| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft books LinuxWorld stand in bid for 'dialogue' | |
|
||
| Time: 02:57 EST/07:57 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Microsoft is to exhibit at LinuxWorld Expo this August, and it appears that the company wants to be nice. Yesterday, Linux Today spotted the Beast's presence on the Expo exhibitor list, and after publicising this was contacted by an apparently kinder, gentler Microsoft. In the shape of Peter Houston, senior director of the Windows Server Product Management Group, who got in touch and explained that it's all about dialogue. The audience is important to Microsoft, and showing up is a first step "towards forming an ongoing dialog with members of the Linux and Open Source community." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 234 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:18:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 5444 (208.180.140.230) at 7/5/2002 8:21:06 PM |
|
Lord British,
Namely because Apache, even when it is running on a Windows platform still shows it Unix colours. While it can and does run on the Windows platform, most of them run on the Linux or BSD Platforms. But in that Light, I can't even compare Apache to IIS 5.0, it isn't a fair comparison. Apache wins hands down. Each software package runs in its own memory and not shared between the group. (IIS 6.0 will do that) Either way, there are a couple of web servers that are Much easier ot run and more secure than either IIS 6.0 or Apache, and they probably don't even show up in the top 10 list. it is OS also. but that is besides the point. The main thing to remember is that INET is Unix, everything that explains INET was based in Unix backgrounds. Although some of those can be generalized to be used anywhere. TCP/IP for example, FTP, all of those INET specs started out in the Unix world. Gopher Hell even the most popular language in the world today C, is a Unix entity. Most of the Standards and Libraries that are associated with C have direct Impact on Unix. El |
| #27 By 1989 (24.159.230.34) at 7/5/2002 8:31:38 PM |
| Eldoen, how can apache not show its Unix colors? The internet was designed around Unix. My point was that Apache is now designed to run equally on all platforms and that LinuxWorld is about an operating system not a web server. Kinda funny that most of the argument is about how a web server performs. |
| #28 By 3339 (67.116.254.206) at 7/5/2002 9:36:46 PM |
|
Lord, the discussion shifted to Apache because soda refuses to admit that open source has produced high quality software. Yes, it is clear that Apache beats IIS hands down. Yes, Linuxworld is a perfectly civilized event about an operating system that puts softies in a tizzy, not about a web server.
I think it's hilarious that el decides to jump into the fray by explaining open sources contribution to the development of the internet and the web. Yes, Microsoft was very late to the game. Yes, they had horrible networking... but several OSes and Novell did networking well, yes. We all know this, el, I don't need the history. You sound bitter about having bought into having a single monster company develop your OS, all your apps, the languages you program in, the sites you visit, the media you consumer, because you seem to forget that ther are many, many Unices and their are a lot of OSes that were around, are still around, or were killed--of these other sources of software, there have been others besides Unix that have been networked, acted as servers, or could view web sites. You think Unix had some special advantage to pass packets? That you couldn't run a web server? The Apache issue is off the topic, LordBritish, but the Apache example is illustrative: it was once dominated by another proprietary piece of software. Netscape once had the lionshare of the market and have utterly been squeezed off the page. Big deal. Yes, Microsoft chiseled away at Netscape, but at the same time, Apache has grown as well in a market that was once 80% Netscape to having over 50% of the marketplace. el (who teaches history?) forgets and should remember is that another proprietary company succeeded doing everything about the internet and web serving before Microsoft did--even without focusing on Unix. soda, you are back to saying monopolies don't exist... or at least for this industry. That's silly, but whatever, you want to think you have a "philosophy." Do youat least admit that yur views are completely contrary to a 100 years of history and the present view of American federal law? Hmm? I also think its hilarious that you discout ISPs... I think their choice of web server is one of the more important view to consider, but whatever... because the jackass paying 19.99 to post pictures of his rectum doesn't know to ask his local ISP, "what server are you running?", the fact that that company that is making money and is hosting large numbers of websites and bandwidth and supporting large amounts of transactions and processing chooses Apache is very relevent. |
| #29 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 7/5/2002 9:43:06 PM |
| sodajerk: ummm, no, Apache's use has been steadily decreasing for a couple of years now, IIS has been inreasing the entire time, up until this last report, where both IIS and Apache lost a bit. |
| #30 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/6/2002 1:24:52 AM |
|
RANT - I guess I don't see the point of that wager. Are you trying to prove that Linux is so difficult to use that you have to be of above average intelligence to make sense out of it?
If so, I agree, so I don't see what basis we would have to wager on. |
| #31 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/6/2002 1:42:28 AM |
|
RANT,
Ahh, you should have clarified. I thought you were talking about desktop OS, even though few users actually use Linux in that capacity. Seemed like a rather unfair sampling. Perhaps you'd rather compare admins and developers? They are, by and large, far more intelligent on the Windows side than the Linux side, which was the basis of my comment. |
| #32 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 7/6/2002 1:45:43 AM |
|
jerk, give me a break. The 2 to 1 preference (which is NOT accurate, as more IIS is run behind the corporate firewall than Apache) is ONLY due to it being free. IIS is SO much better than Apache, that people are actually willing to pay for it. With Apache, you get what you pay for. If Apache sold for even $200 per copy... how much market share would it lose? When you stumble your way to answering that question, you'll be well on your way to understanding just how much BETTER IIS is. The "market" chooses the BETTER product, not with market share, but with REVENUE. Your comparison is no different than comparing a Palm to a PocketPC. Palm has more market share... but that has nothing to do with which device is BETTER.
jerk, have you even set up an Apache server? What about an IIS server? And no, IIS 4 no longer counts. |
| #33 By 37 (24.196.75.92) at 7/6/2002 7:41:03 AM |
|
According to the graph at NetSurvey, both Apache AND IIS have been increasing marketshare over the past 5-7 years on a consistent trend. NetSurvey, however, is not the SOLE measure for the penetration nor performance of each product. You are limiting your mind and your knowledge if you base your preference soley on this website.
Keep searching, and you will find even more penetration for IIS and Apache...many times you will find IIS with a measurable lead, and vica versa. It's all about research. |
| #34 By 2332 (165.247.6.180) at 7/6/2002 1:55:03 PM |
|
Guys...
It is NOT fair to compare IIS to Apache. Why? Well, IIS is an application server... it does a LOT more than just serve up web pages. Apache, on the other hand, just serves up web pages. Now, that's not a bad thing. In fact, if I didn't use ASP/ASP.NET, I would use Apache... it has a much more solid history regarding security issues, and has reasonable speed. In fact, the latest versions are quite impressive on the speed front. But I use IIS to the max, and it has served me well. (Pun intended. :-) With IIS 6 coming out, I would be hard pressed to even consider Apache anymore. Anyway... #33 - "Each software package runs in its own memory and not shared between the group. (IIS 6.0 will do that)" Do you happen to know how Apache achieves this? I know that, for a long time, I've been able to isolate applications by running them in isolated mode (in a seperate process), at the cost of speed. I can also run a set of iffy apps in medium isolation, which puts them all in the same isolated process. How does Apache isolate applications without seperate processes? As far as I know, the only way to do this is with a mechanism like Application Domains, and those are only available through .NET. :-) IIS 6.0 will offer these .NET app domains, and as a matter of fact, you can run your apps like this right now if you're using ASP.NET. (Actually, it's the *only* way you can run your apps. ;-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 234 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:18:40 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
