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.
You mean like IBM who won the contract? In case you haven't been reading, upfront price wasn't the entire issue. They were also looking at expenses in the future, which would have been higher with Microsoft.
Which is exactly why they need to stay away from proprietary, closed document formats.
And you do? From what experience? Put up or shut up.
First, I explained that the govt doesn't force citizens to use Word/Excel/etc for reading documents by showing that free readers are available for all these MS-Office components.
Second, There are a multitude of free and not-free programs which will produce documents in Word/Excel/etc format. As an example, Wordpad will write documents in Word format. Therefore, citizens are not required to buy Word to send documents, either.
And regardless, all of the documents that I've sent to the govt in recent years were in PDF format, which disputes your claim that Word is their preferred format... and these were fillable forms, so I wasn't required to own the $200 full version of Acrobat (which I do own, anyway). A few years back, the FCC preferred Wordperfect format, but I never had any problems reading/writing their documents with Word.
And any computer-formatted document exchange requires that the citizen at least own a computer -- and that's a much steeper financial requirement than owning MS-Word (which comes bundled cheaply with many PC's). But, since Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, you appear predicably unfazed about that requirement.
And these are just the most obvious biases, holes, and inconsistencies in your argument.
There are some other concerns, especially concerning archival and running afoul of the DMCA to be able to read documents in proprietary formats. Things are not looking good if things continue in this way.
You have Acrobat? Me too, it rocks. BTW, to give everyone in the building the ability to make PDF files (mainly archival for the project we're on), we've downloaded an Open Source PDF creator application instead of having to buy a sitewide Acrobat license, which is rather expensive. But we still have the one copy of Acrobat 6 for those times when we have to do any serious mucking about in PDFs. Proprietary and OSS working together peacefully, what a concept.
Well, AFAIK, Linux will continue to use the /etc/passwd file for user authentication, and for file system rights, they're still using the "rwx" permissions. Novell currently has eDirectory for Linux, but it uses XML to sync data between NIS and eDirectory. However, my guess is that when they really implement NetWare for Linux, it will require a raw partition, and use eDirectory for all NetWare authentication, which will be completely seperate from the Linux system, sort of like with Pick Systems' Advanced Pick for UNIX.
If Novell is able to port some of it's advanced ACL features they may have a feature that separates them from other Linux vendors, but the overall Linux market is already crowed and the target customer base is notoriously tight with their wallets.
In order to sell this, Novell will have to make sure that there is no difference in the network services provided between the NetWare and Linux. They should have 100% of the ACL features you mentioned. You know, it's funny, but it's amazing just how terrific eDirectory is. It really is something else. About 2 years ago, Novell (along with Compaq) set up a tree with 1.6 billion objects! At the time, that was really the limit on the number of objects. Since v8.6 was released, it looks like the only limitation on the number of objects is how much disk space you want to use! And it's fast too, at least compared to other directories. And it's truely multi-platform. It will run on most Linux, Unix (HP-UX and Solaris), NetWare, NT/2000.
Probably the main disadvantage in entering any Linux business model is that any advancements you develop for your product must immediately be shared with your competitors. If that doesn't make it tough to leverage your tech advantages I don't know what does.
Actually, that's only with software which is covered under the GPL. So in this case, any improvements that Novell makes to Linux must be shared. However, NetWare for Linux is a seperate product, which will not be distributed under the GPL, at least as far as I know. There's nothing there that breaks the rules.
Mark
You know about Microsoft stuff. What does this site do?:
https://wpa.one.microsoft.com/
When you buy a new Dell and I presume any new machine it hits this site when booting.
Experienced opinion, based on a long history of training and support of Windows users in many environments and even in a couple different countries. You don't know users, I do. So unless you know more than me, shut up.
Yes you do. Most users in the world can read various open document formats. For the U.S., we don't want to get locked into the whims of one company, allowing that one company too much leverage over the government and the people. For international users, they don't want to be beholden to a U.S. company. They want to retain a bit of sovereignty.
Read the article again carefully, very carefully. They are giving away services too. Then turn your brain on and think: how can you undercut the cost of free software without giving away services for free?
If you can't quit bringing up diversions, distractions and strawmen, I quit. Any dealings IBM, Ford or GW Bush's grandfather had with the Nazis are not related to this discussion.
Not only did a piddly $5.2 million buy the third fastest supercomputer in the world (you could buy a hundred of these for the price of the rest of the Top 10), but it's made of 1,100 new PowerMacs.
But it gets worse! IBM is working on a new supercomputer using PowerPC chips, not Intel, that will rank at #1 when it comes out next year. It'll be the most compact supercomputer for the power delivered, and, too bad for you, it'll be running Linux.
Read the article? ROFL! Stop pretending that you actually have a reference article for your conspiracy theories of "slush funds" and "RICO violations".
The best that I can tell is that Microsoft bid ~27M euros and the unnamed Linux competitor bid ~30M euros. That doesn't sound like Microsoft offered up anything at a loss.
But if you ever decide to show some real evidence of your outrageous claims, we'd all be glad to see it.
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.