www-gui-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jesse Bruce" <n...@pctas.com>
Subject Re: The ways of combating M$
Date Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:23:23 GMT
Really it is a 1 day JOB creating an FREE open Source Apache GUI with a few
tools like MS Visual C++ or even possibly visual basic (Low Quality GUI )to
realy cheat.(many have said)
I mention JOB as I have attempted  Apache GUI 's then thought well what the
stuff am I doing this for most apache users just scarn at this kinda tool
and would only be benifical to new users who would be out to make the
dollars with web dev. and their new version of Frontpage and 200+ books on
PHP build a shopping cart then sell it.
Really all that is needed is to write to a text file ,count the lines and
design an interface.Real Simple
However looking at the java version it LOOKS great better than my attempts
and is open source according to the page.
NO I dont know alot about java .
inspiration and maybe a project plan in UML, I will look at it.

netlooney is looking real looney tunes though.



"Lawrie Scovell" <lawrie.scovell@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:001f01c299e1$f39deda0$0900a8c0@lawrie...
> Are these hit rates based on standard Apache, or Apache + SGI performance
> patch? Haven't looked at Apache for over a year, but the performance patch
> makes a huge performance difference. But, in reality, most web sites don't
> require outrageous hit rates seeing as the industry's emphasis is more
> towards application server performance...
>
> Anyway, combating M$ is based more on just hit rates - what about,
> licensing, portability, standards, security, usability... but this is the
> wrong place to discuss this.
>
> I myself tried to create a GUI in Java (http://netloony.sourceforge.net/)
to
> help on the usability front, but didn't have enough time to complete it
> fully.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erick de La Fuente" <erick@dbass.net>
> To: <gui-dev@apache.org>; <webmaster33@bigfoot.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:34 AM
> Subject: RE: The ways of combating M$
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >              The November 2002 Netcraft Web Server Survey is out;
> >
> >
> >                      http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
> >
> >
> >
> >                                Top Developers
> >
> >         Developer October 2002 Percent November 2002 Percent Change
> >         Apache        21258824   60.54      21699320   60.80   0.26
> >         Microsoft     10144453   28.89      10239423   28.69  -0.20
> >         Zeus            711998    2.03        775916    2.17   0.14
> >         iPlanet         478413    1.36        488094    1.37   0.01
> >
> >                                Active Sites
> >
> >         Developer October 2002 Percent November 2002 Percent Change
> >         Apache        10470848   65.39      10729462   64.69  -0.70
> >         Microsoft      4013397   25.06       4244842   25.59   0.53
> >         Zeus            215957    1.35        271753    1.64   0.29
> >         iPlanet         227424    1.42        230902    1.39  -0.03
> >
> >
> >   Around the Net
> >
> >    The survey records a net gain of around half a million sites this
> >    month, as increases in the rest of the world outweighed a continuing
> >    fall in the USA. Since the start of the year, the proportion of the
> >    sites found by the survey in the US has fallen from 56% to 45%. This
> >    primarily reflects the reduction of sites parked at domain
> >    registration companies and the decline of advertising funded mass
> >    hosting. However there has also been a net repatriation of existing
> >    active sites out of America as hosting services in the rest of the
> >    world have become more comparable with those in US.
> >
> >    Climate change kills Hosting Dinosaurs
> >
> >     [1]Genuity, nee BBN Planet, was put into administration yesterday,
> >     with [2]Level 3 agreeing to buy its assets. Earlier in the month
> >     Cable & Wireless [3]announced that it will close 23 out of 42
> >     datacenters, many acquired only a year ago when C&W bought Exodus
> >     after Exodus itself had entered Chapter 11, and in the process turf
> >     out customers currently paying over $300M in annualised revenue.
> >
> >     Cable & Wireless' situation sounds appalling, but viewed from the
> >     internet its decline appears not significantly worse than its near
> >     competitors. Most of the best known colocation companies have seen
> >     declines of in the region of 20% or more in the numbers of ip
> > addresses
> >     running web servers over the last year. Digex, which shows a
> >     75% decline, divested part of its customer base to Allegiance
> > Telecom
> >     during the year, while PSI has suffered a prolonged decline since
> > its
> >     financial problems became clear to all in late 2000.
> >
> >     With the exception of Cable & Wireless, all of the companies in the
> >     first table below have suffered large losses and financial distress.
> >
> >                                   Dinosaurs
> >                    Number of IP Addresses hosting Websites
> >                     Hoster     Dec 01   Nov 02     Change
> >                       cw.net   11,980   9,653      -19.4%
> >                   exodus.net   10,797   8,605      -20.3%
> >                     gblx.net   6,681    4,767      -28.6%
> >                    above.net   5,838    4,133      -29.2%
> >                   level3.net   8,980    5,449      -39.3%
> >                    digex.com   9,883    2,374      -76.0%
> >                      psi.net   5,244    1,272      -75.7%
> >
> >
> >    By contrast, the most successful hosting companies in terms of growth
> >    of ip addresses hosting internet web sites, are smaller organisations
> >    that have grown primarily with funding supplied by customers, rather
> >    than investors. Some have had no external investor funding at all,
> > and
> >    venture capitalists must deeply regret not only the extent to which
> >    companies like Exodus and Digex were funded, but also that they
> >    overlooked, or were denied access to, some of the safest
> > opportunities
> >    in the industry.
> >
> >                                  Primates
> >                   Number of IP Addresses hosting Websites
> >                   Hoster          Dec 01   Nov 02   Change
> >                   rackshack.net   5,152    13,459  +161.2%
> >                 crystaltech.com   6,874    11,170   +62.5%
> >            dialtoneinternet.net   22,441   31,351   +39.7%
> >                 ratiokontakt.de   6,444    8,375    +30.0%
> >                          he.net   9,659    12,493   +29.3%
> >                    datapipe.net   13,603   17,340   +27.5%
> >                   rackspace.com   8,776    11,160   +27.2%
> >
> >
> >    Hosting industry participants will likely regard Rackshack as a
> > unique
> >    company which has hit a sweet spot with customers, but will take note
> >    that while the dedicated server industry was kickstarted by Cobalt,
> >    today several of the fastest growing companies, typified by
> >    Crystaltech and Datapipe, are ones that have given prominence to
> >    hosting on Windows.
> >
> >
> >    Microsoft RDS vulnerability not likely to be pervasive on web servers
> >
> >    Microsoft have recently announced a [4]critical security
> >    vulnerability in Microsoft's Data Access Components (MDAC). MDAC
> >    contains a feature called Remote Data Services (RDS), a technology to
> >    provide a database interface over HTTP. It has been an optional
> >    component for Microsoft-IIS since version 4, and is integrated into
> >    Internet Explorer.
> >
> >    Some people have interpreted a widely sourced [5]Bloomberg news
> >    article in which our figure of 4 million active web sites running
> >    Microsoft-IIS and the word "Worm" appear in close proximity, as
> >    implying that the majority of Microsoft-IIS web servers are
> >    vulnerable.
> >
> >    Although we do not have any directly observed information on how many
> >    internet sites use RDS, the results we see on sites having their
> >    security tested for the first time in our own [6]security testing
> >    business indicate that the percentage of public Microsoft-IIS sites
> >    using RDS is likely to be small.
> >
> >    Approximately 8% of Microsoft-IIS sites tested in 2001 had RDS open
> > to
> >    the public; in 2002 this has fallen to around 5%. This fall can be
> >    largely explained by the gradual migration of sites to
> >    Microsoft-IIS/5.0, where RDS is not enabled by default. Almost no
> >    Microsoft-IIS/5.0 sites we have tested were offering RDS and the
> >    proportion of Microsoft-IIS/4.0 sites offering RDS is fairly stable
> > at
> >    around one in four.
> >
> >    The caveats are that this is a small [hundreds of sites] and biased
> >    [our customers are more likely to be running version 5.0 of
> >    Microsoft-IIS than the internet as a whole] sample, rather than a
> >    census, but we think that only a fairly small section of the
> >    Microsoft-IIS community is likely to use RDS, and that it is rarely
> >    enabled on public sites. Microsoft's security checklists and IIS
> >    lockdown tool have long encouraged webmasters to disable RDS.
> >
> >
> > References
> >
> >   1. http://investor.genuity.com/notice.cfm
> >   2. http://www.l3.com/
> >   3.
> > http://investor.ft.com/custom/ftmarkets-com/news/story.asp?FTSite=FTMW&g
> > uid={4E4F91D4-BC7D-421F-B7F8-F53448DC11BD}
> >   4. http://www.microsoft.com/security/security_bulletins/ms02-065.asp
> >   5.
> > http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/FB9BAFE31
> > FD76D3386256C780026E0AC?OpenDocument&Headline=Microsoft+flaw+could+let+h
> > ackers+control+PCs,+servers
> >   6. http://www.netcraft.com/security/
> >
> >
> >
> > Internet Research from Netcraft.
> >
> > Netcraft does commercial internet research projects. These include
> > custom cuts on the Web Server Survey data, hosting industry analysis,
> > corporate use of internet technology and bespoke projects. All of the
> > data
> > is gathered through network exploration, not teleresearch.
> >
> > sales@netcraft.com
> >
> >
> > Network Security Testing from Netcraft.
> >
> > Netcraft provides automated network security testing of customer
> > networks and consultancy audits of ecommerce sites, Clients include IBM,
> >
> > Hewlett Packard, Deloitte & Touche, Energis, Britannic Asset Management,
> > Guardian Royal Exchange, Lloyds of London, Laura Ashley, etc.
> >
> >
> > Details at http://www.netcraft.com/security/
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the Netcraft Web Server Survey Announcements list
> > send the message
> >
> > unsubscribe webserver-survey
> >
> > to majordomo@netcraft.com
> >
> > To resubscribe send the message
> >
> > subscribe webserver-survey
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> > --
> > Mike Prettejohn
> > mhp@@netcraft.com  Phone +44 1225 447500  Fax +44 1225 448600 Netcraft
> > Rockfield House  Granville Road Bath BA1 9BQ  England
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Webmaster33 [mailto:webmaster33@bigfoot.com]
> > Sent: 02 December 2002 04:34
> > To: gui-dev@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: The ways of combating M$
> >
> >
> > >yes apache is stable and takes up less space but I doubt it could
> > >handle many hits per second
> >
> > Is that true, that Apache can not handle so many hits/second like IIS? I
> > searched for some performance comparison article,
> > but there are not too much. Some of them:
> >
> > Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game:
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,3763,00.asp
> >
> > eWeek Labs preliminary tests of Apache 2.0 & IIS 5.0:
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,15300,00.asp
> >
> > Apache Avoids Most Security Woes (very interesting):
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1866,00.asp
> >
> > IIS: Stay or Switch?: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,40751,00.asp
> >
> > The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache: Microsoft's Web Server
> > Strategy
> > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-28-023-05-NW-SM
> >
> > How does Apache compare to other servers?
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#compare
> > (It is outdated, the mentioned service is not working fine)
> >
> > M$ always produced big & slow applications. I do not think, that IIS can
> >
> > have higher performance, than an optimized Apache.
> > Apache should handle more STATIC html pages per second, compared to IIS.
> > The DYNAMIC page performance using Apache + script interpreter(Perl,
> > PHP), is another thing, it can not compared to STATIC performance.
> >
> > Apache developer opinions?
> > What is performance of Apache compared to IIS?
> >
> > Webmaster33
> >
> >
> >
> > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> > On 2002. 12. 01. at 19:15 DaMouse wrote:
> >
> > >the user interface that comes with ApacheConf is lovely and if it was
> > >added to the standard distribution could go along way, but another
> > >thing that M$ gets better at is making there servers able to withstand
> > >almost anything, yes apache is stable and takes up less space but I
> > >doubt it could handle many hits per second my $0.02
> > >
> > >-DaMouse
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org
> >
> > *********** END REPLIED MESSAGE  ***********
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org
> >





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message