To me it looks like the state of the art in industrial design combined with the state of the art computer technology inside running the most advanced OS in the world.
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.
Microsoft tried to sell to them, let them see the Windows source code even. Cisco is practically running the Great Firewall of China, etc.
To me it looks like the state of the art in industrial design combined with the state of the art computer technology inside running the most advanced OS in the world.
And just think, it costs 33% more for this system to be configured to even approach the same speed and capabilities of a Mac, comes with less useful software, and has an older, less technologically advanced operating system.
Now that IBM and UNIX are in the game on the Mac side, Wintel is hurting.
Remember that they are not even giving away their code. GPL != public domain. The authors retain copyright, with licensing allowing redistribution under certain restricted terms.
What GE can't understand is that the company he loves that so values copyright (with questionable claims) that it will blow millions suing IBM over it, yet that same company could care less about the obviously legitimate copyright claims of hundreds of authors.
So Macs are too powerful for people? I thought you said they weren't very good. Okay, you can spend $3,000 on either system. The Dell will be slower, older technology that won't last you several years until you think of getting a new one, while the Mac will last you much longer.
For a PowerMac, they're cheaper to buy, cheaper to own, faster, more usable and more stable. You can't touch that with a Wintel box.
And that noisy, power-hungry Dell looks like what? I used one at work. They're nasty to look at and listen to all day.
... Or, in other words, "when the free market fails to deliver the desired result, ask the politicians to mandate it."
Could the D party just be hungrier than the R party, therefore more open to new ideas and technologies?
Could it be that this time the D's are ahead of the R's at exploiting new technologies, methodologies and solutions to further their ends? Kennedy used TV better than Nixon. Clinton used cable better than Dole.
You seemed to care they looked like lucite. Not everyone can put that ugly hunk of junk under the desk. Some of us have to put that very loud box right where they work. You prefer your computer to sound like a wind tunnel? Or do you like the extra noise?
And most people don't spend too much on cars either, but there's still a lot of Mercedes sold around the world. I'm sorry there aren't enough Mercedes models in the price range of your Dodge Neon. It's good that Apple, like Mercedes, decided to concentrate on quality product rather than cheap, basic boxes.
There is a large market, not niche, for powerful machines. Between gamers, video editors, high-end graphics, publishing and 3D, and just plain power-hungry users, that's a lot of computers across several industries.
Also, in the computer world, marketing means a lot. Whoever makes the fastest machine gets the prestige, and therefore higher sales across the lines. Wintel no longer has this edge. Too bad for you. You're probably just mad that now Apple makes a far better computer in every respect than Wintel.
Or, in Microsoft's case, when the government starts considering Open Source during bidding or when messing with security, lobby the government to drop OSS consideration because you're afraid you'll lose.
I've worked in the government for years, and it's mainly an MS shop. Not because MS is better, but because the government has been pretty well locked-in to MS by mentality. They just don't know any better. It's time to get the government to consider software purchases solely based on merit -- I want my tax dollars spent better.
I doubt anyone here is against a high level of competition regarding govt purchasing. I know that I'm all for it.
But when I read complaints like yours ...
The NSA found merit in Linux, and was working on a hardened linux project to develop a highly secure strain. Microsoft lobbying put a stop to that.
I realize that open source proponents aren't happy enough with a seat at the sales table. They want govt money (our tax dollars) to be spent developing linux. The SE-Linux project that you referred to is the perfect example.
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.