Perens Launches 'OpenSourceParking' 167
miller60 writes "Open source evangelist Bruce Perens has launched OpenSourceParking, a service designed to boost domain parking on open source software. The project is a response to a large gain by Microsoft in the April Netcraft survey, with Windows' share jumping 5 percent as domain registrar Go Daddy moved 4.5 million parked domains from Linux to Windows Server 2003. To regain that share, Perens is calling on open source users to park undeveloped domains at OpenSourceParking, with the advertising revenue being used to fund political advocacy efforts on behalf of open source software. Parking-for-profit has grown into a significant business in recent years. Despite ambivalence over the value of these sites, Perens appears to believe it merits a focused effort for the open source community."
Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux ini (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that all the vast majority [netcraft.com] of high performing websites run Apache on a free unix-like O/S.
Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:1, Offtopic)
What else is he going to do? He took too long with UserLinux and Ubuntu ate his lunch. At this point the only thing he has is time . . .
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:5, Insightful)
Such stats are the reason Windows is in the place it is today.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
Numbers can mean what you want them to mean. The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing. Some will find this slow, others fast. The point is that MS is 'en route' to dominate (or at least be a major player) yet another CS-related market. Time only will tell if they'll be able to sustain this growth.
Hardly doomed.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, apart from this blib in the radar, IIS has been pretty stable at around 20% since october 2003 (and before that date, IIS's share was DROPPING). And if you look at stats at Netcraft, you will see that IIS made an entry to the list back in 1996. So it's 10 years, not 5. In about 18 months, IIS rose to about 20% and now, over EIGHT years later, it's STILL at that 20%!
Oh, be still my beating heart!
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:1, Funny)
PHBs run companies. So, the answer is yes.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:1)
I don't think so. You'd think that those obnoxious evangelists would be a bit more mature and all, but quite honestly I'd have to say this strikes me as among the stupidest things I've ever seen. I mean, come on – the entire site itself is basically saying "we aren't doing anything useful, but if we're lucky it will change a few statistics and maybe even magically convince people open source is better". I could have sworn these guy
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like a pollster calling phone numbers sequentially, and claiming that all unanswered calls indicate that the person has "no opinion" on the subject.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
They used to do this, making a distinction between "all domains" and "active domains". But their current Web server Survey doesn't seem to have the active-doomain data or graphs any more.
I wonder why they dropped them? I'd always thought that this was the interesting data, not the total that included inactive or parked sites.
Actually, the two data sets were usually not all that different.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
I wonder why they dropped them? I'd always thought that this was the interesting data, not the total that included inactive or parked sites.
As would anybody. As usual, when logic fails, follow the money.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
So how does netcraft make money by omitting the active-sites data? Is Microsoft paying them to not publish this data?
That might make sense. How else could it be worthwhile to publish the wrong set of numbers?
Google actively works to defeat sites that try to game their rankings. I'd think that netcraft would want to do the same. After all, to them a "parked" domain is little other than an attempt to bias the site statistics. Those aren't actually sites at all
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
You're...you're kidding, right? That wouldn't even crack the top 100 of dumbest reasons to choose a platform. That would come just behind "What color is the server rack?".
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
Since when does the open source community, or its leaders, worry about what's actually worth wasting time on? This sort of nonsense shows what a joke most of the open source community has become -- its leaders are more concerned with persuing vendettas against Windows adoption than actually making open source software better and more approachable to end users.
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:2)
I just moved it to OpenSourceParking.com. It's basically a "free" way for me to help counter the anti-open-source lobby.*
* Free in that I don't have the de
Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:3, Informative)
We know that.
Unfortunately, it is still the case that most people in the world do not think like us, do not follow the same news sources as us, and don't have your heartfelt belief in Apache's superiority.
It would be nice if the world would just leave us alone to code and run our own software. Unfortunately, they don't. We have to face software patenting, DMCA, TCPA, and whatever new law and technical hu
Challenges (Score:2)
We can do that too. And I mentioned in another posting that there should probably be a special HTTP status code for "parked domain". Something not currently used in the 2xx or 4xx codes. We'd have to write an RFC. That could be used to designate a site as parked to search engines, etc. And then we could persuade the search engines to add an additional penalty to parked s
Don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Er... and how is this a good thing? Parked domain are an atrocity, something that should be eradicated off the face of the public namespace; the only legitimate use is an "under construction" marker before a real service gets put onto that name.
Somehow, I wouldn't want to push the stats of people who pee on the street the most. The "market presence" isn't always good.
Re:Don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
To me, "Host not found" is good enough.
How many people when accidentally making a typo on a domainname and 50 porn sites pop up all over the place or you come to one of these helpful metalink sites, do you just stop what you're doing, drop your pants, and proceed?
Domain parking is about as respectable as phishing or spam.
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Maybe, but it's occasionally understandable. Look at whitehouse.org and whitehouse.com, and compare them with whitehouse.gov for an example. Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to register a domain "close" to yours.
I mean, imagine how embarrassed those first two sites must be to be sharing a name with the likes of Gerge Bush and his gang!
But this is somewhat a minimal comment, because if you're going to register typo variants of your site's name, it
Re:Don't. (Score:2, Redundant)
If people are going to park domains , and there is no way to stop it
Re:Don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
So regardless of whether it's a good or bad thing, it is necessary.
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Well, hopefully.
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
The managers have been told that there is a big difference already, any of them that are serious about the statistics (ie, who havn't already made up their minds based on marketing) will pay for the SSL survey.
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
TimJowers
If you figure it out, please tell Google (Score:2)
If you develop this filter that can separate real web sites from 'parked' sites (AKA link farms), please give it to Google. I'm tired of my top 10 search results being peppered with link farms.
Re:If you figure it out, please tell Google (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:3, Informative)
http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200007.html#acti
Re:Don't. (Score:1)
Any technology guy can say:
"We have two options for our web servers, one is technically superior and the other is run by a company that is actively
Re:Don't. (Score:1)
But the is a very good reason they are managers, they are good at business. One thing they will have no trouble understanding is the underhand marketing tactics of an abusive monopoly.
Your experience with management is far different than mine. The reason people in my department are managers is because they weren't good software engineers. Generally they realized it and jumped at a line management position when one became available. Thanks to these folks who were "promoted" out of the way, all of our i
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:1)
Good luck finding any "manager" who gives a rats ass.
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Next somebody will be saying it's necessary for OpenSource software to install spyware.
Domain parking, which takes resources out of circulation and creates nothing but ownership, is the antithesis of OpenSource. No logic can justify embracing it as a practice. What would be more consistent with the ideals of OpenSource would be to publicize the facts, show that people who believe these inflated Netcraft numbers are being made fools of, and l
Re:Don't. (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce has setup a service to allow your open source project to have an Open Source under construction sign.
Re:Don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]
Mebbe they aren't 'perfect' after all.
Re:And yet (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]
ICK. I sure hope they automatically take all those parked domains out of the search engine. Judging from the number of times I've landed on them though, I doubt it.
Forget the ethics of the situation, they have a *right* to do this as far as I'm concerned. But helping people crap up your search engine for a few extra bucks isn't a good business practice.
Re:Don't. (Score:2)
Um, I just tried off the top of my head http://mybigfatass.com/ [mybigfatass.com] . Yup, it exists and has only 1 working internal link. However it does link to slashdot.
Looks like somebody is parking their ass.
Open source spam! (Score:1)
Wasting time? I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins? Do you really think anyone besides you is looking at the realities of webserving? Or is your manager going to buy into the press release hype and make IT decisions for you to implement?
It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache. If you're posting here on Slashdot, you're most likely not the guy who is signing the paychecks in your company, and since you're not that guy, you're beholden to his decisions. Better to cut MS off at the pass than to face them down once they've got their foot in the door.
Giving decent information would work better (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's so important to fight Microsoft's publicity machine, why not simply discredit it? Sure, it's hard to get through to some people, and some will never get the message. If you just try to mislead them further, though, you're not getting through to them at all, and those people will just go scurrying back to Microsoft again after its next media release.
A good way to start would be to compile some real information that's backed up by verifiable and reputable citations, clearly and concisely demonstrating that Microsoft's claimed advantage is due to a small number of large companies that use IIS to host vast numbers of identical, useless parked websites that contain no information. After this, it might be useful to compile and present additional information that shows the real distribution between Apache, IIS, and whatever else, based on a clearly stated and reasonable definition of what makes a useful production website. ... and if you happen to go this far, make it look more reputable than Microsoft's arguably baseless claims.
Throw it together on a straightforward, direct-to-the-point website that gives Microsoft credit where it's due, but explains clearly where and why credit isn't due. Provide the information so that people can easily be referred to it, and it'd be much more helpful than trying to beat Microsoft at it's own spin and misleading of the consumer.
If there's a weakness in Microsoft's marketing techniques, it's not that someone else can out-market them by providing even more fluff. The biggest weakness is that Microsoft's claims often don't really have any substance. If it's important to you to stop Microsoft from misleading consumers, you should really start by pointing out to them that they're being misled.
I have a lot of respect for what Bruce Perens has done in the past and the stances that he's taken on issues, but I don't really understand this one at all.
Re:Giving decent information would work better (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Giving decent information would work better (Score:2)
And thanks for doing it. I don't think it's a bad thing to offer a service where people can park their domains, although personally I prefer that people only own the domains with a good reason besides squatting.
The main problem that I guess I have is that a major claimed reason for this (as stated quite clearly in paragraph 2 [opensourceparking.com]) seems to be to skew Netcraft's statistics. If people choose to park their domains on an OSS system, and
Re:Giving decent information would work better (Score:2)
From my perspective, Microsoft has done exactly what you are bothered by: they paid someone to skew netcraft's statistics. Apache enjoyed a large number of parked sites because it was technically best. GoDaddy did not switch off of Apache for technical reasons - nobody makes a press release about a server change unless they've been paid to do that.
Netcraft saw what was going on and featured it in their April report. They did not choose to change the way they report parked sites.
I'm just trying to put
Re:Wasting time? I don't think so (Score:2)
So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins?
Actually, I couldn't care less. If a bunch of idiots want to use Microsoft products because they have a higher share of the parked domain market, it doesn't bother me.
It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache.
The government isn't going to outlaw Apache just because of Netcraft. They haven't even taken away my "freedom to choose FreeBSD", and we all kn
Fundamental Flaw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fundamental Flaw (Score:2)
Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Netcraft survey is clouded by artificial parking, then the survey loses utility (assuming it has any in the first place, as the domain parking numbers make seeing usage statistics difficult). You can correct with Photoshop your bank account receipt, and that won't make you any richer.
Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:2)
But if you use GIMP you get richer! (by the price of photoshop)
Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:1)
Because Microsoft gave them a lot of money. Maybe that's what the FLOSS community needs. A lot of money...
Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:2)
Because Microsoft gave them a lot of money.
If that's true you'd have to ask about Microsoft motives. If they think that altering the Netcraft survey will help them selling its software to clueless CIOs, perhaps then the OSS community can try to play the same game, and then Bruce Perens had a good idea. On the other side, as there is little money involved in selling Apache, perhaps Microsoft's goals and those of the OSS community aren't the same, and we
Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:2)
Sure. But we should market to the other guys too.
One of the biggest lessons we need to learn as a community is toleration for people who do not think like us and willingness to meet them half-way and lead them gently to our way of thinking. Everybody wins if we can just make ourselves be willing to do that.
We need a big healthy business user community simply to protect Free Software from all of the nasty things that the other
Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:2)
Bruce
When I first saw this (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When I first saw this (Score:1)
This was my first thought too.
Re:When I first saw this (Score:1)
On Netcraft (Score:5, Interesting)
Is BSD really dying?
A more elegant solution perhaps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A more elegant solution perhaps? (Score:2)
I agree. Since parked domains can skew the results of the Netcraft survey (read: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics), removing them would certainly generate a more 'accurate' view of usage.
As a concession, I would think that Netcraft should subsequently generate a comparative report of parked vs active domains. Better still, a separate series of reports that focus soley on parked domains.
Re:A more elegant solution perhaps? (Score:2)
Re:A more elegant solution perhaps? (Score:2)
Marketing Plan (Score:2, Funny)
Dumbest Idea Ever (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, if Apache is at the top of the Netcraft survey *because* of domain parking, why would any "open source advocate" draw attention to this fact by staging some sort of war to see who can get the most unused domains to show a useless page with AdSense links on it? The massive disaster that is ICANN's UDRP requiring everyone to have some horrible "under construction" web site is not a reason to choose a web server; and the people who would choose a web server by raw numbers are probably too dumb to do even that much research.
Second of all, why would anyone attempt to remedy the problem by asking open source users who are almost certainly already using Apache if they have a domain in the first place to park their unused domains at an Apache parking service? What? Furthermore, it's not like real people are parking huge numbers of empty domains, it's resellers who are looking to auction off single dictionary words in the
I park domains . (Score:5, Interesting)
In an ideal world , a person that parks a domain name without stating explicitly why it isn't used but parked(like me) , should get a refund and the domain should be taken away , just in case someone actually wants to use it . This is my honest opinion . I get barely 3$ a month from accidental traffic and clicks and once in a while a domain gets sold to a person , for no less than x500 the price I paid .
The only upside of a parked domain is that it gives even more (usually cheaper) advertising space for merchants , and since parked domain traffic usually comes from people that just type a meaningful domain name ( Old Sites [oldsites.com] for instance )into their Address bar, these are usually very targeted visitors .
But still
Re:I park domains . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I park domains . (Score:2, Funny)
Just to clarify - this isn't what I do for a living . I just do it =) .
Re:I park domains . (Score:2)
Bruce
Let me be the first to say: Who cares? (Score:1)
Re:Let me be the first to say: Who cares? (Score:1)
What about OpenSourceDriving? (Score:1)
Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to test the trustworthyness of a potential new web host for my site I put that domain name in my shopping cart then cancelled the order. The next day I went back and the domain name was parked.
So, congratulation to godaddy on their fantastic new parked domain name and the loss of a potential customer.
Re:Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:2)
Re:Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:2)
Messersmith, Terence
P.O. Box 81024
Burnaby, BC V5H 4K2
Canada
That said, I've often wondered if searching the status of a domain name on a registrar's site causes them to put it onto a list of domains that should be offered to potential customers who search something similar. Potentially, that could be a very profitable little venture.
Re:Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:2, Informative)
NEVER do a whois search through godaddy (Score:2, Informative)
Highly unethical but it is happening.A lot.
I guess the best bet is using services like dnsstuff.com or doing it yourself through the command line.
Re:Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:2)
Re:Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:2)
Every domain I've searched for through my provider has been available indefinitely afterwards. That's proper operation.
Get a better registrar. GoDaddy is just bad news.
This will lose credibility for OSS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This will lose credibility for OSS (Score:2)
Bruce
slashdotsucks.com (Score:1, Offtopic)
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but wonder if, by choosing battles like this one, the OSS community as a whole is doomed to fail against microsoft; an enemy who often establishes victory first, then fights the appropriate battles.
Office Space, anyone? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
It would be free... it could be free (Score:2)
Re:It would be free... it could be free (Score:2)
There are also plenty of commercial domain registrars that let you edit your NS records as much as you like. I use this one [domainshack.com] but I'm sure google will find you some others.
Then you'll need a free secondary DNS service. Guess what? They exist too.
Re:It would be free... it could be free (Score:2)
I Like It (Score:2)
Makes sense to me ... (Score:2)
If you want to serve actual content, it makes a lot more sense to pick a server that's simple to set up and run, and that isn't subject to all the malware that infects Microsoft products. But if your PHB insists on using IIS, there might be a few things that it's good for.
Ironic (Score:2)
Re:Another waste of time (Score:2)
Oh come on, when Perens puts his mind to it, he can accomplish anything! I mean look at his last project Duke Nukem Forever Linux . .
Oh let's face it, he'll forget about it in a few week
Re:Another waste of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, you can not really tell, until you have tried an idea.
Bruce has been doing great things and maybe this is another big story. Maybe not. At least he tries.