| 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 1 through 25 of 234 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:37:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 7/5/2002 8:53:36 AM |
| It doesn't matter, they'll still be misquoted and taken out of context in the major media and the Penguinistas won't take the effort to find out the truth and the circle of hate will continue. |
| #2 By 442 (65.33.154.204) at 7/5/2002 10:07:37 AM |
| Wow...those must be some blinders you're wearing, there, kid. Either that or it's what you're drinking...in that case I'll have some too. Delusions of grandeur sounds fun. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 10:19:53 AM |
|
jaredbkt - Unfortunately he's correct. Over on slashdot they've been discussing how they can vandalize the Microsoft exhibit.
|
| #4 By 2062 (68.129.127.68) at 7/5/2002 11:50:47 AM |
|
i saw at least 1 comment on slashdot where someone said they wouldnt be surprised if someone shoots the microsoft people, and no one was outraged about comments like that. I wish i could go to this linuxworld event so i could protect microsoft from these communists and lunix punks.
-gosh |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 7/5/2002 1:05:25 PM |
|
Slashdot is full of a bunch of idiotic people (although, I'm sure some intelligence is there, somewhere).
I am truely annoyed with people like that. For people who say they stand for choice, they sure do want to cram Linux down everyone's throat. |
| #6 By 6859 (204.71.100.215) at 7/5/2002 1:18:44 PM |
| Linux isn't "free" as in "free software" but rather as in "free to accept our ideas". |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 1:51:39 PM |
|
Realist - Speaking of ignorance...
You've yet to provide me a list of open source programs which are better than commercial counterparts. You've also not answered my proposed wager. $100 says Microsoft won't control what software and hardware you can use within the next two years. Or five years, or whatever... you were the one who made the ridiculous claim. "Almost every post here says linux users are hateful annoying punks. " That's because generally they are. Having put up with the nonsense since 1997, I'm not going to apologize because I hurt some Linux users feelings by pointing out his solution sucks. "I see no difference and just as much igonrance here as I do on Slashdot." Last I checked, I and others are not advocating violence against Linux users, leaders or conferences. We simply make fun of them. Although maybe you have a point and that is unfair. Making fun of Linux users is like making fun of the retarded. "Its so laughable that you have the nerve to act superior when your just like them. " Why do you keep saying "them"... Shouldn't you be saying "us"? |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 2:19:50 PM |
|
Better open source products:
Apache (It's always been the leader and will continue to have a substantial lead on IIS) BIND (hey it sucks, but even the proprietaries use it) BSD TCP/IP PHP (debatable, but widely used and not restricted to Win/IIS without extensions) MySQL PostGRESQL Kerberos (yet another OS tech that MS wouldn't be able to do sh1t without) Tom Cat gcc |
| #9 By 1989 (24.159.230.34) at 7/5/2002 2:36:15 PM |
| Soda, I agree with most of your products listed except for the databases (MySQL & PostGRESQL). Are you actually saying that those products are better than SQL Server (even though it only runs on windows), DB2, and Oracle? |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 2:44:48 PM |
|
no, Lord, I wouldn't compare these SQL variants superior to large-scale widely deployed DB servers... but I am saying that they are certainly a better option for a lot of web developers who don't want the cost of SQL Server or even worse Access. Access is nifty for defining it's own category of db, but it sucks for web sites--I know some use it, and considering that and it's cost, it's no surprise that you are seeing a lot of web developers who aren't tied to using MS products using these dbs.
Anyway, even if that's debatable, I wonder if any other idiots are willing to step out and say that there is not a single category in which an OS product is superior than a proprietary one. Anyone? Are you out there? Does anyone agree with soda's idiocy? |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 2:57:53 PM |
|
sodajerk
Apache is the only one out of your list I won't question simply because I have no experience with the latest version. BIND - Huh? Might as well suggest sendmail. TCP/IP and Kerberos - Implementations of technologies, not products. PHP - It's a nice solution, although certainly not better than commercial counterparts. PostGres and MySQL - Please, don't make me laugh. TomCat - Really? Better than all the other JSP providers? are you sure? I have to admit not being terribly familiar with it, but this don't look so good: http://www.orionserver.com/benchmarks/benchmark.html gcc - Again, don't make me laugh. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 3:03:03 PM |
|
sodajerk - So tell us, exactly how does Access suck? I'm aware of it's limitations, and I guess I'm wondering whether you are.
As to your last query. How about you just present us with one example of a OSS product which is clearly superior than a proprietary one. But I find it curious that you are changing the nature and context of the claim. Realist was claiming that proprietary software all sucked, and OSS was much better. I asked for a list of which products he felt fit that category, and he never answered. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 3:06:13 PM |
|
"Last I checked, I and others are not advocating violence against Linux users, leaders or conferences. We simply make fun of them. Although maybe you have a point and that is unfair. Making fun of Linux users is like making fun of the retarded."
Last I checked, that topic had nearly 800 posts, and most of the flames were modded down. Most of those not modded down, reflected they were jokes. Of the remainder, most were asking what may happen because they too are concerned about the behavior of a rogue few. Most were asking what the hell MS was thinking considering they don't have a single Linux product and bash it openly and thoroughly at every opportunity even though they are obviously dying for a piece of the action and are also conceding some of the merits of OS. Until AW can get passed the piddley threshold of 13 comments, 7-8 of them just as anti-Linux as can be--I don't see how any softy can make such prejudgments and blanket statements about a community that is better represented through SourceForge, et al.--you do all know that Slashdot is a "geek" site above all, right? That it caters to the juvenile, techy, and obscure (astronomy, math, tech constitutional issues, etc...) and that they will frequently have foolish, modded down posts from people who would never behave in public as they post on the internet. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 3:12:01 PM |
|
"As to your last query. How about you just present us with one example of a OSS product which is clearly superior than a proprietary one."
You conceded this yourself, soda. Why do you want to hear it again: Apache, Apache, Apache. I don't get your idiocy of saying it needs to be a wrapped package (are you saying you are willing to do without BIND and BSD's TCP/IP and Kerberos?)--if the computer world couldn't operate without it and it's OS--I think OS has proven itself over proprietary solutions in the most fundamental fields--network infrastructure, enterprise systems, the internet. I wasn't responding to Realist's claim, I was responding to your's. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 3:49:56 PM |
|
sodajerk - I said only I wouldn't question Apache because I was not familiar enough with version 2 to pass judgement. I have only heard it is greatly improved over Version 1. If we were to look only at version 1, your suggestion would clearly be a joke.
"are you saying you are willing to do without BIND and BSD's TCP/IP and Kerberos?" My computers work quite fine without open source implementations of TCP/IP, DNS or Kerberos. Open source reference implementations are useful, I've never claimed otherwise. But the issue here was with regards to software quality, feature set, usability and so forth that is important to an end user. "I wasn't responding to Realist's claim, I was responding to your's. " Ahh, but I was making no claims... only refuting someone elses claim. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 3:51:40 PM |
|
sodajerk - "conceding some of the merits of OS" Microsoft has never questioned the merits of OS. What they have questioned is the merits of the anti-commercial GPL.
I don't see how you think you can question others when you are so willing to misrepresent their positions. |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/5/2002 4:28:27 PM |
|
Z00ker - But vi isn't a line editor. It's a visual version of ed.
|
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 4:38:56 PM |
|
"sodajerk - I said only I wouldn't question Apache because I was not familiar enough with version 2 to pass judgement. I have only heard it is greatly improved over Version 1. If we were to look only at version 1, your suggestion would clearly be a joke."
I'd love to hear your explanation on this one... considering most of the world disagrees with you, I'm very curious. |
| #19 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/5/2002 5:32:31 PM |
|
sodajerk - You know sometimes I wonder why you keep showing up here.
Apache v1.x offers exceptionally poor performance because of a outdated architecture. I'm curious if you have any proof that most of the world disagrees with me? http://www.vomjom.com/docs/apache_benchmark.php [compares Apache v1.x to v2.x showing a 2x performance improvement] http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html [Ahh the classic article that caused the Linux world to go into a panic because their preconceived notions were all wrong. On a positive note, we no longer here "Of course Linux is faster" any more.... well except for jerky boys.] |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 5:58:37 PM |
|
Simple, soda, you just have to look at what everyone else is using, clearly they are satisifed with the performance since Apache usage is increasing.
Apache 59.67% IIS 28.96% A 2 to 1 preference is hard to ignore. |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/5/2002 7:14:35 PM |
|
No, Apache doesn't have monopoly power. Also, according to soda, a $$ app will always have greater advantages than an OS app. In this case, despite that nugget of wisdom, 2 to 1 people choose Apache.
No, I don't think MS's having 30% marketshare proves its a high performance web server. I think it shows what you can do if you leverage your monopoly and give away products for free. Hell, just seeing that there are Win servers running Apache tells me that even those who are tied into MS products will still choose Apache over IIS. |
| #22 By 1989 (24.159.230.34) at 7/5/2002 7:50:36 PM |
| Most of the arguments in this forum are over the OS "war" and most comments are based on performance. So, how can anyone keep arguing about Apache when it supposedly runs equally on any supported platform since v2 came out? This started as a Linux vs Microsoft argument. How does Apache apply? Regardless of whether IIS comes with Windows or not. Do you think Microsoft care if someone uses IIS as long as they are using Windows??? |
| #23 By 5444 (208.180.140.230) at 7/5/2002 8:10:41 PM |
|
SodaJ,
Lets run down a little history of the Inet. Inet started out as Darpa Net, ran Mostly on Unix systems. following forward. ms and the PC didn't even have a netorkable until NT and windows for work groups. (at least a ms version anyway) you did have netware, and a few others. And who can forget MS unix Xenix. But lets look at the Inet foundation. When the Inet become publically available in the early 90s and fnally fully commercial in 95 It was still 95% Unix based. Now you have a bunch of people that were running INET servers that are Unix people. a certain someone named Linus started a "OS" based Unix clone that was cheaper than the Unix systems of the time. Not to mention that the Unixes of the time were not compatable with each other. It wasn't until MS and the release of the NT on Cheaper CPU's that the so called commercial Unix vendors got together to form a Colletion to make a standard that all Unixes must share. So anyway. from the first piss poor releases of IIS to the version 5 which is decent. and Version 6 in .net which is excellent. You still have the Majority of the Inet that was and still is to an extent Unix people. Now remember from a dead start with the release of the NT software. to 2002. (before that there wasn't a single MS based system that ran an Inet access point) MS has gone from 0% to 30%, and Most of the later Gain was when a real version of IIS showed up in IIS 5.x. Now since I have been useing the Inet for over 15 years (or what it has been come to call) I would say that is a fairly Large dent in a Fairly short amount of time But looking at the WWW, as we have come to know the graphics side, that is recent history in the INet world. HTTP if i remember the year was around 92 or 93, and it was a few years before it moved from Text based to starting to include Graphics. But anyway 100% of the servers back then were Unix based servers. MS didn't even push for entrance into the Server market until 1995, and I would put it closer to 2000 that it delivered anything in that realm. And IIS 6.0 will be the first version of IIS that is truely a 24/7 based web server and additional servers(as it is a group of servers) So from 1995 to 2002, with the Web servers, and not a true influence on it until iis5 and IIS 6 I would say that 30% is a significant inroad into the Unix dominant world of the internet. El |
| #24 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/5/2002 8:16:28 PM |
|
"No, Apache doesn't have monopoly power."
Software isn't a limited resource that can be monopolized. If a product has a large marketshare, it's because of consumer choice. "Also, according to soda, a $$ app will always have greater advantages than an OS app." Weird, I never said that. "In this case, despite that nugget of wisdom, 2 to 1 people choose Apache. " Well actually no. Those netcraft stats measure web sites, mostly at hosting companies. The consumer in this case really didn't get to choose. Now the last time I saw Netcraft report on what OS servers were running on, Windows had 50%... that sort of implies IIS has roughly 50% of the market on web servers, which seems reasonably considering Netcraft also reports IIS as having 50% of the market in SSL enabled servers. "No, I don't think MS's having 30% marketshare proves its a high performance web server. " No, that could only be proven by benchmarks. Obviously those in the know choose IIS. "Hell, just seeing that there are Win servers running Apache tells me that even those who are tied into MS products will still choose Apache over IIS. " All six of them? It's trivial to tell my IIS server to respond saying it is Apache. |
| #25 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/5/2002 8:20:07 PM |
|
bluesky - I hope that you are correct. I'm almost tempted to go just to see how the children behave. Unfortunately I'm just not interested in learning anything new about a dying OS.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 234 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:37:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
