Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Roy Cull » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:32:49



<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...>
 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:18:19



<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...
siness-manual>

It's an interesting example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.

The guy confuses basic topics, like calling Code Red a virus, and confusing
UPnP with PnP (though named similarly are entirely different things).  It
looks like he just collected a bunch of quotes together and added some glue
(which he gets quite wrong in places).  He also repeats the lie that Apache
has twice Microsofts market share, it doesn't.

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by yt.. » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:56:18





> <https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...
> siness-manual>
> It's an interesting example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.
> The guy confuses basic topics, like calling Code Red a virus, and confusing
> UPnP with PnP (though named similarly are entirely different things).  It
> looks like he just collected a bunch of quotes together and added some glue
> (which he gets quite wrong in places).  He also repeats the lie that Apache
> has twice Microsofts market share, it doesn't.

You're right.  Its more:

Dec. 2001:

Apache:  8588323   63.34%

Microsoft:  3609428  26.62%

Careful who youre calling a liar there, funkybreath.

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:05:45







<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...

Quote:> > siness-manual>

> > It's an interesting example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.

> > The guy confuses basic topics, like calling Code Red a virus, and
confusing
> > UPnP with PnP (though named similarly are entirely different things).  It
> > looks like he just collected a bunch of quotes together and added some
glue
> > (which he gets quite wrong in places).  He also repeats the lie that
Apache
> > has twice Microsofts market share, it doesn't.

> You're right.  Its more:

No, it's not.  Hostnames are not market share.  Market share refers to
installations.  If I have 2 computers with Word installed on them, that's a
market share of 2, not 100.

Apache has less than 50% while MS has more than 50% of the installations,
according to Netcraft.  Of course here is where you claim "That's because
Windows is less efficent than apache" which may or may not be true, but is
completely irrelevant to who has more marketshare.

Quote:

> Dec. 2001:

> Apache:  8588323   63.34%

> Microsoft:  3609428  26.62%

> Careful who youre calling a liar there, funkybreath.

http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200106.html

Windows 49.2% (primarily running IIS or some variant)

"Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when one counts
by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional Web Server Survey.
The survey shows 49% of the computers running the web are Windows based; a
little more than all of the Unix-like operating systems combined. As some of
the 3.6% of computers not identified by Netcraft operating system detector
will in reality be Windows systems, it would be fair to say about 50% of
public Web Servers world-wide are run on Microsoft operating systems.,."

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by yt.. » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:17:33








> <https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...
>> > siness-manual>

>> > It's an interesting example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.

>> > The guy confuses basic topics, like calling Code Red a virus, and
> confusing
>> > UPnP with PnP (though named similarly are entirely different things).  It
>> > looks like he just collected a bunch of quotes together and added some
> glue
>> > (which he gets quite wrong in places).  He also repeats the lie that
> Apache
>> > has twice Microsofts market share, it doesn't.

>> You're right.  Its more:
> No, it's not.  Hostnames are not market share.  Market share refers to
> installations.  If I have 2 computers with Word installed on them, that's a
> market share of 2, not 100.

Oh right, your argument is that numbers are only valid when they agree with you.

Quote:> Apache has less than 50% while MS has more than 50% of the installations,
> according to Netcraft.  Of course here is where you claim "That's because
> Windows is less efficent than apache" which may or may not be true, but is
> completely irrelevant to who has more marketshare.

You may want to look at the "Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - December 2001"
chart up on netcraft one more time before you keep typing.  Apache obviously has
far more than 50% (if you need help with flat graph reading, let me know), and
IIS obviously has far, far less.  

Quote:

>> Dec. 2001:

>> Apache:  8588323   63.34%

>> Microsoft:  3609428  26.62%

>> Careful who youre calling a liar there, funkybreath.
> http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200106.html
> Windows 49.2% (primarily running IIS or some variant)
> "Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when one counts
> by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional Web Server Survey.
> The survey shows 49% of the computers running the web are Windows based;

Meaningless, once again because it takes (proven over and over) far more physical
machines running IIS to do the same job that apache machines do, period.  

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by freefa » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:24:07



Quote:>You may want to look at the "Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - December 2001"
>chart up on netcraft one more time before you keep typing.  Apache obviously has
>far more than 50% (if you need help with flat graph reading, let me know), and
>IIS obviously has far, far less.  

The graph refers to hostnames. Single servers hosting a large number
of hostnames apparently use Apache more often than they use IIS (or
Windows).  You are aware that a single web server may have multiple IP
addresses or hostnames? As far as the number of physical machines is
concerned, Windows is installed on just over 50% of the public web
servers polled by Netcraft.

I would have thought most of the regular advocates in c.o.l.a were
aware of this by now.

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by yt.. » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:39:26




>>You may want to look at the "Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - December 2001"
>>chart up on netcraft one more time before you keep typing.  Apache obviously has
>>far more than 50% (if you need help with flat graph reading, let me know), and
>>IIS obviously has far, far less.  

> The graph refers to hostnames. Single servers hosting a large number
> of hostnames apparently use Apache more often than they use IIS (or
> Windows).  

Yes, I know that.  Do you know why?

Quote:> You are aware that a single web server may have multiple IP
> addresses or hostnames?

Having built them for five years, yes I do.

Quote:> As far as the number of physical machines is
> concerned, Windows is installed on just over 50% of the public web
> servers polled by Netcraft.

Yes, I know.

Quote:> I would have thought most of the regular advocates in c.o.l.a were
> aware of this by now.

You are mistaking me for someone who doesnt know what the hell theyre
talking about.  This is a difference in opinion and definition, not a
difference in fact.  My position is that the numbers that ERIC is
referring to are skewed for the simple fact that IIS is a shitty
package and cannot handle massive amounts of sites on one box.  Apache
on the other hand, is not a shitty package, and can easily handle *thousands*
of average sites on *one well built machine*.

I know, because ive done it.  Repeatedly.

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by mlw » Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:37:29



> <https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...>

What a great artical. Well writen, well researched, well done. Kudos to the
L.A. Times.
 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:19:33



Quote:> > As far as the number of physical machines is
> > concerned, Windows is installed on just over 50% of the public web
> > servers polled by Netcraft.

> Yes, I know.

> > I would have thought most of the regular advocates in c.o.l.a were
> > aware of this by now.

> You are mistaking me for someone who doesnt know what the hell theyre
> talking about.  This is a difference in opinion and definition, not a
> difference in fact.  My position is that the numbers that ERIC is
> referring to are skewed for the simple fact that IIS is a shitty
> package and cannot handle massive amounts of sites on one box.  Apache
> on the other hand, is not a shitty package, and can easily handle
*thousands*
> of average sites on *one well built machine*.

How many machines the software is installed in is precisely what market share
is.  Market share doesn't give a rip WHY it's installed on fewer machines,
only that it is.
 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:20:03



<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...
siness-manual>

Quote:

> What a great artical. Well writen, well researched, well done. Kudos to the
> L.A. Times.

Well researched?  Calling "Code Red" a virus is well researched?
 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by laserne » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:38:27



<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...
bu

Quote:> siness-manual>

> > What a great artical. Well writen, well researched, well done. Kudos to
the
> > L.A. Times.

> Well researched?  Calling "Code Red" a virus is well researched?

Oh come on... The LA Times beat up Redmond pretty badly. Now, how bad can
that be ;)?
 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Sinister Midge » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 02:40:37


Thus saith Erik Funkenbusch:







<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...

Quote:>> > siness-manual>

>> > It's an interesting example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.

>> > The guy confuses basic topics, like calling Code Red a virus, and
> confusing
>> > UPnP with PnP (though named similarly are entirely different
>> > things).  It looks like he just collected a bunch of quotes
>> > together and added some
> glue
>> > (which he gets quite wrong in places).  He also repeats the lie
>> > that
> Apache
>> > has twice Microsofts market share, it doesn't.

>> You're right.  Its more:

> No, it's not.  Hostnames are not market share.  Market share refers to
> installations.  If I have 2 computers with Word installed on them,
> that's a market share of 2, not 100.

> Apache has less than 50% while MS has more than 50% of the
> installations,
> according to Netcraft.  Of course here is where you claim "That's
> because Windows is less efficent than apache" which may or may not be
> true, but is completely irrelevant to who has more marketshare.

>> Dec. 2001:

>> Apache:  8588323   63.34%

>> Microsoft:  3609428  26.62%

>> Careful who youre calling a liar there, funkybreath.

> http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200106.html

> Windows 49.2% (primarily running IIS or some variant)

> "Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when
> one counts by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional
> Web Server Survey. The survey shows 49% of the computers running the
> web are Windows based; a little more than all of the Unix-like
> operating systems combined. As some of the 3.6% of computers not
> identified by Netcraft operating system detector will in reality be
> Windows systems, it would be fair to say about 50% of public Web
> Servers world-wide are run on Microsoft operating systems.,."

If they pay me enough money, as they did in the case of Netcraft, I'll
be happy to do a "survey" that gives MS 100%, more than that even.

Why not look into some independent surveys when touting favorable
numbers? Perchance because no such thing exists to give you the
favorable numbers you'd prefer?

--
Windows: 50,000,000 beta testers, and counting...

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by Joe Potte » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:04:14



> Thus saith Erik Funkenbusch:






> <https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...
>>> > siness-manual>

>>> > It's an interesting example of how a little knowledge is dangerous.

>>> > The guy confuses basic topics, like calling Code Red a virus, and
>> confusing
>>> > UPnP with PnP (though named similarly are entirely different
>>> > things).  It looks like he just collected a bunch of quotes together
>>> > and added some
>> glue
>>> > (which he gets quite wrong in places).  He also repeats the lie that
>> Apache
>>> > has twice Microsofts market share, it doesn't.

>>> You're right.  Its more:

>> No, it's not.  Hostnames are not market share.  Market share refers to
>> installations.  If I have 2 computers with Word installed on them,
>> that's a market share of 2, not 100.

>> Apache has less than 50% while MS has more than 50% of the
>> installations,
>> according to Netcraft.  Of course here is where you claim "That's
>> because Windows is less efficent than apache" which may or may not be
>> true, but is completely irrelevant to who has more marketshare.

>>> Dec. 2001:

>>> Apache:  8588323   63.34%

>>> Microsoft:  3609428  26.62%

>>> Careful who youre calling a liar there, funkybreath.

>> http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200106.html

>> Windows 49.2% (primarily running IIS or some variant)

>> "Microsoft Windows has a significantly higher share of the web when one
>> counts by computer, rather than by host, as in the conventional Web
>> Server Survey. The survey shows 49% of the computers running the web
>> are Windows based; a little more than all of the Unix-like operating
>> systems combined. As some of the 3.6% of computers not identified by
>> Netcraft operating system detector will in reality be Windows systems,
>> it would be fair to say about 50% of public Web Servers world-wide are
>> run on Microsoft operating systems.,."

> If they pay me enough money, as they did in the case of Netcraft, I'll
> be happy to do a "survey" that gives MS 100%, more than that even.

I will see your 100% and raise you 200%. (and for less money --- I am
broke)

Quote:> Why not look into some independent surveys when touting favorable
> numbers? Perchance because no such thing exists to give you the
> favorable numbers you'd prefer?

--
Regards, Joe
Registered Linux User 225822
Man is a bundle of habits, Windows is a bundle of bad habits.
 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by WarpKa » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:43:37


<https://www.latimes.com/business/la-000003463jan14.story?coll=la-head...>

Yanno, I'm surprised Shawn never tries to justify the reason for using
Windows whenever there's a posting about a security flaw...but then again,
why would I want to see his posts every week?  Ok...so I'm amused by the
jerk...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 From the Linux Box of WarpKat

 Download my public key from:

   or retrieve it from
  http://www.keyserver.net as WarpKat
                             (Public Key expires 01/04/2003)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Security Flaws May Be Pitfall for Microsoft

Post by yt.. » Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:54:02





>> > As far as the number of physical machines is
>> > concerned, Windows is installed on just over 50% of the public web
>> > servers polled by Netcraft.

>> Yes, I know.

>> > I would have thought most of the regular advocates in c.o.l.a were
>> > aware of this by now.

>> You are mistaking me for someone who doesnt know what the hell theyre
>> talking about.  This is a difference in opinion and definition, not a
>> difference in fact.  My position is that the numbers that ERIC is
>> referring to are skewed for the simple fact that IIS is a shitty
>> package and cannot handle massive amounts of sites on one box.  Apache
>> on the other hand, is not a shitty package, and can easily handle
> *thousands*
>> of average sites on *one well built machine*.
> How many machines the software is installed in is precisely what market share
> is.  Market share doesn't give a rip WHY it's installed on fewer machines,
> only that it is.

Again, a moot point, since market share is used solely for generating profit figures
and forecasts.

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it