Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats ahead of Republicans on Open Source?
Linux Journal ^ | November 06, 2003 | Doc Searls

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:

For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.

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.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Technical
KEYWORDS: apache; candidate; democrat; linux; microsoft; president; republican; webserver; website
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-213 next last
To: antiRepublicrat
Just look at the uptimes in the article for the RNC/DNC sites. Who do you think has to pay more attention administering his box?

You literally have no idea of the kinds of things that the admins on those sites are doing. If they take their HTTP servers offline to update content 5 times a day, that has nothing to do with the stability or usefulness of the underlying software. Provide some evidence that the servers were actually down and we might agree; otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
101 posted on 11/13/2003 1:02:38 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Research it, Largo, Florida. A year later the Microsoft reps came back again to try to get this black mark off of Microsoft's record. In the end they had to admit they could not produce an equivalent Microsoft-based solution at the price requested. I guess they didn't want to dip that far into their anti-Linux slush fund, or that maybe the current monopoly investigation kept them from doing so.

Which proves that competition is alive and well, despite your inconsistent and hypocritical efforts to suggest that MS undercuts anybody that opposes it.
102 posted on 11/13/2003 1:11:10 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
If someone were targeting an RFP towards a Linux system and somehow the Microsoft bid came in lower (without using their slush fund), then Microsoft would have to get the contract.

Your definition of a slush fund is the same as corporate America's definition of a flexible profit margin. That's why you evidently won't accept any situation where Microsoft provides the low bid: "It must be the illegal slush fund."

Mine would simply say that the government must buy the lowest-cost software available that fits objectively written criteria for the task at hand.

As an example, I'm sure someone could dumb down the requirements for office software bidding so that OpenOffice meets the criteria. But Bush2000 brings up a good point: Useability, retraining, compatibility, productivity all have their costs & benefits which should be factored into any objective criteria.

When an employee is pulling down $50K plus benefits, what employer would forego spending a few hundred dollars per year for the tools to make him more productive? I would say a very short-sighted one. I know I wouldn't want employees eating up my payroll wrestling with 2nd rate, feature-challenged GPL crap like OpenOffice.

103 posted on 11/13/2003 5:42:28 PM PST by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: TheEngineer; Bush2000
Your definition of a slush fund is the same as corporate America's definition of a flexible profit margin.

This fund is targeted only for situations where Microsoft may lose to Linux, no other. It is specifically targeted to kill Linux at any cost. You didn't have a problem with the large trucking companies driving independents out of business using the same system? In government contracting, such a fund may be illegal, at least as the pricing rules were explained to me while working at a few Fortune 100 IT contracting companies.

I'm sure someone could dumb down the requirements for office software bidding so that OpenOffice meets the criteria.

Show me your average office user, then show me where OpenOffice doesn't meet the requirements, or StarOffice since it's also much cheaper than Office. Most people don't use 90% of what Excel or Word can do. For those few that need it, give it to them. It's the same thing that happens when Windows houses needed abilities that only Macs could do -- you'd find a few Macs running there.

When an employee is pulling down $50K plus benefits, what employer would forego spending a few hundred dollars per year for the tools to make him more productive?

Does Excel make the average user more productive? I don't think so, and I use Excel extensively at work and OpenOffice extensively at home. Switching between the two is easy. A few thousand employees times several hundred each in licenses adds up.

Useability, retraining, compatibility, productivity all have their costs & benefits which should be factored into any objective criteria.

You want to know what the biggest training problems were for Largo? "How can I change my desktop background" and "There's no floppy, so how can I take stuff home?" Application-specific training was almost not needed since for the vast majority of people most of these applications work pretty much alike.

104 posted on 11/13/2003 6:25:25 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
If they take their HTTP servers offline to update content 5 times a day, that has nothing to do with the stability or usefulness of the underlying software.

Why the hell would anyone do that? Taking a Web server offline to update content is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. One main reason for such bad uptime on IIS (aside from the fact that it just gets unstable after a while) is both the frequency of patches and having to reboot the system after installing those patches. The constant reboot is one of the major architectural flaws in Windows.

105 posted on 11/13/2003 6:35:36 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
That's hilarious. Evidently, you're not familiar with IBM's (one of your unsung corporate OSS heroes, by the way) tactics in bidding on contracts

I seem to remember IBM being very nasty, then losing big-time to a government monopoly suit. That time the judgement wasn't the kiss-ass settlement that Bush gave them. They definitely learned their lesson.

106 posted on 11/13/2003 6:37:25 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Competition is now called "lobbying"?!?

When MS uses its lobbyists to achieve a result, by definition that is lobbying.

OSS is going to cost more for support.

Support that statement with facts. The only place I've seen lower TCO from Microsoft was in their reality distortion field just as bad as Steve Jobs' "G4 is as fast as a P4 3GHz" one.

Likewise, there are additional training costs.

That assumes a current Windows shop switching. Otherwise, like I said in Largo, training for switching was negligible.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how many times you guys try to pull that cr*p.

Sometimes there is. When volunteers come to the shelter to help the homeless, that is a free lunch (in cases, literally). When volunteers write a world-class operating system, that is also a free lunch -- you didn't pay for it. The only thing you have to pay for, if you don't have it in-house, is support, which you'd have to pay for on any system.

107 posted on 11/13/2003 6:43:10 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Draw your own conclusions.

Looks like the pubbies are getting so many contributions that their servers can't take it.

I am sure that they don't mind it one bit :-)

108 posted on 11/13/2003 6:46:02 PM PST by krb (the statement on the other side of this tagline is false)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
You were talking about high-end PCs and acting as if price/features applied generally across the board.

Mac doesn't go that low into the market, so it's stupid to compare PCs at that cost in the first place. You still keep wanting to bitch that Mercedes is a marginal car manufacturer because they don't make one to compete with your POS Neon. It doesn't matter, since they're still the brand everybody wants to be, and they have the standard features and quality that will show up on the rest of the cars years down the road.

Did you know that Dells sell with USB and IEEE 1394, and they've discontinued floppies on laptops and will be doing so on their desktops soon? Did you know they have wide-aspect ratio notebooks? That smart power management and quick sleep/wake feature on Windows is great, and so is built-in wireless in the latest notebooks and some desktops. It's also pretty cool to have DVD writers standard in your line of professional desktops.

Those are all things no one was willing to touch, or hadn't even thought about doing, until Apple had done it for a while. One reason Apple doesn't sell in the computing ghetto is that they only sell advanced features and quality, and you can't do that selling that far down-market.

109 posted on 11/13/2003 6:52:45 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Most people don't use 90% of what Excel or Word can do.

Maybe the so-called "average user" only uses 10-20% of the features in Excel. But each "average user" doesn't use the same 10-20% featureset. Hence the need for 100% of the features offered.

Open source zealots always start out with outlandish claims of how superior their software is. But eventually they, like you, fall back on "You really don't need all those extra features that the commercial-grade software offers... and the open source is FREE! Whoopee!"

So much for quality.

Show me your average office user, then show me where OpenOffice doesn't meet the requirements...

Most people I know would rather be sent to the Russian front than be pegged with "average user" status. I've used OpenOffice, and I know its shortcomings firsthand. For one, it won't render any except the most simple Powerpoint slides. Thanks, but no thanks.

110 posted on 11/13/2003 7:25:00 PM PST by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Why the hell would anyone do that?

Like I said: Unless you can show that the servers were actually offline, you're blowing smoke.
111 posted on 11/13/2003 7:44:13 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
This fund is targeted only for situations where Microsoft may lose to Linux, no other. It is specifically targeted to kill Linux at any cost.

I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for proof...
112 posted on 11/13/2003 7:45:57 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I seem to remember IBM being very nasty, then losing big-time to a government monopoly suit.

Your memory is pretty weak, then. IBM stretched out its antitrust trial for 10 years and didn't lose "big time". Face it, troll: If IBM and other OSS proponents do it, you call it "competition". If MS tries to compete, it must be using a "slush fund". I'll try to contain my laughter. And, believe me, I'm not laughing with you...
113 posted on 11/13/2003 7:48:43 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Mac doesn't go that low into the market, so it's stupid to compare PCs at that cost in the first place.

Restated: "It's stupid to even consider using a Mac if you're an average user."
114 posted on 11/13/2003 7:50:17 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
When MS uses its lobbyists to achieve a result, by definition that is lobbying.

I keep seeing posts like yours making the same charges on Slashdot, OS News, and other places -- but there's never any proof provided. Same old, same old: Trying to throw mud against the wall to see what sticks.
115 posted on 11/13/2003 7:55:52 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Does Excel make the average user more productive? I don't think so, and I use Excel extensively at work and OpenOffice extensively at home.

That's one of the nice things about MS: You can purchase the individual applications you need (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc) or you can buy the suites...
116 posted on 11/13/2003 11:12:29 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
You can purchase the individual applications you need (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc) or you can buy the suites

Allowing unbundling of the suites at a decent cost was one of the unprecedented offers Microsoft made to try to win the Munich contract. Normally it's too expensive to buy just the applications you need across thousands of seats.

117 posted on 11/14/2003 7:54:33 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Restated: "It's stupid to even consider using a Mac if you're an average user."

Considering that Macs are easier to use, more secure by design, include lots of useful bundled software, and are and less vulnerable to viruses and worms, it's exactly the average user who needs them.

118 posted on 11/14/2003 7:56:26 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for proof.

One of the many articles showing the amounts and purpose, plus the info that this isn't just used to get licensing costs down, but to give away free services.

There's your proof. But you won't believe it because you think Microsoft is this great and benign company that never does anything immoral or illegal in business.

119 posted on 11/14/2003 9:20:51 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Unless you can show that the servers were actually offline, you're blowing smoke.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that Netcraft uptime doesn't correspond to the amount of time servers are actually running, responding to requests. You're the one who came up with a rediculous scenario that servers are taken down to update content, a practice I haven't even heard of while dealing with or running Web servers since 1995. You need to show proof.

120 posted on 11/14/2003 9:25:53 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-213 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson