Posted on 11/06/2003 11:28:52 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
Is there any significance to what Web server/platform combinations 2004 presidential candidates are using?
As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:
As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.
Draw your own conclusions.
But, hehe, look at those uptimes for RNC on IIS vs. DNC on Apache.
Aside from current financial restrictions, I wonder if this could possibly have another meaning. Could it mean that Dims understand being frugal with donators' ( and thus taxpayers') money by working smarter instead of just throwing money at what's popular?
Nah, too much of a stretch. Must just be an accident.
Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Hooo hoooooooooooo! [slapping thigh]
What an asinine question.
Does anybody really think that Carol Mostly-Fraud has thought out the decision to use Apache vs. IIS vs. Bubba's web server?
No, it runs Windows/IIS. No, wait, that was whitehouse.com. You're right on the .gov. :)
Could be they just hire smarter people who know how to get more bang for their buck. I like it when higher-ups hire smart people.
Maybe time for an education campaign for Republicans. They can't slide behind on this. Open Source is good for the government, the people and the economy, and they're the ones who are going to still be in power in 2005 so they should know it.
Yikes! Better have Homeland Security pay a visit to the webmaster…
Nope....
Carol Mosely-Braun: Apache on FreeBSD
In her case she thought it meant..Free BullShitDomain....
The Dims aren't smarter than the Republicans on anything, including operating system software. I suggest you reconsider your commitment to Linux, more than your commitment to Republicans. But if you decide to switch, you'll definitely find more freeloaders and anti-capitalist types on the other side.
You mean on the Dim side (obvious) or the Microsoft side?
I don't have a committment to Republicans, they are just the lesser of two evils. But I do have a commitment to Open Source, why should I reconsider that?
You might be worse off than I thought if you're not sure...are you even conservative?
Why should you reconsider open source? Because, it threatens the US software industry, and the security of our nation. Most Linux guys close their ears as soon as they hear something like that, but maybe you'll listen.
Linux is eating through the US Unix economy, and is returning a fraction of those former dollars to our tech economy. We gain millions in new Linux sales, but lose billions in lost Unix sales.
And the open source nature of the code means we're giving that stuff away for free to all our worldwide comptetitors, and even worse to our adversaries. There's no export control laws on that stuff (yet), and there's not much return revenue either.
Bottom line is this "service minus sales" business model is a faulty one, plus it makes it virtually impossible for any company to get a technical leg up with their product code without have to share it with their competition. The whole movement is about taking everyone's code and giving it out worldwide for free, and America just wasn't built like that. Foreign companies like SuSe are just trojan horses to pluck intellectual property from the likes of IBM and Novell, and so far are getting away with it. Did you know that "Red Flag Linux" is the official operating system of the red chinese government? And that it is directly based on a version of Red Hat they were legally given for free? Do you see the problem yet, or did you quit listening after the first sentence?
The free market thrives on the principle of the better product beating out the inferior product, not always in technological merit, but also in price and business model. If OSS is winning, that is only because the American free market wants it to. As a conservative, you should value the free market.
And the open source nature of the code means we're giving that stuff away for free to all our worldwide comptetitors, and even worse to our adversaries.
And in return, we get a lot for free. It is, in action, the Jeffersonian ideal of maximum freedom of inventions advancing the art faster than the monopolies that restrictive copyright creates.
Bottom line is this "service minus sales" business model is a faulty one, plus it makes it virtually impossible for any company to get a technical leg up with their product code without have to share it with their competition.
IBM is thriving on it. Their mainframe sales loaded with Linux are doing very well. The web hosting market is doing very well with it, giving people lower-priced hosting at a good profit.
Foreign companies like SuSe are just trojan horses to pluck intellectual property from the likes of IBM and Novell, and so far are getting away with it.
Some foreign distributors will be leeches, as will some American ones. Other foreigners have contributed a LOT of code in Linux. The IP is coming in our direction, too. Hell, it was started by a guy from Finland.
You might also want to know that the OSS license only attaches itself to code in that OSS product or statically linked to it. You can still write closed-source for an OSS system.
Did you know that "Red Flag Linux" is the official operating system of the red chinese government?
Yes. So?
BTW, you might want to know that one of the reasons we're able to talk here, with Jim staying within budget, is that Free Republic is run entirely on OSS, using Linux, Apache and Perl.
BTW, don't you mean "American-owned foreign companies like SuSe"?
Most often correct, however in this model, Linux mostly has no cost, or at least is generally advertised as free and expected by most as a benefit. Free is by definition unfair competition. The overal expected impact is that there are potential savings, but as income is absolutely reduced any potentials are unequivalent.
And in return, we get a lot for free. It is, in action, the Jeffersonian ideal of maximum freedom of inventions advancing the art faster than the monopolies that restrictive copyright creates.
I'm pretty certain Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been interested in the immediate distribution of technology engineered here on American soil being immediately and completely distributed worldwide via modern day network connections with little to no return revenue. This model only helps those behind the tech reace, and if Linux takes further hold over the *nix market our net result will be a loss.
IBM is thriving on it. Their mainframe sales loaded with Linux are doing very well.
No reason those servers couldn't be loaded with AIX or Windows. The way IBM is acting they'd love to do to Windows what they're trying to do to Unix - which is give all the code away for free. Instead of working with software companies, they're trying to blow the whole market up just so they don't have to pay any licenses back to anyone when they sell a server. But without software income, there's no R&D, and ultimately new products and features.
Some foreign distributors will be leeches, as will some American ones. Other foreigners have contributed a LOT of code in Linux. The IP is coming in our direction, too. Hell, it was started by a guy from Finland.
Uh, yeah, I know, that's the whole point here. These foreigners and hippies here in America are looting our intellectual property and giving it to places like the red chinese military for free. There's no technology coming into to America because of Linux. It's 90% of IBM putting Unix trade secrets into Linux, and letting people like jong jemin download it for nothing.
Of course, I said "trojan horse" if you missed that part. What does SuSe offer us, in all reality? They've never even made a profit I don't believe, have been projecting one 'next year' forever. Now the free software whiners will be constantly pestering Novell to "open source" everything, just like they do Sun and Red Hat. Those two companies have done more for open source than Torvalds and Stallman, but the fanatics would just as soon burn them at the stake because they charge for some (now most) of their stuff.
They never offered anything. That's why they went downhill and got bought-out.
but the fanatics would just as soon burn them at the stake because they charge for some (now most) of their stuff.
The movement has its fanatics, and I believe we have an equal dislike for them. Some of these people have not grown up to the point where they realize there is real business involved here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.