work.
I disagree with him not with you arguement. But if you go to the site you will see the following credits:
Credits -
The OpenBSD team 'jonchen' - the original author of PAM support of SSH Dan Brosemer <odin@linuxfreak.com> - Autoconf and build fixes & Debian scripts Niels Kristian Bech Jensen <nkbj@image.dk> - Makefile patch Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin.dahyabhai@pobox.com> - PAM environment patch Phil Hands <phil@hands.com> - Debian scripts, assorted patches Niels Kristian Bech Jensen <nkbj@image.dk> - Makefile patches Marc G. Fournier <marc.fournier@acadiau.ca> - Solaris patches Thomas Neumann <tom@smart.ruhr.de> - Shadow passwords Jim Knoble <jmknoble@pobox.com> - RPM spec file fixes
Ok, I understand your point. But it is more likely that the author was showing off the code and someone else published it. Instead of just going off and sending it to other people. s?he did the right thing to give it to the security agency first, so that if it gets out, then there will be a defense against it. The person is still a [h(cr)]acker, but with a conscience. Steven Rostedt
Ah, but AOL is not a monopoly. You don't like paying for that service, then go to another Online ISP. I'm very happy not using AOL. But this is the case that MS is using its monopoly to invade the server market. If it wasn't for Apache/*nix then this is definitely an abuse of power. Just buying a lesser cost version of W2K without IIS would also be supporting IIS. AOL doesn't come with Mozilla, and if it did, then it would probably cost more.
What the company does with its profits is one thing, but to make me buy a product without a choice is another. Sorry but I'm against this whole thing of bundling software without given a choice to buy individually. Today you can't buy Word without getting the rest of the package, but thats another story.
Is it ethical to abuse your power as a monopoly? Then it must be ethical to charge large amounts for air on Mars in the movie Total Recall. Steven Rostedt
If I write my own DLL's, then why not. I can't make an application (which is all that is) to do something that connects to other machines. It's like saying that they can bundle IE with a server and make the workstation license say that you don't have a right to use a browser with this product. So then I can't use either IE or Netscape with workstation, and I must buy the server. Steven Rostedt
The second point O'Reilly was saying is against MS' rational for not letting the users use server options with the workstation. that it was protecting its customers because NT Workstation was not suitable for use as a server operating system This is saying that the Workstation version is not made for acting as a server. Thus they showed that it was basically the same code as the server with some options turned off. Their argument about the Workstation version is not valid. No where did they say, don't use it with server functions because you didn't pay me for it. If the money for the Server is for development, then so must be the money for the workstation. If I buy the workstation, why can't I use it the way I want? The competetion also paid for developers to make the workstation act like a server. The point O'Reilly made is that MS was upset that you used the workstation and paid someone else to make it into a server. This is called competition!
The third point, like you mentioned about paying for development and not the bits on the computer, is... I don't want to pay for the development of IIS. I should have a cheaper version of W2K without IIS that I can place Apache on. This isn't competition just because I can turn IIS off and use Apache. MS doesn't care because I already bought IIS! This is the case with IE. I don't want to pay for the development for IE and then pay for the development of Netscape. If it is bundled, that just means you paid for it, thus MS doesn't care if you use it or not.
It's like Caldera's arguement. They went to OEM's with their product, but was told that they have an agreement with MS that they must pay MS for every computer they sell, with or without windows. So why be forced to pay two companies for one system?
No. The bottle necks in Linux are already being wrung out. But the Apache/Linux combo still outperforms todays bandwidth. As long as that is true, performance is not too much of an issue. Remember that this test was only on static pages. It would be interesting to see how the tests go on dynamic ones, and with the 2.4 kernel.
Also the Linux/Apache is still the best band for the buck (with the exception of maybe *BSD/Apache). I still believe that Linux will continue to advance in its development faster than any of the other *nixs and definitely MS.
Slashdot Mirror
My reasons:
Ok, so it hasn't been around for 20 or 30 years. But I believe that it will be. And did it have an impact, well there was an article on
Look, it was done with patches. It wasn't until they realized that they had a full web server that it became a program. How more elegant is that
may just be something nobody else has done yet. For example: the WWW - there's nothing "unobvious" about defining a set of page layout macros that include text and graphics and a way to transmit and view them, but it didn't become commonplace
until Tim Berners-Lee made it a big deal.
Hey, right after WWW became big, I should have wrote a "free" web server and I could have been famous!
There you have it. Thats my vote for one of the Top Ten Greatest Hacks!
Way to go you Apache guys (and gals?)!!!!!
Steven Rostedt
Pay more, for the lack of blue.
Also my NT clients don't go blue, they just get slower and slower and slower, then they lock.
Ok my clients need to run for days as well as the servers. This is why most of my critical apps are written on Unix (Unix servers with Linux clients).
Steven Rostedt
Sounds like your people didn't know Unix.
;)
Stated in the article, there are different reasons to set up a network. Where *nix will be better in one case and NT could be better in another.
I don't know what problems you had with Unix, but I never had any problem setting up networks for file servers, web servers, print servers, etc. In fact it takes but a day to do most. But what software you run does matter. The things I do can be accomplished mostly with Perl. I also write my own applications and have a suit of apps to choose from. It would probably take a lot longer for me to do the same on NT. That is because of experience or lack of. If you don't have good Unix admins, then it would be harder to do something with Unix. But same goes for NT.
You also can purchase several e-commerce appliations for Unix, you don't HAVE to always get the apps with the company you bought the OS from. There are better ways
Steven Rostedt
After reading the article I quickly understood that this was not a competeing product with WINE. Then I read the few comments that were posted at the time and it seemed that others felt the same way. I just took it up as one of those "Exagerated Headlines" the /. usually posts.
No harm done, but thanks anyway Justin.
Steven Rostedt
I have read a lot of comments talking about little shops that take advantage of customer's ignorance. And I have no doubt that there are many. But I have to give an example of an honest one. The shop I go to has been around for several years. And there's good reason that it has been (as the other comments state the bad ones fold). Its name is Unicorn (plug, plug) and is filled with the most honest techs you can imagine. No I don't work there, I just seem to live there. If something doesn't work, they replace it with no questions asked. Once I bought a power supply that had the wires marked wrong. After not listening to my Upgrading PC book about not trusting the colors of wires, I almost got electricuted and destroyed the power supply. They replaced it free, even after I explained what happened.
/. people know there stuff, now don't you ;)
Moral: If the shop has been around a while, and you hear good things about it, Then go there. Don't trust any "new" shops, unless you really know your stuff. But of course, all
Steven Rostedt
Oh please....you are comparing your site with that of Yahoo or some huge internet portal/search engine/retail outlet.
No, I'm not comparing my site to Yahoo. But he did mention his personal workstation. So I am comparing my site to that:
, my personal workstation (too difficult to manage, no clean, coherent environment is presented), my mail server (no OS should crash once a month),
But to compare to Yahoo, what about Slashdot?
Also, if I can't say that BSD is better because XYZ Corp is using it, you can't say Linux is better because Burlington Coat Factory, or company ABC uses it instead of Windows.
I (and really no one else I know) says that Linux is better because Burlington Coat Factory is using it. We say that Linux CAN be used in an enterprise system showing Burlington Coat Factory as an example. I'm not knocking BSD, I like it. But I like the license of Linux better since it gives more to the enhancement of knowledge. When something is closed, knowledge is lost. But when something is opened, knowledge is gained. Taking something that is free/open and making it closed is what can cause unnecessary forks. If all the Unixs had to be kept open/free, I would highly doubt that there would have been the fork that was created.
Steven Rostedt
Mot users do not care about source code. You guys are so geeked out, you think everyone wants source. Most people don't even know where to plug in a mouse
Lets see here, are all his users Mom and Pop types. Better yet, are his customers Mom and Pops or are they businesses. Sure, my mom doesn't care about the source. But if I was running a business, I would like to have access to the source, and be able to modify it. Am I a geek that likes to play with the code? Maybe, but if I was a manager, I would not want to be dependant on a single source for updates. If I don't like the vendor, or that vendor goes out of business, I would like to at least hire someone to take over. The point about GPL is not that you can access and modify the source. But you can always find someone who can.
That's the problem with Microsoft. If you buy their products, they are the only ones who can support you. I don't mean help you with using the product. But being able to change the product to suit your needs. If Microsoft decides to come out with another version of the product that no longer supports your application so you need to stay with the older product. Will you still get support for it? The idea of open/modifiable source is that I am not stuck with one option for who supports me. I can go anywhere.
If you were running the project, it would be history because you would be releasing your hard work to the public, and would be broke in no time, as no one would then be required to pay
If you need support, you need to pay. Software could be considered a product, or it can be considered a service. I like to think that software is a service. Who says that if I create an application, that I can rest on my laurels and sit and take from everyone without having to keep it up to date. Software is something that should be paid to create. Its hard today since we are stuck with the idea that software is a product. And it has been produced that way. If it started as a service, then it can be increased and advanced as a service. Like gcc.
Steven Rostedt
Yahoo, Walnut Creek, Hotmail, my personal workstation (too difficult to manage, no clean, coherent environment is presented), my mail server (no OS
should crash once a month), Best.com, USWest, Ipsilon, AltaVista, Microsoft, Apache, Whistle...
All of these have tried Linux first?
I understand that they use *BSD but the claim you make is that Linux couldn't handle it. If that is the case, then they must have tried it first without success.
My web site acts as a firewall, a ftp server, a web server, a DNS server and even a Team Fortress server. It runs on a sorry Pentium 133 with 24 megs and has (so far) an uptime of 36 days. The reason for my last reboot was installing a new fridge, and had to install a new curcuit breaker, thus shutting down the power to my house (and server). I have yet to crash it. Something must be wrong if you crash yours once a month!
Don't get me wrong, I like *BSD, but don't go yipping that *BSD is better than Linux just because its being used by commercial sites. Also I would like to note that the suggestion of using the BSD license so you don't have to give the source is the reason I don't like the BSD license. This takes away the rights of the users. But thats another story.
Those that prefer the BSD license seem to be the ones taking someone elses work, changing it a little to make it theirs. Those that prefer the GPL license seem to be the ones that create something from scratch, and thus, does not like it when others take their work and don't give back to the community.
Steven Rostedt
I believe you will see alot more of this in the future. With the Internet, we can connect hundreds, if not thousands, of computers to perform a single task. Well, actually, each computer will perform a segment of a single task. With more and more computers hooked to the Net doing nothing, we could use these machines for advancing technology. I would prefer to have the source to these programs that get installed, or atleast an outside inspection of the code, since you could abuse this access into other's machines.
This contributed effort I think is a Good Thing. But like I said, it should always carry the source with it. I know that this could cause problems with those that tweak the code and create problems with the final project. There should be a way to check against this. Like randomly giving the same tasks to different computers, and comparing the result of both.
Who knows, maybe someday this will help in curing diseases and diagnose DNA.
Steven Rostedt
But I believe that the main difference in this case is that www.xenu.net was just using the terms in Meta tags. Now I know there has been a lot of arguements about what goes in these tags, but I always thought the purpose of these tags were to state the topic of the web page. Now if people constantly sue over what goes in these tags, then we will still have to rely on the actual content. And thus go back in progress.
They are not using the term Scientology to compete with them. But to actually talk about them. A better analogy would be to say that another paper started writing articles about the New York Times. Can the New York Times sue because they are using their name? Its not to be confusing but actually the opposite. They are using the Scientology name to show EXACTLY who they are talking about.
Steven Rostedt
Yeah, I read the directions/Help file after getting the .xinitrc file back. I was a little excited about the product. I like it a lot. ;^)
.xfwmrc. I took the example from the /var/XFCE directory but it doesn't list all the options. I would be nice to see an example that shows all the key bindings and menus. Maybe if I get mine fully finished, I'll send it to them, so they can use it as an example.
Like a little kid at X-mas, I didn't want to read anything before playing. At least I know my backups work
I wish there was more documentation about how to configure
Steven Rostedt
Actually XFce is a desktop environment! But it claims that it can work with Gnome as well. The Window Manager that comes with XFce is called XFwm.
Steven Rostedt
Becareful about running xfce_setup. It removes your .xinitrc file. This is what I get for not reading directions and just playing ;0) Time to pull out the old backup tapes.
Steven Rostedt
Also you can goto http://www.baysurf.net/linux/xfce/ but it seems slower.
Steven Rostedt
yes,
goto http://tsikora.tiac.net/xfce/
Steven Rostedt
Hey, after reading this article I downloaded it (had to use a mirror because /. was slowing it down ;-) I compiled it and I now have it running. It is a lot like CDE, unfortunately that part I don't care for. But I actually like this better. It is quick. And now I'm going to go look at how to configure it. I've been using just fvwm2 with gnome panel running. Now I have gnome panel running with this. I don't care for enlightenment since it seems to slow my machine down. I used Afterstep for a while, but nothing seemed to beat fvwm in speed. Which is what I need.
So, I like this. If you like the fast window manager, and don't really care about the extras, I recommend this. (you must realize my experience with this is about 2 minutes)
Anyway it is GPL so it may work nicely with other gnome apps. And maybe KDE as well, since the two seem to be kissing and making up.
Steven Rostedt
I wouldn't say that his complaint is with the OpenBSD folks not supporting the Linux OS. He just stated that they didn't incorporate the PAM standard. He is mainly complaining that they didn't give credit to the poor Australian chap for his work.
I disagree with him not with you arguement. But if you go to the site you will see the following credits:
Credits -
The OpenBSD team
'jonchen' - the original author of PAM support of SSH
Dan Brosemer <odin@linuxfreak.com> - Autoconf and build fixes & Debian scripts
Niels Kristian Bech Jensen <nkbj@image.dk> - Makefile patch
Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin.dahyabhai@pobox.com> - PAM environment patch
Phil Hands <phil@hands.com> - Debian scripts, assorted patches
Niels Kristian Bech Jensen <nkbj@image.dk> - Makefile patches
Marc G. Fournier <marc.fournier@acadiau.ca> - Solaris patches
Thomas Neumann <tom@smart.ruhr.de> - Shadow passwords
Jim Knoble <jmknoble@pobox.com> - RPM spec file fixes
Steven Rostedt
Ok, I understand your point. But it is more likely that the author was showing off the code and someone else published it. Instead of just going off and sending it to other people. s?he did the right thing to give it to the security agency first, so that if it gets out, then there will be a defense against it. The person is still a [h(cr)]acker, but with a conscience.
Steven Rostedt
If the author sent it directly to the security boys 'n' girls, how did it get into the wild?
Um, if you read the story, it was posted on a Japanese web site.
Steven Rostedt
Ah, but AOL is not a monopoly. You don't like paying for that service, then go to another Online ISP. I'm very happy not using AOL. But this is the case that MS is using its monopoly to invade the server market. If it wasn't for Apache/*nix then this is definitely an abuse of power. Just buying a lesser cost version of W2K without IIS would also be supporting IIS. AOL doesn't come with Mozilla, and if it did, then it would probably cost more.
What the company does with its profits is one thing, but to make me buy a product without a choice is another. Sorry but I'm against this whole thing of bundling software without given a choice to buy individually. Today you can't buy Word without getting the rest of the package, but thats another story.
Is it ethical to abuse your power as a monopoly? Then it must be ethical to charge large amounts for air on Mars in the movie Total Recall.
Steven Rostedt
It was an hypothetical situation. I wasn't really saying that browsers are server apps.
Steven Rostedt
If I write my own DLL's, then why not. I can't make an application (which is all that is) to do something that connects to other machines. It's like saying that they can bundle IE with a server and make the workstation license say that you don't have a right to use a browser with this product. So then I can't use either IE or Netscape with workstation, and I must buy the server.
Steven Rostedt
I'll agree with your first point.
The second point O'Reilly was saying is against MS' rational for not letting the users use server options with the workstation. that it was protecting its customers because NT Workstation was not suitable for use as a server operating system This is saying that the Workstation version is not made for acting as a server. Thus they showed that it was basically the same code as the server with some options turned off. Their argument about the Workstation version is not valid. No where did they say, don't use it with server functions because you didn't pay me for it. If the money for the Server is for development, then so must be the money for the workstation. If I buy the workstation, why can't I use it the way I want? The competetion also paid for developers to make the workstation act like a server. The point O'Reilly made is that MS was upset that you used the workstation and paid someone else to make it into a server. This is called competition!
The third point, like you mentioned about paying for development and not the bits on the computer, is... I don't want to pay for the development of IIS. I should have a cheaper version of W2K without IIS that I can place Apache on. This isn't competition just because I can turn IIS off and use Apache. MS doesn't care because I already bought IIS! This is the case with IE. I don't want to pay for the development for IE and then pay for the development of Netscape. If it is bundled, that just means you paid for it, thus MS doesn't care if you use it or not.
It's like Caldera's arguement. They went to OEM's with their product, but was told that they have an agreement with MS that they must pay MS for every computer they sell, with or without windows. So why be forced to pay two companies for one system?
Steven Rostedt
Does anyone else see this as a possibility?
No. The bottle necks in Linux are already being wrung out. But the Apache/Linux combo still outperforms todays bandwidth. As long as that is true, performance is not too much of an issue. Remember that this test was only on static pages. It would be interesting to see how the tests go on dynamic ones, and with the 2.4 kernel.
Also the Linux/Apache is still the best band for the buck (with the exception of maybe *BSD/Apache). I still believe that Linux will continue to advance in its development faster than any of the other *nixs and definitely MS.
Steven Rostedt
I'm waiting to see who plays the role of Japan.
Probably a cable company, or some other company that is not really a computer company but has the leverage to move the computer industry.
Steven Rostedt