×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Perens Launches 'OpenSourceParking'

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the just-bragging-rights dept.

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

167 comments

Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux ini (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 8 years ago | (#15147419)

Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?

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 (0, Offtopic)

DA-MAN (17442) | about 8 years ago | (#15147472)

Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?

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 (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 8 years ago | (#15147493)

Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?

Such stats are the reason Windows is in the place it is today.

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (1)

10Ghz (453478) | about 8 years ago | (#15147669)

And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 8 years ago | (#15147764)

And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?

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 (5, Informative)

10Ghz (453478) | about 8 years ago | (#15147845)

"The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing."

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 (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 8 years ago | (#15147976)

Which 5 years is this? IIS has been out over 10 years. It was a player in the server market almost immediately upon release as Netscape's product was expensive and IIS had all sorts of custom windows based features (as well as ease of administration).

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (1, Funny)

mshiltonj (220311) | about 8 years ago | (#15147496)

Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?

PHBs run companies. So, the answer is yes.

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (-1, Troll)

Bruce Perrens * (967602) | about 8 years ago | (#15147509)

We need as many server machines converted to OSS as possible - each and every one is a thorn in the side of the CSS opposition. Don't forget the advertising revenue goes back into OSS projects...

Bruce

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147531)

Funny you took the effort to fake Perens.

http://slashdot.org/~Bruce+Perens [slashdot.org]

http://slashdot.org/~Bruce+Perrens+* [slashdot.org]

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147577)

Actually he is the real Perens - The original account (spelt correctly) was a troll/fud account - Bruce himself has said so.

-JH

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147615)

Yeah well, then why the same exact sig that fake account has been using for long?

I've read his posts in the past and they're plausible. Linky to that supposed denounce from Perens himself would be appreciated.

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147710)

All you have to do is check out his blog? Some of his posts (e.g http://tinyurl.com/rr4cs [tinyurl.com] ) have mentioned this.

-JH

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147728)

Haha, fun link, but I wouldn't recommend anyone who doesn't know what he's doing to click on it. :)

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (1)

martinultima (832468) | about 8 years ago | (#15147768)

“Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?”


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 guys were responsible adults, but I guess not...

Not to personally attack anyone or anything, but I just don't like those open-source and free software evangelists. It's one thing to tell people about an alternative system such as Linux – I'm a distro maintainer myself, I do it all the time – but it's another thing to waste your entire life waging some pointless holy war or something. I think this really is the reason no one's really paid attention – they think everyone's some self-appointed holier-than-thou evangelist.

But getting back to the point – if you really want to show that Linux is better, how about setting up a real Web site, and not just some parking service? What about showing people just how easy it is to switch over? Please, if you want to show off Linux, set up a real Web site, not just some parking thing that no one looks at anyway!

By the way, this may just be my personal opinion, but I'd have to say that OpenSourceParking.com has to be one of the ugliest sites I've ever seen – if I were choosing open-source software based exclusively on domain parking site appearance, I'd avoid it at all costs. I've seen better MySpace's!

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (3, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 8 years ago | (#15147915)

There is a bigger issue here... Netcraft should not be counting parked domains at all. It should be counting sites that actually have valid content. The big registrars parking services are well known and easily identifyable. You don't need to weed out 100% of parked domains, just the majority. When netcraft counts parked domains, the results lose meaning.

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 (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 8 years ago | (#15148072)

Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?

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 (1)

supabeast! (84658) | about 8 years ago | (#15148335)

"Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?"

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 (1)

btmark (968861) | about 8 years ago | (#15148460)

How about actually making some good OpenSource product before trying to compete with Windows? Most of us can deal with shotty performance, homepaging bugzilla, and recompiling software, that's why we're geeks. To the other half.. they'd rather pay someone to do it for them. If they spent more time making product, less time trying to worry about what M$ is doing, then they'd probably have a leg to stand on.. As of now, it's just a good old-fashioned pissing match.

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (1)

voxelz (954860) | about 8 years ago | (#15148604)

The companies trying to sell windows market the fact that it's used on so many domains, when in reality, most of the domains have nothing on them. It's just another statistic that Microsoft uses to convince people to stick with their OS or to convert from linux.

Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 8 years ago | (#15148790)

As I've posted before on Slashdot (I'd link if I was a paying subscriber), I've been unhappy that GoDaddy put ads up on my parked domain since I moved one to them in October. Register.com never did that in the 7 years I parked the domain with them. (I know, I'm paying much less with GoDaddy, yes. But it's still my domain as long as I'm paying for it.)

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 desire, time, or traffic to really earn money myself from my parked domain, but every little bit can help OSP.com.

Finally someone's on top of this. (-1, Flamebait)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 8 years ago | (#15147422)

I've been trying to get child molesters to switch to Linux for years. Glad to finally get some backing on this kind of thing.

Don't. (4, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | about 8 years ago | (#15147427)

a service designed to boost domain parking on open source software.

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. (2, Insightful)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | about 8 years ago | (#15147441)

Parked domains exist and aren't going away any time soon, so we might as well make the best of it.

Re:Don't. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147551)

Drug dealers exist and aren't going away any time soon, so we might as well make the best of it.

Argument by analogy can be quite helpful at times.

Re:Don't. (1, Redundant)

FidelCatsro (861135) | about 8 years ago | (#15147622)

Yes legalise them and start making them pay Taxes so everyone can benefit .
If people are going to park domains , and there is no way to stop it ,we can at least do something useful with the revenue

Re:Don't. (1)

hackstraw (262471) | about 8 years ago | (#15147673)

Parked domains exist and aren't going away any time soon, so we might as well make the best of it.

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. (5, Interesting)

FooBarWidget (556006) | about 8 years ago | (#15147456)

How about reading the website before you post? Let me quote:
Microsoft has been paying the large domain resellers to move their "parked" sites to IIS on Microsoft Server. Moving the parked customers of a single large reseller, GoDaddy.com, caused a shift of 4.5 Million domain names, or 5% of total server share from Apache to Microsoft IIS in the Netcraft report. This is an "appearance" change only, because the sites involved have no content. But managers believe figures like those in the Netcraft report, and act on them. It's time for the Free Software / Open Source community to fight back.

So regardless of whether it's a good or bad thing, it is necessary.

Re:Don't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147617)

no we could solve it at it's root.

convince companies to stop hiring incompetent and moronic managers?

I know, that is an impossibility as stupidity breeds stupidity. They proved it at my work by promoting the most incompetent manager from chicago to Information Systems Director. That man knows NOTHING about computers or IS/IT in general and now he is making policy.... yay!

Re:Don't. (1)

Spellbinder (615834) | about 8 years ago | (#15147625)

No. Domain parking should be forbidden. that would solve that shit much cleaner. omg they shit their pants, we have to do the same because managers believe in pantshitting ( what ever :p)

Re:Don't. (1)

FooBarWidget (556006) | about 8 years ago | (#15147697)

It doesn't matter what you think, or what any of us think about domain parking. Domain parking is NOT forbidden, and managers believe in Netcraft reports. Those are facts, and there is nothing we can do to change those facts.

Re:Don't. (5, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 8 years ago | (#15147640)

Here's an idea, a novel one, I know. How about lobbying Netcraft to, say, better track and determine which domains are parked, versus 'real'? It shouldn't be too hard. Some regexs, bayesian stuff, and then they could differentiate servers with 'real' content, which is a win win situation - their statistics are more relevant, and "we" solve the problem.

Re:Don't. (1)

FooBarWidget (556006) | about 8 years ago | (#15147704)

I'll give you a cookie if manage to do so. But that's only half the solution. Will managers actually look at (and understand) the differences? If not, then it won't help at all.

Re:Don't. (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 8 years ago | (#15147714)

See, that's the thing... they probably won't need to. If you (Netcraft) do this - it's in their interest to make the "real sites" server statistics their primary point of focus. Having determined that information, that's what's more valuable in the real world, and what will happen then is that the 'whole of web, parked included' statistics will be relegated to a trivia point in the background.

Well, hopefully.

Re:Don't. (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 8 years ago | (#15147727)

Will managers look at the differences? Yes, I think they do - this is why Netcraft sells their SSL server survey. First they educate their potential customers by telling them how vague the main survey is, and how they can get a much more accurate version if they only hand over some lucre.

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. (1)

timjdot (638909) | about 8 years ago | (#15148132)

They already do. Look around on their site. Been a while but they have a study where they removed the obviously parked nothing sites maybe by unique machines or something like that; but I think they had some algorithm for whacking out GoDaddy and other leeches of progress.

TimJowers

If you figure it out, please tell Google (1)

Comboman (895500) | about 8 years ago | (#15148057)

How about lobbying Netcraft to, say, better track and determine which domains are parked, versus 'real'? It shouldn't be too hard. Some regexs, bayesian stuff, and then they could differentiate servers with 'real' content

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:Don't. (0, Offtopic)

carpe_noctem (457178) | about 8 years ago | (#15148236)

hear, hear.

This post is very insightful, and I would mod you up had I not already foolishly wasted my meta-mod points on amusing troll posts. We should fix the system rather than adding more noise to it.

Re:Don't. (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | about 8 years ago | (#15147676)

I know this is news for nerds but please. We all know most business managers are not technical and can make stupendously silly decisions when they do not understanding technology. 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.

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 supporting the lowlifes who are holding hostage all those clever names you marketing bods brainstormed. Just to mask their pitiful market share in the server market."

Being associated with squatters dose no ones reputation any good, why stoop to Microsoft's level?

Re:Don't. (1)

2old2rockNroll (572607) | about 8 years ago | (#15147893)

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 intra-department software is now required to be MS Windows software. It's sad to have the second-raters in charge, but the rest of us don't want to be in management.

Re:Don't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15148005)

> The reason people in my department are managers is because they weren't good software engineers.

Yeah, that must be why you're still a software engineer, right? Nice try. You fail it.

We become managers, well ok, parents to you code monkeys for one simple reason. Someone needs to tell you abnormals to take a shower, stop using the lunch hour for WoW, stop commenting your source code in Klingon, and for the love of Pete start flossing the tofu bean sprouts from your teeth! And, yes, if any of you /.'rs recognized that was not more than one reason, then you're ready for management.

And for this particular poster. You're fired!

Re:Don't. (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | about 8 years ago | (#15147695)

The only people who care about these numbers are operating system advocates, specifically Linux zealots, who have been touting their leadership in domain parking-err-"marketshare" for a decade now.

Good luck finding any "manager" who gives a rats ass.

Re:Don't. (4, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 8 years ago | (#15147457)

How do you get an Under Construction sign without actual hosting?

Bruce has setup a service to allow your open source project to have an Open Source under construction sign.

Re:Don't. (2, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | about 8 years ago | (#15147459)

Precisely. All we need are more parked domains chock full of Google ads and banners. Google should just block all of them so that they stop clogging up search results, and especially so if the page contains the words "This Doman For Sale!"

And yet (5, Informative)

way2trivial (601132) | about 8 years ago | (#15147470)

their attitude is quite the oppopsite

http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]

Mebbe they aren't 'perfect' after all.

Re:And yet (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | about 8 years ago | (#15147773)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147601)

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.

My domain is essentially parked. I just have a blank page on it. This is because I use it for email and ssh, but can't be bothered creating a web page.

Re:Don't. (1)

MonkeyBoyo (630427) | about 8 years ago | (#15147627)

the only legitimate use is an "under construction" marker

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.

Public opinion? (1)

Flamekebab (873945) | about 8 years ago | (#15147453)

I'm wondering how this will affect public opinion of open source projects. Personally, if I wanted a domain and found someone had already parked it using an open source service, I'd be less than pleased with open source in general (assuming I wasn't already rather familiar with open source).

Of course, I might have got the wrong end of the stick here, but that's how I understand it at present.

Another waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147454)

Perens has been somewhat active in the past couple of weeks? Has he changed the street corner he gets his fix from? Seriously, Perens is banded around as being this "Open Source Evangelist" - excuse me while I puke in a bucket. Perens only pops on the scene when there is another fanciful idea to line his pockets with cash.

Re:Another waste of time (1)

DA-MAN (17442) | about 8 years ago | (#15147465)

Perens has been somewhat active in the past couple of weeks? Has he changed the street corner he gets his fix from? Seriously, Perens is banded around as being this "Open Source Evangelist" - excuse me while I puke in a bucket. Perens only pops on the scene when there is another fanciful idea to line his pockets with cash.

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 weeks and move on to the next big thing. . .

Re:Another waste of time (2, Insightful)

dune73 (130598) | about 8 years ago | (#15147494)

90% of the things you do in life just flop or simply do not bring the success you expected. That's no problem as long as you keep trying.

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.

Re:Another waste of time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147929)

I gave him a piece of string with a knot tied in it. That should hold him over for a few weeks.

Open source spam! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147455)

Hey, how about another campaign to try to get spammers to use more open source software? Just because their business is of NEGATIVE VALUE as it POLLUTES THE NETWORK doesn't mean it shouldn't be endorsed by the free software community.

Wasting time? I don't think so (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 8 years ago | (#15147458)

Every time Microsoft gains ground, they drive that point home with advertising campaigns and news releases. This adds to consumer confidence for their products. If IIS is serving on more than 50% of all websites, there must be something to it. Or so the logic goes.

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.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147468)

Totally agree.

Giving decent information would work better (5, Insightful)

jesterzog (189797) | about 8 years ago | (#15147626)

It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147751)

I don;t understand it either - it seems very 'school playground' to me.

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

The trouble with this approach is that anyone can refute your refutations by pointing to a few large companies who host similarly useless parked domains on Apache.

Re:Wasting time? I don't think so (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | about 8 years ago | (#15147863)

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 know what Netcraft shows about them.

Fundamental Flaw (5, Insightful)

6031769 (829845) | about 8 years ago | (#15147467)

The real problem with this plan (idealogical arguments aside) is that the vast majority of those who will bother to switch will naturally be the open source advocates. These are the ones who are most likely to be running an open-source web server on an open-source OS anyway, so the stats will hardly be shifted at all.

Re:Fundamental Flaw (1)

svanstrom (734343) | about 8 years ago | (#15147569)

But Perens will get money to play with... so he'll be a winner, because he can do what he wants to do...

Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (4, Insightful)

OpenSourced (323149) | about 8 years ago | (#15147474)

Symptoms are information. Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server? Can something be done about it? Those are IMHO the questions.

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 (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about 8 years ago | (#15147603)

You can correct with Photoshop your bank account receipt, and that won't make you any richer.

But if you use GIMP you get richer! (by the price of photoshop)

Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147814)

Not if you already have a copy of photoshop.

Re:Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (1)

drange_net (859642) | about 8 years ago | (#15147630)

Symptoms are information. Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server? Can something be done about it? Those are IMHO the questions.

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 (1)

OpenSourced (323149) | about 8 years ago | (#15147689)

Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server?

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 should try to "market" to CIOs that can look further than a glossy brochure. I'm not saying that that's the case, simply than more there is a need for more debate in that topic, till you decide that boosting Netcraft surveys is good. (Yes, that's what the OSS community needs, more endless debates :o)

Though it's already been said, I feel I must... (-1, Redundant)

nugneant (553683) | about 8 years ago | (#15147479)

...chime in now, so that many years down the road, I might look back on this post and feel a sense of righteousness, or something (yeah, I plan on living a terribly pathetic life, since I'll be returning to slashdot to boost my ego).

How is this good or beneficial to Linux? We already saw arguments over in the recent "Firefox user stats" thread about how numbers don't mean anything to the people concerned, and how it might even be argued that the people who would rely on numbers are exactly the sort of people that Open Source has little interest in at the moment - being that they account for 90%* of all idiotic technical support timewasting questions.

It's like a poster above said about switching pedophiles to Linux, only worse - Linux still has to combat a certain "cowboy hax0r d00d3" legacy in the fields its most interested in (the Workplace, the High End Market) - and seeing "WELCOME TO GOOGALL.COM! CLICK HERE TO SEARCH FOR ALL PRODUCTS ON GOOGALL! GOOGALL XBOX 360 GOOGAL XXX GOOGAL ADULT GOOGAL IPOD GOOGAL WEBCAM GOOGAL MODCHIP YOUR INTERNET IS BEING MONITORED RIGHT NOW, CLICK HERE FOR INFO this site powered by Linux" on every former 404 / typo URL isn't exactly going to endear the Linux name to the average decision-making Middle Manager in Charge of Accounts at BigCompanyConCo.

Anyway, just my $0.02 / YMMV / mod me down all you want / Bill Gates Sux / Linux rulez / IANAL / Cowboy Neal in Soviet Russia / FP FP FP FP FP FP / PONIES POINES PONEYS [soulwalking.co.uk] / etc



(*) - numbers fudged with tongue firmly in the ironic cheek

When I first saw this (4, Funny)

my $anity 0 (917519) | about 8 years ago | (#15147487)

I first thought: You have a large field, paved with asphalt. There are cans of paint all around. You park your car, and paint the lines around it.

Re:When I first saw this (1)

Nevynxxx (932175) | about 8 years ago | (#15147547)

Just remember to replace the paint you use, and to burn off your space when you are done. It might not be wide enough for the next person.
This was my first thought too.

Re:When I first saw this (1)

anzev (894391) | about 8 years ago | (#15148042)

And as more and more people contribute it will become a nightmare to maintain and will be relayered to a better environment. Typicall OS project if I may add.

On Netcraft (4, Interesting)

natrius (642724) | about 8 years ago | (#15147510)

Netcraft's job is to be the foremost provider of information about what's running the Internet. Anyone who takes the time to actually read what the numbers say will realize that what Netcraft paints as a huge shift is actually a fairly insignificant change. How many servers does it actually take to run all those parked domain names with almost the exact same content? If you look at the data provided on the same page [netcraft.com] about active sites, you'll see that Apache only dropped 2.32%, while Microsoft gained only 0.92%. Frontloading articles with dubious data while hiding the relevant numbers deep in their charts is extremely misleading and only serves to tarnish Netcraft's reputation. Netcraft's own report states that registrars have a disproportionate influence in market share numbers measured in this way, so what exactly is the value of the data other than to mislead?

Is BSD really dying?

Re:On Netcraft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15148443)

It is curious to see how since 2000 (more or less) Apache and Microsoft follow a mirror graph (in the market share graphic), a clear indicator that they both cope the web server market..

--edu

A more elegant solution perhaps? (3, Interesting)

samj (115984) | about 8 years ago | (#15147519)

Convince Netcraft that parked domains are irrelevant and have them identify the bulk of the parked domains and remove them from the statistics.

Re:A more elegant solution perhaps? (1)

landoltjp (676315) | about 8 years ago | (#15147866)

Please mod parent up.

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.

Dumbest Idea Ever (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147532)

I think it's pretty clear that this is perhaps the dumbest idea that has ever been put forward by anyone, ever. I would be a little ashamed to have mentioned it as an idea to some reporter, a little bit more ashamed to have actually coded something to do it, and finally I wouldn't ever even consider wasting thousands of people's time by putting it up as a news story.

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 .com TLD. Duh.

I park domains . (5, Interesting)

Shohat (959481) | about 8 years ago | (#15147540)

I own around 70 domains , many of which are parked through Sedo [sedo.co.uk] because many of the domains are for sale . Frankly speaking , parking is one of the most idiotic and pointless services on the internet .
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 ,I dont see a reason for OS devs to take any pride in providing the platform for Domain Parking .

Re:I park domains . (5, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 8 years ago | (#15147651)

In other words, you're a domain squatter. I don't think many people would have much sympathy for you not reaping in a five digit income due to ads on your parked domains.

Re:I park domains . (2, Funny)

Shohat (959481) | about 8 years ago | (#15147687)

Ex-fucking-actly . And I dont think that the OS community should go out if its way to get " The Leading domain squatting Platform" badge .
Just to clarify - this isn't what I do for a living . I just do it =) .

Re:I park domains . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15148157)

Here is a guy who knows what's right and still did the wrong thing. The point is: if it's legal and it can make money, someone is going to do it. The organization (IANA) or some committee should find a way to vote off those squatted domain names and take them back when someone has a valid reason to ask for it.

Try to do a "whois" on any good name you can come up with, there is a squatter smiling at you.

Let me be the first to say: Who cares? (1)

noamsml (868075) | about 8 years ago | (#15147611)

These are fucking parked domains, as far as anyone is concerned, they can be hosted on MacOS9.

Re:Let me be the first to say: Who cares? (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | about 8 years ago | (#15147858)

someone should pimp up a commodore 64 to put parked domains on, just for the heck of it! [:)]

Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (5, Interesting)

GoatMonkey2112 (875417) | about 8 years ago | (#15147683)

I would like to congratulate godaddy.com on their fantastic new parked domain name "turbocow.com".

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15148554)

the realy cool thing is that GoDaddy sales execs are right now wondering why TurboCow is getting sooo many hits and trying to figure out how much that popularity should increase the resale price!

Is Slashdot Peren's Fanboi or What? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15147712)

first SCO stories, now PR hype for Perens

story after story after story

is he a major shareholder?

This will lose credibility for OSS (3, Interesting)

chrisbeach (887853) | about 8 years ago | (#15147810)

This is horribly counterproductive for the open-source movement. Consider how this campaign will appear to the media. All that is certain is that stats for Apache hosting will be artificially high because of this campaign. And moreover, the article presents no hard evidence that MS is carrying out any manipulation themselves.

What? (2, Interesting)

Sj0 (472011) | about 8 years ago | (#15147817)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this a dumb thing to do? "Oh noes! Windows got 5% more market share in the 'not actually hosting a website' demographic!"

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? (0, Offtopic)

10Ghz (453478) | about 8 years ago | (#15147861)

For some reason I'm reminded by this piece of dialogue from Office Space:

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 (1)

DenDave (700621) | about 8 years ago | (#15147962)

But my domain hoster charges me to change the NS records... of course this may lead to the development of something different altogether.. an opensource and free domain registrar. My current registrar allows me to change everything but the NS records (A,AAA,CNAME,MX) myself at no charge (except the few bucks anually) but of course this service could be provided by a community supported organization, goodness gracious that would put a dent in the usage statistics, Mr Perens! It might stop some of the more irritating aspects of domain parking and that would in itself be a great boon for the internet as a whole. It could work..

Re:It would be free... it could be free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15148314)

Try namecheap.com with the BESTVALUE coupon code, 7.99/year with whois privacy protection and changing everything like nameservers yourself included. I have ~100 domains with them, very happy indeed.

(The captcha word I got: fellatio :)

Re:It would be free... it could be free (1)

badfish99 (826052) | about 8 years ago | (#15148346)

There are a number of sources of free domain names already: the first example that came up when I googled was this one [freedomain.co.nr] , but there are others.

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...