Of course it is. Microsoft should be changing their slogan from "Where do you want to go today?" to "What will we make you use today?"
Windows 98 was reasonable, behind a firewall, because it performed well on legacy hardware. XP strains most hardware below 1GHz and for what? The Fisher~Price GUI? The 'improved' security? Hmm, I wonder...
What specs will Vista demand? And will the security be on a par with most Unices? How will the security to cycles ratios compare?
Re:Just another Microsoft Advertising Campaign
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 0
I'd have to agree with this point about Microsoft negotiating with companies that can help them to distort the statistics. Apaceh is the de-facto standard for HTTP serving. Microsoft should look to go back to basics and sort out the fundamental problems, before they go trying to expose innocent parties to the vulnerabilities that they suffer from.
Unfortunately money still and always will talk. As long as Microsoft can throw money at marketing and propaganda campaigne, statistics such as these will always crop up. As more people run their own web servers, I'm sure the statistics will swing back to Apache's advantage. Real people just can't afford to be running IIS, whether financially or in terms of sanity and piece of mind.
I wasn't being snobbish. I don't let it on the network, because it is the only Windows install I have here and I don't want to set up rules to allow this machine on. I do OS fingerprinting and by not willingly allowing Windows on the LAN it helps to keep things simple.
The closed source nature of Windows means that I cannot be sure of what a Windows machine is saying over the LAN, not that I am overly sure of what my Unix/Linux might be 'getting up to'. I also resent having to check a Windows box for trojans and such like. It is an informed and reasoned decision not to allow the w2k install to have net access. It keeps things simple and that is how I like it.
Apologies if that offends anybody, it wasn't my intention and I think I have been misinterpreted slightly. The Windows 2000 install does what I need, in playing a few games, without the need to keep it updated with patches and other updates, that I am not permitted to look inside of.
A great Unix, not the widest support and not the most user friendly, but it does several jobs for me. Server or desktop, I've learned to get OpenBSD to meet all of my computing needs, with the obvious exception of PC gaming, for which I keep a 'legacy' w2k install and never let it on the network.
OpenBSD's code correctness and elegance through simplicity is what got me hooked and for me, it is the most logically designed and thus, managed, operating system that I have ever used. I'm not out to start a flame war, just evangelising what I love to use.
It has its faults and is not the ideal choice in every scenario, but it gives me everything I need and it doesn't get in the way of me developing things to meet my needs, where they don't already exist. I still run a few Linux boxes and one FreeBSD box, but I seriously prefer my OpenBSD boxes for day to day usage and web serving.
For me, you really can't beat a bit of grep, awk, wc and other bits of shell jiggery-pokery. I don't feel the need for webstats beautifiers, although they do have their place. With the vulnerabilities in awstats I wouldn't touch it with somebody else's barge pole these days, which is a shame because I used to really like the look and feel of it.
Analog and webalizer, from ports, might get used on some deployments, from time to time, but that is probably as far as it goes. Hit the console and be your own log file analyser, it is more fun and far more flexible.
As IE generally sticks two fingers up to standards, I have long since given up on checking to see if my pages display ok in IE. I design them for Firefox and W3C compliance. In my mind that is what says if they are good to go live.
If it doesn't display properly in IE, that's Microsoft's fault and problem, not mine. If visitors tire of IE not rendering standards compliant pages properly, then it is up to them to put pressure on Microsoft to com into line with the rest of the planet. Market share does not indicate being correct.
Indeed. The code suggested can result in exposure of the source code of scripts and is one of the complexities that I do not want to be juggling with. No need to be wasting precious processor cycles on rules that then need extra processing to counteract.
As I say, simplicity is the key for how I like to do things.
My pages validate as XHTML 1.0 Strict and are well formed. My web site, my server, my choice. I have my reasons for how pages leave my server and I and my professional conscience/pride are happy with how I am doing things. I know that using mod_rewrite rules according to accept headers is a trivial matter, but I choose not to. I believe in simplicity where ever possible and do not believe in introducing complexity where it is not mandatory to do so.
Thanks anyway.
Yes I care about W3C standards compliance. I take pride in my work and do not settle for bodges. There are also benefits to producing clean code, in bandwidth and processing savings. More sites and publishers should be making the effort to ensure that the pages they present are in compliance to accepted standards. My site http://slashboot.org/ is standards compliant and I take pride in that. I prefer XHTML Strict, as I see this becoming a future standard of choice for the majority of people who also take pride in their work
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is. Microsoft should be changing their slogan from "Where do you want to go today?" to "What will we make you use today?"
Windows 98 was reasonable, behind a firewall, because it performed well on legacy hardware. XP strains most hardware below 1GHz and for what? The Fisher~Price GUI? The 'improved' security? Hmm, I wonder...
What specs will Vista demand? And will the security be on a par with most Unices? How will the security to cycles ratios compare?
I'd have to agree with this point about Microsoft negotiating with companies that can help them to distort the statistics. Apaceh is the de-facto standard for HTTP serving. Microsoft should look to go back to basics and sort out the fundamental problems, before they go trying to expose innocent parties to the vulnerabilities that they suffer from.
Unfortunately money still and always will talk. As long as Microsoft can throw money at marketing and propaganda campaigne, statistics such as these will always crop up. As more people run their own web servers, I'm sure the statistics will swing back to Apache's advantage. Real people just can't afford to be running IIS, whether financially or in terms of sanity and piece of mind.
I wasn't being snobbish. I don't let it on the network, because it is the only Windows install I have here and I don't want to set up rules to allow this machine on. I do OS fingerprinting and by not willingly allowing Windows on the LAN it helps to keep things simple.
The closed source nature of Windows means that I cannot be sure of what a Windows machine is saying over the LAN, not that I am overly sure of what my Unix/Linux might be 'getting up to'. I also resent having to check a Windows box for trojans and such like. It is an informed and reasoned decision not to allow the w2k install to have net access. It keeps things simple and that is how I like it.
Apologies if that offends anybody, it wasn't my intention and I think I have been misinterpreted slightly. The Windows 2000 install does what I need, in playing a few games, without the need to keep it updated with patches and other updates, that I am not permitted to look inside of.
A great Unix, not the widest support and not the most user friendly, but it does several jobs for me. Server or desktop, I've learned to get OpenBSD to meet all of my computing needs, with the obvious exception of PC gaming, for which I keep a 'legacy' w2k install and never let it on the network.
OpenBSD's code correctness and elegance through simplicity is what got me hooked and for me, it is the most logically designed and thus, managed, operating system that I have ever used. I'm not out to start a flame war, just evangelising what I love to use.
It has its faults and is not the ideal choice in every scenario, but it gives me everything I need and it doesn't get in the way of me developing things to meet my needs, where they don't already exist. I still run a few Linux boxes and one FreeBSD box, but I seriously prefer my OpenBSD boxes for day to day usage and web serving.
For me, you really can't beat a bit of grep, awk, wc and other bits of shell jiggery-pokery. I don't feel the need for webstats beautifiers, although they do have their place. With the vulnerabilities in awstats I wouldn't touch it with somebody else's barge pole these days, which is a shame because I used to really like the look and feel of it.
Analog and webalizer, from ports, might get used on some deployments, from time to time, but that is probably as far as it goes. Hit the console and be your own log file analyser, it is more fun and far more flexible.
As IE generally sticks two fingers up to standards, I have long since given up on checking to see if my pages display ok in IE. I design them for Firefox and W3C compliance. In my mind that is what says if they are good to go live.
If it doesn't display properly in IE, that's Microsoft's fault and problem, not mine. If visitors tire of IE not rendering standards compliant pages properly, then it is up to them to put pressure on Microsoft to com into line with the rest of the planet. Market share does not indicate being correct.
Indeed. The code suggested can result in exposure of the source code of scripts and is one of the complexities that I do not want to be juggling with. No need to be wasting precious processor cycles on rules that then need extra processing to counteract.
As I say, simplicity is the key for how I like to do things.
My pages validate as XHTML 1.0 Strict and are well formed. My web site, my server, my choice. I have my reasons for how pages leave my server and I and my professional conscience/pride are happy with how I am doing things. I know that using mod_rewrite rules according to accept headers is a trivial matter, but I choose not to. I believe in simplicity where ever possible and do not believe in introducing complexity where it is not mandatory to do so. Thanks anyway.
Yes I care about W3C standards compliance. I take pride in my work and do not settle for bodges. There are also benefits to producing clean code, in bandwidth and processing savings. More sites and publishers should be making the effort to ensure that the pages they present are in compliance to accepted standards. My site http://slashboot.org/ is standards compliant and I take pride in that. I prefer XHTML Strict, as I see this becoming a future standard of choice for the majority of people who also take pride in their work