Home

News: Microsoft Now Owns OR Mapping Industry via New Patent

  1. A group of inventors have filed a patent on systems of mapping data structures (AKA ORM) using XML or other structures that run on a computer.

    The patent is described with the following extremely generic language:
    The patent is A data mapping architecture for mapping between two or more data sources without modifying the metadata or structure of the data sources themselves. Data mapping also supports updates. The architecture also supports at least the case where data sources that are being mapped, are given, their schemas predefined, and cannot be changed.
    What this means to current ORM vendors is not yet understood, nor is how a patent could be obtained on a process that has been around for years and implemented by dozens of other projects.

    What is your response to such a claim? What do you think can be done to prevent such patents being applied for?

    Threaded Messages (158)

  2. No patent yet.[ Go to top ]

    What this means to current ORM vendors is not yet understood, nor is how a patent could be obtained on a process that has been around for years and implemented by dozens of other projects.

    M$ hasn't obtained the patent yet - anyone can apply for a patent, getting it is a different matter, just like lawsuits (i.e. SCO...)
  3. Not an issue[ Go to top ]

    As pointed out above, anyone with a little cash can file a patent.

    The next step is a prior art search to look for evidence of existing commercial or public domain examples of similar approaches.

    If they've got something truly unique, it would be limited to the exact approach they describe, generally, but more likely this will be rejected as "obvious to a subject matter expert" under patent law.

    As to whether the current patent system makes sense, that's a different subject altogether, and frankly, one that gives me a headache.
  4. Prior art[ Go to top ]

    My understanding from another thread is that Prior art prevents a patent grant. Once the patent is granted, prior art doesn't help much. So, a lot hangs in the balance here.
  5. Prior art[ Go to top ]

    My understanding from another thread is that Prior art prevents a patent grant. Once the patent is granted, prior art doesn't help much. So, a lot hangs in the balance here.

    gotta +1 that one
  6. Prior art[ Go to top ]

    Copied from TheServerSide.net
    [http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=34023]
     Too much prior art
    Posted by: Adam Sills on May 19, 2005 in response to Message #171271 0 replies in this thread
    That's actually not true.

    "Prior art searches may also be used to invalidate existing patents (these searches are called "validity searches" or "invalidity searches") by showing that the patent office erred in the issuance of a patent because the patent holder is not the first inventor."
  7. Not quite[ Go to top ]

    Another important attribute of the mapping architecture is that of being updateable. In the past, developers had to write code to propagate and synchronize changes between the domains. However, in accordance with the present invention, the mapping engine now performs these tasks. That is, when the user creates, deletes, or modifies a structure in the target domain, these changes are automatically synchronized (persisted) to the source domain by the target API and mapping engine.


    I am not aware of any one who does this today.

    Ricky
  8. I am not aware of any one who does this today.


    You wouldn't be .. one of the downsides of using .NET ;-)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  9. Very helpful[ Go to top ]

    You wouldn't be .. one of the downsides of using .NET ;-)

    That was very helpful link. Everyone is a moron... bohoo..
    I need to attack everyone.. bo hoo..
  10. Very helpful[ Go to top ]

    Why does Ricky Datta feel the need to hang around Java websites telling everyone to switch to Windows and .NET?
  11. only in self-defense[ Go to top ]

    1) How many times has Microsoft initiated a patent infringement lawsuit?
    2) Were any of these these lawsuits instrumental in eliminating a competitor?

    Microsoft is just trying to protect itself from the idiotic American patent system. As usual reading TSS make one feel like an intellectual giant.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  12. As much as I think it's a waste of money, Microsoft really does generally file patents with a defensive intention. So when Thought Inc. sues Microsoft over Object Spaces, Microsoft will have at least something in their back pocket (in addition to a gigantic team of Black Belt Ninja Lawyers) to protect themselves.

    Clinton
  13. only in self-defense[ Go to top ]

    1) How many times has Microsoft initiated a patent infringement lawsuit?2) Were any of these these lawsuits instrumental in eliminating a competitor?Microsoft is just trying to protect itself from the idiotic American patent system. As usual reading TSS make one feel like an intellectual giant.RegardsRolf Tollerud

    "Intellectual giant"? I think that is pushing it a bit. ;)

    But this time you are probably right. Both Microsoft and IBM tend to file for patents to slap a bunch of them in the face of people trying to sue them for infringements..
  14. only in self-defense[ Go to top ]

    from the idiotic American patent system

    ...that, for instance, is going to be introduced in Europe as well.
  15. only in self-defense[ Go to top ]

    So then Rolf, what do you feel like?

    -Pete
  16. You wouldn't be .. one of the downsides of using .NET ;-)

    CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP


    ;)

    Cheers and happy coding,
    Martin
  17. I am not aware of any one who does this today.
    You wouldn't be .. one of the downsides of using .NET ;-)

    Actually you're not too far off from the reality over in Microsoft land, it seems. Microsoft is brilliant at taking ancient technology, slapping on a catchy name, and then marketing it as their own invention. They did this with the unix symbolic links, now they are going to solve the "impedance mismatch".

    Read this transcript by Anders Hjelsberg (he's actually a good speaker, more of a tech evangelist) and it's stunning to see just how much they are very much in their own sparse world over there. There are a plethora of great tools available in the Java world that do all this stuff - Castor, Hibernate, JDO implementations just to name a few. Clearly, the benefit of Java is the wealth of great tools available, Microsoft seems very limited.


    Here's a short quote:
    Hejlsberg:

    Can I talk about other things I’m working on? Not in a great level of detail, but I can sketch out some of the ideas that we’re thinking about. You saw that- one of the new things we talked about here today was nullable types, which have to do with trying to erase the impedance mismatch that we have today between databases and general purpose programming languages. If you look at that area, there are many more impedance mismatches. In fact, it’s interesting, if I ask- generally when we ask our customers, How many C# customers use- let me try here. How many of you do database access in your applications?

    Question:

    Who doesn’t?

    Hejlsberg:

    Exactly, who doesn’t? To the extent that we could make that a better experience, that we could eradicate the impedance mismatches that we have between the database and C#, it would be a good thing. Today if you write a database applications, you pretty much have to learn two languages, C# and T SQL, or whatever your database is. You have two completely different paradigms, objects vs. relational. You have queries and set operations vs. none of the above. Over on the other side you have nullable types vs. no nullable types. There’s so much stuff that we could do better in that space by truly thinking about how do these things come together? What does a language look like that can do both? That’s something I’m very interested in thinking about, because I think that that could be really fruitful for everybody. I’ll leave it broad like that, but it’s something that we’re spending a lot of time thinking about.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdntv/transcripts/20040624csharpahTranscript.aspx
  18. Not quite[ Go to top ]

    That is, when the user creates, deletes, or modifies a structure in the target domain, these changes are automatically synchronized (persisted) to the source domain by the target API and mapping engine. I am not aware of any one who does this today.Ricky
    As I can understand the "source domain" is the database. Meaning that, when you do a change in the XML files/Class anotations (target domain), the changes are reflected on the structure of the database.
    All the serious ORMs can do that. In Hibernate, the tool is called SchemaExport.
  19. Ridiculous[ Go to top ]

    Ridiculous!

    What they are going to do - make Hibernate pay royalties?
  20. Ridiculous[ Go to top ]

    Probably, we'll all be paying royalties.

    Folks are scoffing at this but trust me, Microsoft has the lawyers, money, and time to get this patent approved.
  21. Prior Art[ Go to top ]

    Probably, we'll all be paying royalties. Folks are scoffing at this but trust me, Microsoft has the lawyers, money, and time to get this patent approved.

    This is true - they don't call it M$ for no reason, however I have to magic words for you ....

    prior art

    PJ Murray
    CodeFutures Software - Code Generation for Java Persistence
    http://www.codefutures.com
  22. We are a .NET Code Generator that does exactly this.
    http://www.mygenerationsoftware.com
  23. We are a .NET Code Generator that does exactly this.http://www.mygenerationsoftware.com
    Be prepared to become a Microsoft employee ... until they get the patent ;-)
  24. link to original filing?[ Go to top ]

    anyone have a link to the original uspto filing? I don't see any mention of microsoft on the link, so I don't think MS has anything to do with this. I could be wrong, and those inventors could be MS employees. a link to the original filing would be more detailed.

    peter
  25. Original uspto filing?[ Go to top ]

    Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)

    See this link.
  26. thanks for the link[ Go to top ]

    Inventors: Swamy; Shekhar N. (Bellevue, WA); Taylor; William R. (Kirkland, WA)
    Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
    Appl. No.: 607560
    Filed: June 29, 2000

    So according to the uspto database, the patent was first filed in june 29, 2000. I'm no expert, but people were doing ORM before then.

    One thing I noticed is claim 10 is a dependent claim and it uses XSL. If I have an ORM that doesn't use XSL/XSLT at all, I would think the patent doesn't apply. Claim #4 explicitly refers to XMLSchema's maxoccurs. So if I don't use XMLSchema, the patent would not apply.

    If I understand this patent correctly, it is a very specific embodiment of ORM. It does not patent the technique of mapping from one model to another model. The process described in claim one is pretty specific. I could be totally wrong, since I'm not a lawyer.

    peter
  27. thanks for the link[ Go to top ]

    Well, Actually, I don't think that link is the right one, I made a mistake (sorry). I think the original link is an application for a patent, so it is not in effect yet in the database, I have search for it exhaustively.
  28. this might be the right one[ Go to top ]

    that patent was filed august 29, 2003.
     talk about tons of prior art before that date.


    peter
  29. No worries, this is prior art matter. You could find gazillions of patent applications in this category. It won't make it.
  30. A statement of intent[ Go to top ]

    Well, it clearly shows their interest in this area as they move towards their WinFS platform and the user extensible type system that must eventually fit with relational and XML schemas. I think it is nice to see that they are actually thinking beyond their data grid.

    However, prior art is everywhere.

    http://www.versant.com/products/openaccess/dotnet

    So .... actually getting a patent is another issue.

    Robert Greene
    Versant Corporation
    www.versant.com
  31. Microsoft's motives for patenting is usually to prevent others from misusing technology.

    So, come on, this is no prob.
  32. Microsoft's motives for patenting is usually to prevent others from misusing technology.

    Yeah, they want to keep that capability to themselves
    ;o)
  33. Microsoft's motives for patenting is usually to prevent others from misusing technology.

    Holy Guardians of Technology, that's what folk at Microsoft are. Yeah, rite...
    I won't honor this comment with the answer it deserves.

    Cheers and happy coding,
    Martin
  34. The whole issue of patents is becoming higher profile. I am surprised that competition regulators are not taking more interest in patents that are quite obviously intended to reduce market choice and competition.
  35. Misleading title[ Go to top ]

    The title is misleading, Microsoft DOES NOT own OR-mapping industry nor will it ever.

    Anyone with $500 to spare can file a patent and, with the current review process, it's more likely than not that it will be approved.

    Until this patent has been tested in court
    (and providing that the court does recognize software patents),
    no one can tell for sure if this patent is valid or what value it may have, if any.

    Slow news day leads to controversial headlines?

    Regards,

    Igor Zavialov, Factoreal Corp.
    Factoreal Web Service API for Investment Research
  36. Worry about a patent violation for ORM is the least of your worries.

    Just take a look at this: http://www.mimesis.net/swpat/video.htm

    TheServerSide.com is in violation of at least the following patents:

    Tabbed pallettes
    Picture link
    Viewing video
    Download video
    mpeg4-format
    View in browser
    GIF-files use LZW-compression

    Regards,

    Carlos
  37. Worry about a patent violation for ORM is the least of your worries.Just take a look at this: http://www.mimesis.net/swpat/video.htmTheServerSide.com is in violation of at least the following patents:Tabbed pallettesPicture linkViewing videoDownload videompeg4-formatView in browserGIF-files use LZW-compressionRegards,Carlos

    The LZW algorithm expired years ago...
  38. The LZW algorithm expired years ago...

    Ummh, I believe it was renewed to some extent and is not completedly disabled.
  39. The software patent falacy![ Go to top ]

    First, I am not a lawyer. Nor am I an American citizen.

    Second some history:

    Diamond v Dehr (US Supreme Court 1981)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=450&page=175
    that concluded:
    "Because we do not view respondents' claims as an attempt to
    patent a mathematical formula, but rather to be drawn to an
    industrial process [450 U.S. 175, 193] for the molding of
    rubber products, we affirm the judgment of the Court of
    Customs and Patent Appeals. 15"

    Or you can patent software if it is part of another device
    even if the software is the only invention.

    In re Alappat (U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit - 1994)
    http://digital-law-online.info/cases/31PQ2D1545.htm
    "Consequently, a computer operating pursuant to software may
    represent patentable subject matter, provided, of course,
    that the claimed subject matter meets all of the other
    requirements of Title 35. In any case, a computer, like a
    rasterizer, is apparatus not mathematics."

    Or you can patent software because a computer is not mathematics (it is even more convoluted if you read the whole thing :-).

    Even if you ignore the obvious logical falacy of the second
    decision (or at least its interpretation by the software
    industry and the USPTO), just read the decision,
    concurrances and the dissensions then judge for yourself
    which is applying
    "words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary,
    contemporary, common meaning," Perrin v. United States, 444
    U.S. 37, 42 (1979)
    as required by the US patent statute.

    Also note the shennanigans at the USPTO surrounding this
    decision, which explains why they surrendered and left
    it to the courts (where the companies pay the legal fees)
    to decide whether an invention is patentable.

    Further, "In re Alappat" has never been
    reviewed by the Supreme Court.
    If ony Sun had taken Kodak to the Supreme Court,
    but then I guess Sun has "patents" of its own...

    The people I feel sorry for are the people that have
    bought into the Software Patent Cartel's snake oil
    that they actually *own* this "Intellectual Property".
    Caveat Emptor :-)
  40. The software patent falacy![ Go to top ]

    Or you can patent software if it is part of
    another device even if the software is the only
    invention

    And if you read "In re Alappat" you don't even have to
    invent the software/mathematics, you just need to apply
    it in a new way.
  41. Not so fast...[ Go to top ]

    Anyone remember what Kodak did to Sun not too long ago? They used what many felt was an invalid patent with tons of prior art/lack of novelty to win a huge judgement from a nearby (read sympathetic) court, resulting in a costly settlment rather than an expensive appeal.

    We can hope that M$ will continue to not operate in this manner, but I don't think it would hurt to refine our patent system a bit to reduce this kind of abuse. Patents are shields, not swords.
  42. Not so fast...[ Go to top ]

    We can hope that M$ will continue to not operate in this manner,

    Well, I don't know why, but it's impossible for me to "hope" anything from M$ !
    Also, I don't know why, I don't like much the idea of them owning patents on everything you know...
     but I don't think it would hurt to refine our patent system a bit to reduce this kind of abuse. Patents are shields, not swords.

    +1 !

    BTW, EU residents that still don't care yet, or don't know : express yourself !

    The fight is hard, but it's not too late...

    Cheers

    Remi
  43. Prior art[ Go to top ]

    It wouldn't be hard to prove prior art...
  44. It wouldn't be hard to prove prior art...

    I worked at Microsoft from '94 thru '99. During '96 thru '98 I codeveloped a C++ ORM system while attached to Site Server group and it was also incorporated into Merchant Server. I eventually wound up in the COM+ group where from '98 to '99 developed a managed code ORM persistence subsystem for what would eventually become known as .NET. Microsoft decided not to muddy the waters for ADO.NET, though, and dropped this object persistence subsystem (but of course it's still in their code archives).

    I basically left Microsoft because I saw that ADO.NET was going to politically prevail over my group's ORM solution and that Microsoft wasn't going to go with two persistence solutions for .NET.

    The point remains, though, that they have their own history of ORM development that goes back further than most people suspect.

    One thing that we did in the C++ ORM solution (which was designed for high performance insertion of data for subsequent OLAP purposes) was that we devised a means of parallel processing of batch data insert/update operations. Hence our solution scaled in near linear fashion in conjunction to multi-proc SQL Server back-end servers (we ran our ORM stuff on a middle-tier server). I've never seen any other ORM solution anywhere since that does anything remotely resembling what we accomplished with that system. I think MS could have mined some patents out of that stuff.
  45. very interesting[ Go to top ]

    It wouldn't be hard to prove prior art...
    I worked at Microsoft from '94 thru '99. During '96 thru '98 I codeveloped a C++ ORM system while attached to Site Server group and it was also incorporated into Merchant Server. I eventually wound up in the COM+ group where from '98 to '99 developed a managed code ORM persistence subsystem for what would eventually become known as .NET. Microsoft decided not to muddy the waters for ADO.NET, though, and dropped this object persistence subsystem (but of course it's still in their code archives).I basically left Microsoft because I saw that ADO.NET was going to politically prevail over my group's ORM solution and that Microsoft wasn't going to go with two persistence solutions for .NET.The point remains, though, that they have their own history of ORM development that goes back further than most people suspect.One thing that we did in the C++ ORM solution (which was designed for high performance insertion of data for subsequent OLAP purposes) was that we devised a means of parallel processing of batch data insert/update operations. Hence our solution scaled in near linear fashion in conjunction to multi-proc SQL Server back-end servers (we ran our ORM stuff on a middle-tier server). I've never seen any other ORM solution anywhere since that does anything remotely resembling what we accomplished with that system. I think MS could have mined some patents out of that stuff.

    It's really quite sad that MS chose to dump the ORM solution you worked on in favor of ADO.NET. I think the world is big enough for two products within the .NET world.

    I could be wrong and don't have any links or references to back this up, but I thought ORM theory goes back further. I remember talking to a DBA friend with 15 years of experience and he mentioned OODBMS solutions had explored OR mapping in the early 90's. Though I think it was more in the context of migration tools than using it as a general DataAccess pattern/abstraction.

    The idea of mapping Relational to Object seems pretty obvious, so I would think it goes back even further.

    peter
  46. Relevance of previous work[ Go to top ]

    Roger, I found your post very interesting, esp. the part about the parallel processing. What did you use to express the mappings?

    If memory serves XML got its 1.0 spec in '98. I suspect that anyone contesting the patent might point to that to cast doubt over the relevance of prior work.
  47. Let's not forget the EOLAS lawsuit:

    http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/17694/1954?pf=true.

    Microsoft was bitten pretty badly even though I believe it's still in appeals(?). This is probably just a preemptive maneuver by Microsoft.

    I'm not endorsing MS or whatever, but the EOLAS case was BS and it's this type of nonsense that is causing software patents to be more and more of a tool of protection rather than subversion.
  48. Next MS Patent[ Go to top ]

    I read that IE7 will have tabbed browsing. I bet we'll see MS filing a patent on that soon.
  49. Interesting no-one noticed this link
  50. First of all, the whole subject is definitely not clear. I can see one patent filed by MS in 2000, one filed in 2003 and one filed in 2005 by independent "inventors" who are, though, all suspiciously located in the area around Redmond, WA. Since I do not know the details of US patent laws, I think the statement "Microsoft Now Owns OR Mapping" is at least an overstatement.
    1) How many times has Microsoft initiated a patent infringement lawsuit?
    2) Were any of these these lawsuits instrumental in eliminating a competitor?

    Agreed. It is possible to imagine that Microsoft was somehow behind the lawsuits by Kodak vs. Sun and by SCO vs. IBM, but this does not mean they are trying to "eliminate the competitor". It is a harassment attack at most, and it is impossible to deny that MS itself has suffered legal attacks from competitors or competitor-backed US courts.

    However, this move has sinister aspects, dear Rolf. ORM technology is the current hot issue of Enterprise Java technology, the (possible) solution to the BIG EJB problem. Whether integrated into EJB3 or not, whether JDO or Hibernate or Rails-for-Java, Java cannot go further in the task of responding to the enterprise-level needs without a consolidated ORM solution, or better a wide array of alternative, non-mutually-exclusive solutions.

    The fact that the most widely adopted ORM solution is open source is even more significant for those who believe in OSS.

    I could persuade my management to introduce Hibernate in our current technology stack very easily, while it was useless effort to. But what would be the consequences of knowing that adopting any solution based on ORM could expose you to legal action? The small customer would not care, but the enterprise would get scared. In the long run, the big customer would discard Enterprise Java solutions for fear of lawsuits, not because .NET or Ruby or PHP are technologically better.

    This is what I call "unfair competition". Don't you?
  51. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    "However, this move has sinister aspects, dear Rolf"

    No, it has not. If you think that MS has any chance to use their ORM patents against OSS (even if they should want to and they don't) you need to learn how to get your discernment back and also your sense of proportions.

    "ORM technology is the current hot issue of Enterprise Java technology"

    It was the ORM part of EJB that was the culprit to the great mistakes that was done with J2ee back in 2000-2002. ORM is still very much a controversial issue - many actually think it is harmful to Java.

    IMO, it is a technology only useful for quick and dirty solutions. If you read Roger Voss post you will see that Microsoft has had ORM for quite a while but choosed to tuck it away.

    Why this great fuss over something that is not worth anything in the first place?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  52. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    "However, this move has sinister aspects, dear Rolf"No, it has not. If you think that MS has any chance to use their ORM patents against OSS (even if they should want to and they don't) you need to learn how to get your discernment back and also your sense of proportions.

    This was not my point. What I found sinister was that in this way Microsoft could achieve the effect of discouraging customers from adopting J2EE in the Enterprise area even if they do not take any action.

    For an example, look at the threads where OSS evangelists (I am not one) argue that a non-open-source Java is inherently dangerous because Sun could be bought or go bankrupt. They are fearing for future requests for royalties, even if Sun is known for giving away its IP for free. Even if we agree about Sun's good intentions, what could happen in the future? Remember Compuserve and the GIF format?

    You may be persuaded that MS would never undertake any hostile action, and no evidence contradicts you, this is sure. My doubt was that in this way Mr. Gates does not need to act to obtain his goal. Of course you will argue that it is not his goal, but we have definitely no hope to find an agreement about this issue.
    "ORM technology is the current hot issue of Enterprise Java technology"It was the ORM part of EJB that was the culprit to the great mistakes that was done with J2ee back in 2000-2002. ORM is still very much a controversial issue - many actually think it is harmful to Java.

    It was a bad ORM that caused the mistakes. Now everybody agrees aboput replacing it with a hibernate or JDO clone. Or about skipping the EJBs and keeping HIB/JDO in a web container, which for most systems is the same from the architectural POV.
    IMO, it is a technology only useful for quick and dirty solutions.

    Possible, but I would not call it "dirty". Is is certainly less performant if compared to pure SQL, but 80% of applications do not need that much performance. Have you ever done network management systems? Well, in that domain it is SQL that is inferior to OODBMS and ORM: networks are inherently reticular, and forcing their model into a relational DB is nightmarish, though not impossible.
    If you read Roger Voss post you will see that Microsoft has had ORM for quite a while but choosed to tuck it away.Why this great fuss over something that is not worth anything in the first place?

    A choice made by MS is no evidence in itself. Gates spent a lot of time trying to persuade the market that the Internet was not a big issue. It took him much more time to regain the market position he had lost to Netscape in the meanwhile. At least he recognized his mistake in time...
  53. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    Paolo,
    "Gates spent a lot of time trying to persuade the market that the Internet was not a big issue.. At least he recognized his mistake in time... "

    Talk about Soviet revisionist history writing!

    MS had already won everything before internet arrived. 95% of all development (not only enterprise) was done with MS tools. Then come the Web from nothing and the competition start from zero again. No actually MS have to start from minus, as Sun/IBM/Oracle is better positioned (by sheer luck). To top it all Sun gains additional advantage with a sneak attack.

    All in all enough to destroy most companies. That Microsoft survived this one is the greatest achievement of modern corporate history, possible only because of MS unique agile corporate culture. In a few months you will be able to search any job-site on earth. Java or J2EE vs C# or .NET, and you will find that MS's fork of Java have out competed Sun's version everywhere.

    But that is now history.

    Is ORM totally worthless? No IMO because it can be of good help in the "quick and dirty" jobs that constitute the main body of projects for the average contractor. But what will happen if MS make broadly available a free ORM tool is that it will be used everywhere, even is serious projects "because of the yearning to be an real OO programmer" that seems affects all the ordinary ant Web application workers in the world. (In the same way Social Sciences yearns to be accepted as "real" sciences ;).

    Then what shall we do? To put "this may be detrimental to your health on top of all ORM pages"? It won't help.

    I have no solution. Folly will always prevail.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  54. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    MS had already won everything before internet arrived. 95% of all development (not only enterprise) was done with MS tools.

    Not sure if you are ironic. Anyway: It has to read but for enterprise. And it remains much this way today. Most enterprise development is done with tools from IBM, SAP, CA and so on. Oh, and Oracle if you must.
    No actually MS have to start from minus, as Sun/IBM/Oracle is better positioned (by sheer luck).

    What? Regarding development tools for web development? Please...
    That Microsoft survived this one is the greatest achievement of modern corporate history, possible only because of MS unique agile corporate culture.

    And because of the amount of cash they piled up before that.
    In a few months you will be able to search any job-site on earth. Java or J2EE vs C# or .NET, and you will find that MS's fork of Java have out competed Sun's version everywhere.

    Thought exactly that as .NET came out, what now three, four years ago. Didn't happen and now it is probably too late, especially considering that a lot of corporate deployment is now done to Linux (for whatever reason).
  55. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    Sorry, people. I swallowed that bait and unleashed the troll. I promise I'll make amendments.
    Talk about Soviet revisionist history writing!

    Actually, I was restraining from political comments, since I have already done one this week.
    MS had already won everything before internet arrived. 95% of all development (not only enterprise) was done with MS tools.

    Then I must be one of the 5% (un)lucky guys, because I was an active dev at that time and I had never used a MS tool. Unless you want to consider IBM Pascal 1.0 for the IBM PC, which was a MS compiler labeled as IBM, like MS-DOS.
    Folly will always prevail.
    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    Well, I cannot contradict you about this point.
  56. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    95% of all development (not only enterprise) was done with MS tools.
    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    Can you please clarify what you mean by 95% and MS tools. If you mean the developers were using windows for all, or part of the development, than I'd agree. If you're talking about IDE, development tools for creating database tables, models, diagrams and so on, then I'd say you're wrong.

    What percentage of the source control market did Microsoft have in 95-97? What percentage of the Database market did MS have between 95-97. What percentage of developers used Visual Studios between 95-97?

    happily waiting for real facts :)

    peter
  57. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    95% of all development (not only enterprise) was done with MS tools.RegardsRolf Tollerud
    Can you please clarify what you mean by 95% and MS tools. If you mean the developers were using windows for all, or part of the development, than I'd agree.

    Sorry Peter, but I doubt even this cannot account to 95%. I never touched a PC for development purposes from May 1995 to May 1999, when I started using Visual Studio for the first time. Even the clients were X stations, and the only time we had Intel-based clients they were running SCO. Again, was I part of the 5% minority of the (un)lucky ones?

    Uh, and to clarify it further. I do agree with Rolf that MS turned out to be the winner in the browser space, after all. And the overall strategy they used was smart. This is impossible to deny. My only disagreement was that the initial strategy was wrong and that they were forced to change their way or be second. The same happened with Sun and Linux.
  58. bad joke on my part[ Go to top ]

    95% of all development (not only enterprise) was done with MS tools.RegardsRolf Tollerud
    Can you please clarify what you mean by 95% and MS tools. If you mean the developers were using windows for all, or part of the development, than I'd agree.
    Sorry Peter, but I doubt even this cannot account to 95%. I never touched a PC for development purposes from May 1995 to May 1999, when I started using Visual Studio for the first time. Even the clients were X stations, and the only time we had Intel-based clients they were running SCO. Again, was I part of the 5% minority of the (un)lucky ones? Uh, and to clarify it further. I do agree with Rolf that MS turned out to be the winner in the browser space, after all. And the overall strategy they used was smart. This is impossible to deny. My only disagreement was that the initial strategy was wrong and that they were forced to change their way or be second. The same happened with Sun and Linux.

    If you define 95% as north america and small/med businesses, I think it's plausible. Not that I have any data to back that up. One the otherhand, if we change the definition to all development world wide for all segments, then I would say 95% would not be accurate.

    the real question is, can Rolf back up his statement with real numbers, will he admit he was being overly general and trolling, or continue claiming 95% without any proof.

    peter
  59. bad joke on my part[ Go to top ]

    If you define 95% as north america and small/med businesses, I think it's plausible. Not that I have any data to back that up. One the otherhand, if we change the definition to all development world wide for all segments, then I would say 95% would not be accurate.

    UNIX and HP/Sun/Digital C compilers were the only choice for Telco at that time here. And Clipper still ruled the low end business.

    Things have changed later, and MS did gain a significant advantage thereafter. I still cannot see a 95% marketshare, though.
    the real question is, can Rolf back up his statement with real numbers, will he admit he was being overly general and trolling, or continue claiming 95% without any proof.peter

    Well, does it really matter? If he wants to repost his opinion over and over and call it "evidence", he is free to do so. In fact, TSS would quickly become boring without him. Besides, some of his points were actually correct lately.

    I only think that people should restrain from calling him "moron", whatever he states. This is unfair and not polite, and certantly it does nothing in order to persuade him to provide evidence that is more connected to reality.
  60. Thank you Paolo! Nice to meet another intelligent being. And here in TSS of all places!..

    Someday in the future I have hope that it will be possible to have a mature and intelligent conversation without people taking every opportunity to point to irrelevant detail.

    All else around the world, from the old Cimmerians ("that live in a land of fog and darkness at the borders of the known world" according to Herodotus), Scythians, Sarmatians, to Greeks, Romans, all through the dark medieval ages to the modern world all over the globe, in China, India, Europe, Greenland, Borneo - you name it - everywhere, the meaning of 95% is taken to be: "Almost all" or "The main body".

    Only here in TSS the meaning is translated to: 95%! No it is 96%!, no is is 90% (and so on).

    Actually I did take the number 95% from a comment from Cameron. It was he who said it!

    Best regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  61. Someday in the future I have hope that it will be possible to have a mature and intelligent conversation without people taking every opportunity to point to irrelevant detail....in China, India, Europe, Greenland, Borneo - you name it - everywhere, the meaning of 95% is taken to be: "Almost all" or "The main body".

    No it isn't. You are speaking only for yourself. If you meant 'the main body', why don't you say 'the main body'. If you give actual figures you can't complain if people attempt to question those figures.
  62. Someday in the future I have hope that it will be possible to have a mature and intelligent conversation without people taking every opportunity to point to irrelevant detail.
    A surprisingly sensical point, immediately followed by...
    All else around the world, from the old Cimmerians ("that
     live in a land of fog and darkness at the borders of the known world" according to Herodotus)
    You don't even realize, do you?

    --
    Cedric
  63. Cedric the student[ Go to top ]

    As I said Cedric it was your teacher that mentioned the 95%. Why don't you ask your master when you have your next lection?

    BTW how is it going, are you progressing? A little tip: Next time, ask him to teach you some manners.
  64. In other news..[ Go to top ]

    without people taking every opportunity to point to irrelevant detail.

    In other news: Britney Spears is marrying a cow, God has been proven to really exist, the pope does not have a funny hat, bears do not take a crap in the woods, and 14 bottles of beer(icelandic that is, brewed in a small hat made out of wood) contain the same amount of the active ingredience in viagra as five viagra pills.

    Facts to back that up? That's irrelevant details!!

    "For the greek god saw that Eschistoples was sailing towards the enemy, and thus he built the Canyseeuranus canal in only two days" (Do you need more proof than that?)

    Best regards
    Flor Dulloruet
    (I told you so)
  65. In other news..[ Go to top ]

    Very creative mocking! :)
  66. Thank you Paolo! Nice to meet another intelligent being. And here in TSS of all places!..Someday in the future I have hope that it will be possible to have a mature and intelligent conversation without people taking every opportunity to point to irrelevant detail.All else around the world, from the old Cimmerians ("that live in a land of fog and darkness at the borders of the known world" according to Herodotus), Scythians, Sarmatians, to Greeks, Romans, all through the dark medieval ages to the modern world all over the globe, in China, India, Europe, Greenland, Borneo - you name it - everywhere, the meaning of 95% is taken to be: "Almost all" or "The main body". Only here in TSS the meaning is translated to: 95%! No it is 96%!, no is is 90% (and so on).Actually I did take the number 95% from a comment from Cameron. It was he who said it!
    Best regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    I don't think in china 95% would be interpreted as "almost all". Not unless you happen to be a master at Thai Chi, practice herbal medicine, write flawless chinese poetry, paint with a caligraphy brush and have the ability to beat up an army single-handed :)

    are you sure Cameron wasn't joking when he made the "95%" remark? could it just be misunderstanding and mis-interpretation?

    peter
  67. development before the Web[ Go to top ]

    "are you sure Cameron wasn't joking when he made the "95%" remark?"

    Why don't we ask him?

    I remember only MS development. Data on mainframes or AS400 was accessed via connectors or from batch files. But I would be interested in your own estimation.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  68. My own experience[ Go to top ]

    in the early 90's I worked for ISP and small contract jobs. In those cases, it was still PERL CGI + apache. So in that world, MS tools was less than 25%. In fact, having worked at a service provider and known a few people who owned service providers, the dominant platform was solaris and linux. I know of 2 small ISP in the 90's that had 20-40K customers who tried to run Exchange as the primary mail server and they had all sorts of reliability problems. In fact, they eventually switched to linux and sendmail.

    Before I knew anything about ORM, we would just use flat files, or make a call directly to the db. Not very scalable at all. In fact, I'd say it scaled rather poorly as the number of concurrent requests increased. I still think MS should have kept their ORM and offered both solutions. but that's my bias opinion.

    peter
  69. maybe you were too young?[ Go to top ]

    Peter, the subject here is "development before the Web".
  70. maybe you were too young?[ Go to top ]

    Peter, the subject here is "development before the Web".

    What date are you talking about? Before the web was invented, before it became widespread, or before Bill Gates finally realised it might be important? Specify the year.
  71. january 1994[ Go to top ]

    The World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, with the first working system deployed in 1990.

    Windows 3.0 that sold 10 million copies was released in May 1990. Windows 3.1 was released in April, 1992.

    I started work on Spyglass Mosaic on April 5th, 1994. Netscape didn't even exist yet, but things happened fast.
    From Memoirs From the Browser Wars by Eric W. Sink.

    So the years from 1990 to 1994 was the time where MS tools were most used.
    So the question is:

    How big share of all development do you think MS had in january 1994?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    P.S.

    I can not keep from you this little trivia from "From Memoirs From the Browser Wars":
    At one of those meetings we sat down for a talk which was a major turning point for me and for Spyglass. Scott Isaacs told me that the IE team had over 1,000 people.
     
    I was stunned. That was 50 times the size of the Spyglass browser team. It was almost as many people as Netscape had in their whole company. I could have written the rest of the history of web browsers on that day -- no other outcomes were possible ...
  72. january 1994[ Go to top ]

    P.S.I can not keep from you this little trivia from "From Memoirs From the Browser Wars":
    At one of those meetings we sat down for a talk which was a major turning point for me and for Spyglass. Scott Isaacs told me that the IE team had over 1,000 people. I was stunned. That was 50 times the size of the Spyglass browser team. It was almost as many people as Netscape had in their whole company. I could have written the rest of the history of web browsers on that day -- no other outcomes were possible ...

    Exactly .. what fun is having all that wealth and power if you can't use it to destroy others?

    Thank God that our Microsoft was able to buy off our government before it was able to put a stop to such wonderful expressions of wealth and power.

    RIP, Sherman.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  73. RIP, Sherman?[ Go to top ]

    Care to explain to a non-American?

    And when you’re at it, please confirm that you once said that Microsoft had 95% of all development!

    And BTW, MS wealth and power is hard earned and justly deserved IMO. Microsoft is a perfect example on the good old capitalistic system that is responsible for most welfare and positive development on the planet.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  74. RIP, Sherman?[ Go to top ]

    Care to explain to a non-American?

    Guess that classical edumication has failed you again. Try google.
    And when you're at it, please confirm that you once said that Microsoft had 95% of all development!

    First, it's "while you're at it".

    Second, you're the one infatuated with quoting me, why don't you post a link?
    And BTW, MS wealth and power is hard earned and justly deserved IMO.

    The abuse of power is never warranted. I was not arguing about whether it was deserved or not .. try to stay on topic for once in your life.
    Microsoft is a perfect example on the good old capitalistic system that is responsible for most welfare and positive development on the planet.

    Regarding capitalism, I think you're generally right.

    Regarding Microsoft in specific, like most big companies they are a mixed bag. They've done lots of good, and they've done lots of bad.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  75. on the bright side[ Go to top ]

    So you will not admit it, but at the same time you are afraid that I will find the place so you dare not deny it. How patetique!

    "Someday in the future I have hope that it will be possible to have a mature and intelligent conversation.." Yes, but not yet obviously. But I have a philosophy of trying to see the positive in everything.

    The positive with this situation is that at least you are not CEO for Microsoft.
    That would be scary! ;)
  76. on the bright side[ Go to top ]

    How patetique!

    Pathetic. It's spelled "pathetic".
    "Someday in the future I have hope that it will be possible to have a mature and intelligent conversation.." Yes, but not yet obviously.

    Pathetic.
    But I have a philosophy of trying to see the positive in everything.

    No, you have a philosophy of trying to find a way to see yourself positively. It reminds me of an old SNL skit.

    Pathetic.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  77. on the bright side[ Go to top ]

    No, you have a philosophy of trying to find a way to see yourself positively. It reminds me of an old SNL skit.

    Rolf bears a strong resemblance to the Gilda Ratner SNL character Emily Litella, who rants amusingly at great length about things she never quite understands.
  78. be an intellectual[ Go to top ]

    Steve,

    Stop relaying on sentiment and wishful thinking.
    That is good advice.
  79. be an intellectual[ Go to top ]

    Steve,Stop relaying on sentiment and wishful thinking.That is good advice.

    Quite the contrary. I rely [sic] on evidence and samples of what are generally assumed to be expert opinion. For this reason I provided a link to a BBC report with quotes from Forrester and from one of your favourite companies, SalesForce.
  80. language corrections[ Go to top ]

    Cameron,

    while i am not a big fan of Rolfs oppinions here at TSS, doing language or grammar corrections of non native writers is pretty lame. I successfully managed to resist on your first correction comment, but couldnt resist the second one.

    Cameron can you please give us some examples of your foreign languages know how? I am quite sure we will find an editor for your text. If you want to try out your german, it would be a pleasure for me to point you to your faults. If you dont feel comfortable writing in a foreign language (that you dont speak day by day), stop doing your silly correction comments. Whats next? Typo corrections?

    Marc
  81. language corrections[ Go to top ]

    Cameron,while i am not a big fan of Rolfs oppinions here at TSS, doing language or grammar corrections of non native writers is pretty lame.

    I was responding to yet another personal attack by Rolf. It is no coincidence that every thread that Rolf participates in degrades immediately into worthless noise.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  82. language corrections[ Go to top ]

    Actually I thought that is his job. Take an interesting thread and turn it into a flame war. Job done here.

    -Pete

    PS Does make fun lunch time reading
  83. language corrections[ Go to top ]

    PS Does make fun lunch time reading
    Eventually, if so. But if this becomes the norm, say goodbye to this forum's quality.
  84. So Henrique, what about being a little fair and square at least one day in the year? If you read the thread you can see that it was in first hand Cameron (and to a lesser degree Cedric) that started the personal attacks. If I gathered together all insults and epithets that Cameron has said about me during the years it would be a nice collection.

    Of the last 50 threads I have only been participating in 2-3 and it is never I that starts the personal attacks. So what is needed is that it should be allowed to have a different opinion without being attacked as a person. But I guess that is it too much to ask.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  85. P.S.[ Go to top ]

    I think the main problem with Cameron/Cedric is that they think they own the forum on basis on former status.

    They long nostalgic back to the heydays when Weblogic ruled the earth, and was used for everything including the little music store on the corner. The search "Cameron Purdy" and Weblogic gives 12000 hits on Google (and Cedric was the main developer at Weblogic remember?) The problem is only that the solution they recommend is totally brain-dead - the only good with it being that you have to buy Cameron’s product to save something from the ashes. ;)

    I am by no means alone in the things I advocate, stateless servers with sessions-state at the clients, XMLHttpRequest, overall KISS, No EJB Elephant Server, etc is more fashion than ever. But Cameron does not dare to attack people like Rod, Juergen and Vic, so he take on me instead, sigh..
  86. Rolf: Of the last 50 threads I have only been participating in 2-3 and it is never I that starts the personal attacks. So what is needed is that it should be allowed to have a different opinion without being attacked as a person. But I guess that is it too much to ask.RegardsRolf Tollerud

    Oh, I see, you now want to play the role of wounded child after comments like this?
    Rolf: There is only one answers possible on all this and that is that Java people are too stupid..

    You've really risen above the fray with that comment. Way to take the high road Rolf.

    The irony of your position is that many of the concepts that the stupid Java people came up with years ago are now being copied (read embrace and extend) by your favorite company.

    Oh and since you love benchmarks .. chew on this one.

    http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v40z/benchmarks.html

    Hint: 05/03/2005 8-way 64-bit World Record on SPEC JBB2000 benchmark.
  87. Sun still living?[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: There is only one answers possible on all this and that is that Java people are too stupid..

    There is a difference between bashing a group and a particular person. If you play the wounded child on behalf of the Java population remember what they say about VB-programmers..

    Congratulation to the fine results for Sun Fire V40z Server. Now you can only hope that someone will buy it! AS you know it is price/performance that counts in business.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  88. Sun still living?[ Go to top ]

    Rolf: There is only one answers possible on all this and that is that Java people are too stupid..

    There is a difference between bashing a group and a particular person.

    You have done both, so regardless of what the difference is, you have shown your true colors.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  89. two birds of a feather?[ Go to top ]

    "you have shown your true colors"

    As you have yours.
  90. Sun still living?[ Go to top ]

    Now you can only hope that someone will buy it! AS you know it is price/performance that counts in business.RegardsRolf Tollerud

    Looks like your favorite company is buying them up like hotcakes.

    http://bryce.milton.com/eecblog/default.aspx?Detail=/IM004101.JPG

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39189887,00.htm

    Maybe it's time for Sun to be your favorite company now?
  91. Just tell me whom I have to bribe or sleep with or kill or do whatever is required to get one.
  92. Just tell me whom I have to bribe or sleep with or kill or do whatever is required to get one.
    Going as far as building yourself a desktop OS monopoly would suffice! :)
  93. oh come one[ Go to top ]

    Steve,
    Stop relaying on sentiment and wishful thinking. That is good advice.

    If you really want to prove your point, just provide solid realiable facts. giving advice doesn't really do anything in my book.

    peter
  94. hard facts and evidence?[ Go to top ]

    The problem Peter, is that nothing is accepted as fact in this forum, not surveys from respected research and analysis companies like Gartner or Yankee Group, not Job-search statistics from the big job-sites, not the TIOBE Programming language Index, not results from The Computer Language Shootout Benchmarks, nothing. And the most capital of all, even studies and benchmarks from TMC, the former mother company of TSS was not accepted! ;)

    I have for a while pointed out that the Netcraft statistic of 70% Apache vs 20% IIS is vastly wrong because it just lumps together hundreds of different IPs that share one instance of Apache and are counted individually. That is so obvious wrong that even a 7 year old can see it.
    Just because most smaller companies websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers it does not mean that the company itself is running Linux.
    Still OSS proponents all over the world congratulate their "Apache big lead over Microsoft".

    What can you call it other than sentiment and wishful thinking?

    For one year ago a survey showed that of the top 1000 corporate Web sites 53.5 percent of the sites surveyed ran Microsoft IIS. This was more than double the 19.3 percent running Apache.

    Microsoft Leads Port80 Web Server Study

    This was met by another claim, that this survey was only from the top 1000 and that the result would be different if all companies was taken into account because small and medium companies was more likely to adopt Linux!!!

    This must be the most outrageous claim I ever heard. The long-term direction that a company's technology takes is driven primarily by end users and the technologists who serve them, not by OSS fanatics.

    Here is a fresh survey for small and medium companies from Info-Tech Research Group:
    Microsoft dominates the mid-sized marketplace With 75% penetration for Windows/XP, and 65% penetration for Server 2003, Microsoft is the clear winner for mid-sized companies.
    Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux.
    2005 IT PRIORITIES

    Without doubt you will call this all hearsay and fluff and not hard facts, etc, etc, so I ask you: "What do constitute hard facts and evidence in your opinion?"

    Please state that and I will see what I can do.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  95. hard facts and evidence?[ Go to top ]

    Another hilarious contradiction....
    The problem Peter, is that nothing is accepted as fact in this forum, not surveys from respected research and analysis companies like Gartner or Yankee Group...

    and only a few sentences later...
    I have for a while pointed out that the Netcraft statistic of 70% Apache vs 20% IIS is vastly wrong

    The problem, Rolf, is that whereas most of us are healthily skeptical about almost everything, you pick and choose random surveys to back up whatever view you want to support, as illustrated above!
    Here is a fresh survey for small and medium companies from Info-Tech Research Group: Microsoft dominates the mid-sized marketplace With 75% penetration for Windows/XP, and 65% penetration for Server 2003, Microsoft is the clear winner for mid-sized companies. Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux.

    Actually, this report shows a significant market penetration of Linux into one of the most conservative markets. As usual with your evidence, it actually shows the direct opposite of what you are saying. It reported 48% not interested in Linux. That means that 52% - over half - are. 48% is not 'most'.

    Let me quote more from that Report:

    "Linux is certainly experiencing significant growth overall"
  96. is that so?[ Go to top ]

    "Linux is certainly experiencing significant growth overall"

    Why are the slashdot fanatics/zealots so worried then?

    Microsoft seems to be winning its war against Linux
  97. P.S.[ Go to top ]

    As I said, sentiment and wishful thinking.
  98. P.S.[ Go to top ]

    As I said, sentiment and wishful thinking.

    Let me quote more from that report:

    "27% of mid-sized companies have Linux installed". "Thirty-five percent of larger mid-sized enterprises have implemented Linux"

    That is a big fraction, and represents significant increase interest in Linux over the past few years in this highly conservative market. This should worry Microsoft, as this has traditionally been the area where they had most success. It is where PC-server systems such as Netware dominated before the arrival of NT. Now Linux is starting to eat away at Microsoft's market in the same way that Microsoft eroded Netware.
  99. And how about "the 70% Apache lead"? All you have to say is silence? Ok then, one of the most quoted urban myth ever has just been debunked uncontested!

    And how you can draw any positive information from the Info-Tech Research Group report goes over my head. I invite everybody to read the report and judge for themselves. ;) 2005 IT PRIORITIES

    The only thing that has happened until now is that Linux has been taking market share from Unix. Soon there will be no more Unix, and no more Linux growth. You don't think that Linux has any chance against a Windows server that does the work of 3 Linux servers, both as fileserver and webserver, do you? And more secure!

    Please cast a look earlier in this thread and see how MS easily won the browser-war by just putting 1000 persons on the IE team. How many do you think is working on the OS? Be realistic, Wishful thinking is something that is practiced by small girls, not grown men.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  100. And how about "the 70% Apache lead"? All you have to say is silence? Ok then, one of the most quoted urban myth ever has just been debunked uncontested!

    There is nothing about that statistic in this report. Also your link does nothing to contradict the fact that 2/3 of all webservers run Apache. A sample of 1000 corporate sites does not represent the entire internet (remember - it is that 'sample size' issue?). Strangely, you say that the figure is biased in favour of Apache if you take small businesses into account because those businesses are was "more likely to adopt Linux". Would that be those same businesses who "have no interest in using Linux?".
    And how you can draw any positive information from the Info-Tech Research Group report goes over my head. I invite everybody to read the report and judge for themselves. ;) 2005 IT PRIORITIES

    I have. How you can draw the conclusion that 48% is 'most' is beyond me. And "Linux is certainly experiencing significant growth overall" is a very positive statement. For Linux at least. What the report shows is that Linux hasn't yet had the significant impact in small/medium business IT that it has undoubtedly had in larger enterprises.
    The only thing that has happened until now is that Linux has been taking market share from Unix.
    Er no. Small-medium buinesses have rarely if ever used Unix. As I said, and as you well know, they mainly used Systems like Vines, Netware and Windows for Workgroups, and then NT Server. Now Linux is growing there too.
    Soon there will be no more Unix, and no more Linux growth. You don't think that Linux has any chance against a Windows server that does the work of 3 Linux servers, both as fileserver and webserver, do you? And more secure!

    Actually, the uptake of Linux has largely been because of the assumption that one Linux box does the work of several Windows servers. People traditionally purchase an individual Windows server for one or two purposes: One for File serving + print serving, and another as an Exchange server etc. This is in contrast to Linux distros that have all these services free and pre-installed. Linux also has a reputation for making better and faster use of hardware, although Microsoft is now working on a version of XP that does not require such high-performance PCs to work with.
    Please cast a look earlier in this thread and see how MS easily won the browser-war by just putting 1000 persons on the IE team. How many do you think is working on the OS?

    A mere fraction of the number at IBM, HP, and throughout the world who are working on Linux.
    Be realistic.

    Indeed. Time to give up on this one, Rolf. You tried the '95% used Microsoft tools' argument and lost, then you tried the '95% targetted Microsoft OS' and lost. Now you try to present a report that shows that 52% of small/medium businesses are interested in Linux, with over 25% having Linux installed as some kind of anti-Linux report. You have lost this one.
  101. And how about "the 70% Apache lead"? All you have to say is silence? Ok then, one of the most quoted urban myth ever has just been debunked uncontested!

    The lack of response is more likely due to the fact that this topic is your favorite strawman argument and nobody cares to continue trying to debate it with you because it is pointless. Just go back to any TSS topic that has the word Microsoft in the title if you don't remember.
  102. Call it sloppy research[ Go to top ]

    The problem Peter, is that nothing is accepted as fact in this forum, not surveys from respected research and analysis companies like Gartner or Yankee Group, not Job-search statistics from the big job-sites, not the TIOBE Programming language Index, not results from The Computer Language Shootout Benchmarks, nothing.

    quite honestly I don't accept any job site statistics. either for or against Java. frankly, it's just bad research. using job site statistics to prove Java is popular is just as bad as using job stats to prove java is loosing.
    And the most capital of all, even studies and benchmarks from TMC, the former mother company of TSS was not accepted! ;)I have for a while pointed out that the Netcraft statistic of 70% Apache vs 20% IIS is vastly wrong because it just lumps together hundreds of different IPs that share one instance of Apache and are counted individually. That is so obvious wrong that even a 7 year old can see it. Just because most smaller companies websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers it does not mean that the company itself is running Linux. Still OSS proponents all over the world congratulate their "Apache big lead over Microsoft". What can you call it other than sentiment and wishful thinking?

    Netcraft statistics is practically worthless to me. I prefer statistics with well defined parameters that target a specific sector. This way, atleast the results are accurate for that specific sector. Trying to capture broad market trends results in bad research, since it becomes so vague as to mean nothing. The analysts know this, but they continue to do poor research.
    For one year ago a survey showed that of the top 1000 corporate Web sites 53.5 percent of the sites surveyed ran Microsoft IIS. This was more than double the 19.3 percent running Apache. Microsoft Leads Port80 Web Server Study This was met by another claim, that this survey was only from the top 1000 and that the result would be different if all companies was taken into account because small and medium companies was more likely to adopt Linux!!!This must be the most outrageous claim I ever heard. The long-term direction that a company's technology takes is driven primarily by end users and the technologists who serve them, not by OSS fanatics.
    Here is a fresh survey for small and medium companies from Info-Tech Research Group:
    Microsoft dominates the mid-sized marketplace With 75% penetration for Windows/XP, and 65% penetration for Server 2003, Microsoft is the clear winner for mid-sized companies. Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux.
    2005 IT PRIORITIESWithout doubt you will call this all hearsay and fluff and not hard facts, etc, etc, so I ask you: "What do constitute hard facts and evidence in your opinion?" Please state that and I will see what I can do.
    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    There are good studies out there. The problem is that executives like to apply those results inappropriately and draw conclusions that are not valid. When a report is good, I've stated my opinion. For example, the study comparing oracle and sql server from last year. I felt it provided a good description of a specific scenario and provided useful information. Take the case of ORM. The original topic of this thread.

    In this specific case, several facts are clear.
    1. MS filed a patent based on their work on ObjectSpaces
    2. plenty of prior art exists in the ORM space
    3. MS has made their own ORM dating back to mid 90's.
    4. the theory of relational-object mapping goes back to late 80's/early 90's.
    5. There appears to be a marketing trend of pushing ORM as a development tool. whether that really results in faster development will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
    6. MS hasn't made a firm date on when ObjectSpaces will be released

    given these facts, one can draw any number of conclusions. someone pro ORM could use it to say "ORM" is the future. While someone else might say, "ORM" is a fad. In reality, neither conclusion would be accurate.

    enjoy

    peter
  103. Knock knock, anybody home?[ Go to top ]

    Hi Peter,

    I though this ORM busness is finished with? MS routinely takes out patents for self-defense that’s all with it. MS drags its tail to publish an ORM tool because they know it will be non-discriminatory applied everywhere! ;)

    But that is not the question now. It is not enough for you to debunk everything. You must give me a positive example on what constitutes fact and evidence in your opinion.

    Please do so.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  104. my definition[ Go to top ]

    Hi Peter,I though this ORM busness is finished with? MS routinely takes out patents for self-defense that’s all with it. MS drags its tail to publish an ORM tool because they know it will be non-discriminatory applied everywhere! ;) But that is not the question now. It is not enough for you to debunk everything. You must give me a positive example on what constitutes fact and evidence in your opinion. Please do so.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    since you asked. my definition of a fact is a based on the scientific method. In other words.

    1. it must be measurable
    2. it must be verified by others
    3. it should stand up to repeated tests

    A positive example? I don't know what kind of example you're looking for. I'll use prior art for ORM as an example.

    Prior to 1993, there were several commercial, open source and proprietary ORM solutions in existence. I can verify the existence of ORM products by visiting the buisnesses and looking at their source repository. that would be the first step. I believe the US courts would consider that acceptable proof, but they will usually require additional evidence. The next step would be to look at how many licenses were sold and contact those customers. A single customer wouldn't be sufficient, so it's important to get several customers and verify those businesses are legitimate. Since the US patent system goes by the filing date, any ORM product on the market before that date "could" be considered prior art. Existing before the filing date doesn't necessarily make that product prior art in the eyes of the court. For example, say I write an ORM tool in 2001, but I didn't bother to finish it. Does that constitute prior art? If I posted the code on sourceforge, I could use the logs from sourceforge to prove the existence of the code at a given date, but that doesn't necessarily fit the definition of prior art.

    So from a philosophical perspective, the line between Fact (something measurable) and interpretation (aka opinion) isn't always clear.

    have fun

    peter
  105. like the Oracle in Delphi[ Go to top ]


    1. it must be measurable
    2. it must be verified by others
    3. it should stand up to repeated tests


    So in your opinion, does Apache have a 70/20 lead over MS IIS then? Or not? I am curious as to your opinion!

    Best regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  106. my bias opinion[ Go to top ]

    1. it must be measurable2. it must be verified by others3. it should stand up to repeated testsSo in your opinion, does Apache have a 70/20 lead over MS IIS then? Or not? I am curious as to your opinion!

    Best regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    Honestly, I can't answer that question, because I don't have good proof either way. I sure as heck don't consider Netcraft reliable data. but quite honestly, that kind of statistics don't mean anything to me. What matters to me is understanding how Apache and IIS scale and where they differ.

    Take for example, the benchmark I ran several months back comparing tomcat 5.5.4 and Apache 2.x for static files. I ran over 100 benchmarks to see how Apache behaves as I change 1 variable. By doing that, I get a clearer sense of how Apache might scale under ideal network situations. What would be dangerous is to take the data I gathered and assume that Tomcat 5.5.4 absolutely beats Apache 2.0.x in all cases.

    Same thing would be true of ORM tools. If I were to do a study of one ORM product, it isn't sufficient to draw a solid conclusion about the usefulness of ORM in general. to get a good measure of how useful ORM might be, one would have to perform a long term study with three scenarios

    1. mainly ORM
    2. mainly pure SQL
    3. mix of ORM and pure SQL

    The study would have to use a selection of products and measure the actual cost of learning, development, and maintenance. A study of this nature is rather complex and would cost a lot of money. Analysts realize this of course, but without someone paying the bill, it's just not practical.

    Back to the 70/20 statistic. If one measures by IP or by domain name, it's flawed data. A single IP address may host multiple sites, while a single domain may span multiple servers hidden behind a router. Any measurement of popularity is pointless, since it doesn't tell you how well the server works and under what conditions it performs well. What really matters is what kinds of application does each server host and where does it break. If I know where a server breaks or where an ORM product breaks, it makes it easier for me to use that tool.

    peter
  107. shortcut of the brain[ Go to top ]

    Peter,

    "What really matters is what kinds of application does each server host and where does it break"

    What in Gods name do performance has to do with percentage use? Why do you have to drag in performance issues when we are discussing market shares?

    Do you have shortcuts between different areas of the brain?

    There is only one answers possible on all this and that is that Java people are too stupid.. Research, analysis, surveys. Relentless statistic with the same trend every month from all mayor job-sites, benchmark and studies from TMC, nothing is going to convince a die hard Java zealot because he/she has deicided to believe. The sentiment and wishful thinking is stronger than logic, reason and common sense.

    I leave you to it. The entertainment is over.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  108. my fault[ Go to top ]

    Peter,"What really matters is what kinds of application does each server host and where does it break"What in Gods name do performance has to do with percentage use? Why do you have to drag in performance issues when we are discussing market shares?Do you have shortcuts between different areas of the brain?There is only one answers possible on all this and that is that Java people are too stupid.. Research, analysis, surveys. Relentless statistic with the same trend every month from all mayor job-sites, benchmark and studies from TMC, nothing is going to convince a die hard Java zealot because he/she has deicided to believe. The sentiment and wishful thinking is stronger than logic, reason and common sense.I leave you to it. The entertainment is over.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    my fault for not being clear. I'll just say it bluntly.

    Percentage use is idiotic and doesn't tell anyone anything useful other than being flame bait.

    only Marketing guys gives a "rats ass" about percentage used. Or are you suggesting that "percent use" is an indication of the quality of a given product?

    peter
  109. shortcut of the brain[ Go to top ]

    There is only one answers possible on all this and that is that Java people are too stupid..

    .. to find a way to ban Rolf from TSS.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Cluster your POJOs!
  110. hard facts and evidence?[ Go to top ]

    I have for a while pointed out that the Netcraft statistic of 70% Apache vs 20% IIS is vastly wrong because it just lumps together hundreds of different IPs that share one instance of Apache and are counted individually. That is so obvious wrong that even a 7 year old can see it. RegardsRolf Tollerud

    Rolf, of course it must be wrong because IIS did not win. That is just impossible in all circumstances. But yet, when you see opposite numbers you always declare them as evidence. You have no problem using Netcraft when it supports your point of view, but they are absolutely unreliable every time they don't. That is what wishful thinking is.
  111. Tero,
    "You have no problem using Netcraft when it supports your point of view, but they are absolutely unreliable every time they don't. That is what wishful thinking is"

    My dear Tero. You are confusing critical thinking with wishful thinking. Critical thinking is always important as for instance when you read your daily newspaper. "Many smaller companies websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers even if the company itself isn't". And they are not once you look into it. As Slashdot found out. You do not accuse Slashdot for being paid by Microsoft do you?

    And one of the biggest urban myths in the computer world was busted and gone. (in the same way as the supposed superiority of Netscape Navigator 4.x, sendmail, Apache performance, Linux security, etc etc)

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
    (myth buster, Ninja of 19th degree)
  112. Is not ORM anymore...[ Go to top ]

    "I also have proofs that Windows is 3 times faster both as fileserver and webserver but let us take that discussion another time, enough is enough"

    Whish I would have that and MS should have it too.

    I've just spent whole Victoria Day's long weekend with MS consultants (5) figuring how to make W2K3 TCP/IP stack do its job.
  113. Saw what this person is saying ..sepnding time with 5 of those 400$/hr MS consultants to get the MS shit working ..answer this, Rolf !!
    You just cant get away choosing what to answer and what not to.

    Windoze is one bloody hell of an OS ..as someone intelligent once said ..it doesnt deem to be called OS. It is good for what it was designed for ..desktops ..thats it.

    -----------
    May Douglas Adams rest in peace :)
  114. Your post is very rude. Nevertheless I will overlook that (for this time) and admit that I was a little hasty in my claim. Both file and web-server performance is better for Win3K than for Linux though, but it is not as much as I though. Sorry!

    The two benchmarks I have is here,
    Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Linux Competitive File Server Performance Comparison
    Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Linux Competitive Web Server Performance Comparison

    Once again, I do apologize!

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  115. I prefer independent test labs...

    http://www.lionbridge.com/kc/gp_intro.asp?kb=mlcm&wp=liox-msft_sol_brief
    http://www.lionbridge.com/company/news-and-events/veritest-selected-by-microsoft-to-manage-verification-program-for-windows-embedded.liox?intLangID=1

    (FYI, VeriTest is the "testing division" of LionBridge)
  116. Perhaps you missed the header om the first page where it is clearly written in Arial 14p italic bold:

    Test report prepared under contract from Microsoft

    ?

    "I prefer independent test labs..."

    Yes, we wait for more reports. "Hope is the last thing that dies".
  117. Both file and web-server performance is better for Win3K than for Linux though, but it is not as much as I though.

    I have 3 problems. 1) Your test is from early 2003. 2) ...which means that Redhat still used 2.4 series kernel with the old threading. 3) Your comparisons are commissioned by Microsoft.
  118. Please Stay on Topic[ Go to top ]

    This is not directed at anyone specifically.
    Most of use are busy people.
    The topic of the thread is:
    "Microsoft Now Owns OR Mapping Industry via New Patent"

    It is a real loss to everyone else when an off-topic discussion hijacks a thread.

    No one should be banned from any thread, but all off-topic content should be.
    That includes personal references.

    Please, start another thread to discuss positions on the most popular platform.

    If we are as intelligent and disciplined as we think, then we can conquer our emotions and stay on topic.

    Rich
  119. I support this[ Go to top ]

    Especially consider banning one troll who keeps vandalising any thread in this forum.
  120. Evidence[ Go to top ]

    Both file and web-server performance is better for Win3K than for Linux though, but it is not as much as I though. Sorry!

    Oh, here is the data at last. Thanks Rolf. At least we have some facts to discuss about. Well, I only have two or three comments.

    1) The benchmarks are honestly labeled ad "commissioned by Microsoft". From my old days as an environmentalist, I remember that it was very easy to provide evidence whether a particular beach or river was polluted or not, according to which thesis the researcher wanted to second. They had just to choose a day when the wind drove the polluting wastes away from the shore, and here it is: a perfectly scientific study that demonstrated that a sewer outlet was not polluting the sea. Or the exact opposite. So I tend to be at least very cautious about evidence commissioned by a party.

    2) I cannot say anything about web server performance. I cannot find it hard to believe that IIS outperforms Apache.

    3) As for file server performance, I can believe that W2k3 outperforms a Linux box running samba. However, what would be the results if the benchmark were repeated, as I asked before, using NFS as the file sharing protocol? I think I know the answer in advance...

    Oh, and I am not bashing samba in any way. I use it a lot, in fact.
  121. Evidence[ Go to top ]

    So I tend to be at least very cautious about evidence commissioned by a party.

    Absolutely, and as Rolf has in recent threads said he is not prepared to accept statements from vendors that he does not approve of (e.g. Sun), it is not reasonable to post evidence commissioned by Microsoft and expect that evidence to be accepted uncritically.
    3) As for file server performance, I can believe that W2k3 outperforms a Linux box running samba.

    Personally, I don't. Samba has a very good reputation for speed. Only a few years ago, a report from IT Week showed Samba 3.0 running 2.5 x faster than Windows Server 2003. I have no evidence of recent independent tests, but I would find it hard to believe that Windows 2003 has more than doubled its performance in a couple of years.

    However, I am sure it is possible to find the right combination of samba versions, filesystems and Linux kernels to give slower performance than Win2K3. There have always been major issues of tuning in these comparisons.
  122. Rolf, can you really say that critical thinking is picking and choosing the pieces of information you want and making conclusions out of that? Hear no evil, and all is well.
  123. Tero,
    "Rolf, can you really say that critical thinking is picking and choosing the pieces of information you want and making conclusions out of that?"

    The Netcraft information was accurate. But to draw that unconscious extra information that because a company is hosted by a service provider running Linux they also used Linux "at home" was wrong. Statistics are tricky. Remember Mark Twain.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  124. accurate in what sense?[ Go to top ]

    Tero,"Rolf, can you really say that critical thinking is picking and choosing the pieces of information you want and making conclusions out of that?"The Netcraft information was accurate. But to draw that unconscious extra information that because a company is hosted by a service provider running Linux they also used Linux "at home" was wrong. Statistics are tricky. Remember Mark Twain.
    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    I don't believe that statement is true for the general case. It may be true for the domains netcraft can access, but it does not give a true picture oh how different segments setup their production environment. I'll use a concrete example.

    if you use netcraft to see what fleet bank uses (now it's Bank of American, since they merged), netcraft says there's 10 windows servers (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.fleet.com)

    Is that an accurate measurement? Since I know people who work on Fleet's system, I can tell you it's not. Fleet's production environment is large and it's a mixed environment. The front end static content is served from windows boxes, but the account management stuff uses a variety of systems. Not only that, the number of windows systems reported by netcraft is also wrong. In fact, I would say the results reported by netcraft are no where near accurate for fleet bank.

    In fact, enter any big company and see what netcraft reports. The data is not accurate. About the only thing netcraft is good for is looking at what end users and small/medium ISP use. Even then, I seriously question the accuracy and validity of netcraft results. Many ISP have their network configured with multiple proxies, dns servers and a variety of shared hosting packages.

    A single dual processor hosting 1000 domains for personal websites may only generate 50K page views a month. Are we suppose to believe that type of usage is equal to a business website? Netcraft is what it is. It provides a vague measure of what is popular. Popular does not equal scalable, fast or reliable.

    peter
  125. hard facts and evidence?[ Go to top ]

    I have for a while pointed out that the Netcraft statistic of 70% Apache vs 20% IIS is vastly wrong because it just lumps together hundreds of different IPs that share one instance of Apache and are counted individually.

    If this is the case it is evidence for the outstanding scalability and performance of Apache and the operating systems it is hosted on. If Windows and IIS could have achieved this price/performance combination they would have been used.

    So, either Netcraft is accurate and there are vastly more installations of Apache than IIS, or Netcraft is wrong and Apache is shown to be vastly more scalable than IIS.
  126. a not too hard exercise[ Go to top ]

    Well I admit that Apache is immensely popular by ISPs. That is certainly proven by Netcraft without any doubt!

    As to why I leave it to the intelligent reader to puzzle out. (Even a Java zealot should be able to do it! ;)
  127. hard facts and evidence?[ Go to top ]

    I have for a while pointed out that the Netcraft statistic of 70% Apache vs 20% IIS is vastly wrong because it just lumps together hundreds of different IPs that share one instance of Apache and are counted individually.
    If this is the case it is evidence for the outstanding scalability and performance of Apache and the operating systems it is hosted on. If Windows and IIS could have achieved this price/performance combination they would have been used. So, either Netcraft is accurate and there are vastly more installations of Apache than IIS, or Netcraft is wrong and Apache is shown to be vastly more scalable than IIS.

    I don't believe the data from netcraft supports any of those conclusions. Apache could be popular because it's just as good as commercial products and cheap. From first hand experience, the reason many small/medium ISP use linux+apache is because of price and staff. Most ISP's have staff trained in Unix administration, but the cost of buying big Sun boxes is too expensive for a small shop. Therefore, small ISP often use linux + NFS + Apache to host personal webpages and email. If Solaris was as cheap as PC's in the mid 90's, I'm sure more ISP would have chose Solaris over Linux. This doesn't mean it's true for all ISP, just the ones I know first hand.

    peter
  128. hard facts and evidence?[ Go to top ]

    I don't believe the data from netcraft supports any of those conclusions. Apache could be popular because it's just as good as commercial products and cheap. From first hand experience, the reason many small/medium ISP use linux+apache is because of price and staff.

    I believe that I covered this matter in the phrase "If Windows and IIS could have achieved this price/performance combination they would have been used.", although perhaps I should have generalised to other commercial solutions too.
  129. ignore me[ Go to top ]

    I'm just being nitpicky :)

    peter
  130. ignore me[ Go to top ]

    I'm just being nitpicky :)peter

    It was a fair point though. The one of the big things about Linux/Apache is undoubtedly the price.
  131. ignore you? never![ Go to top ]

    Peter!

    Please tell me, do you see yourself as a victim as Dorel Vaida claims?

    He's found another victim, this time in Peter Lin's person
  132. LOL[ Go to top ]

    Peter!Please tell me, do you see yourself as a victim as Dorel Vaida claims?He's found another victim, this time in Peter Lin's person

    I may very well be a victim, but I don't think so. Then again, this world may part of a circular ruin. I just hope louis borges doesn't wake up :)

    peter
  133. I have showed my point[ Go to top ]

    Hello Peter,

    This discussion illustrates what I mean. Whatever I say and proves with links Steve just says the opposite and then he boast gleefully "I have won the discussion!".

    Some quotes from the report:
    Microsoft dominates the mid-sized marketplace. With 75% penetration for Windows/XP, and 65% penetration for Server 2003, Microsoft is the clear winner for mid-sized companies.
    Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux. In the entire midsized market, only 10 percent plan to evaluate Linux in the next three years.
    Only 27% of mid-sized companies currently have Linux installed. Of those enterprises that have implemented Linux, there is a skew towards the high end of the mid-sized market. Thirty-five percent of larger mid-sized enterprises have implemented Linux, compared with only 23 percent at the small end of the mid-sized market.
    The truth does not bode well for Linux-related vendors considering entering or expanding their presence in the mid-market. Microsoft dominates this market segment and is the de facto desktop and server standard.

    So to conclude, of the top 1000 corporate Web sites 53.5 percent of the sites surveyed ran Microsoft IIS. 19.3 percent running Apache. On the small/mid-sized companies 73% runs only Windows. 27% runs both Windows and Linux.

    That makes IIS at least 4-5 times as common as Apache in my book. And still Steve maintains that he has won the discussion! ;) And then he returns to the 95% targeting Microsoft and say I was wrong but he gives no proof or links.

    So how can anybody "present fact or evidence under this circumstances?" Steve just runs the good old flat denial (like the man as when his wife comes home and find him in a shower with another woman just deny everything).

    hi hi (i pronoced like in idiot)

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
    (I also have proofs that Windows is 3 times faster both as fileserver and webserver but let us take that discussion another time, enough is enough)
  134. I have showed my point[ Go to top ]

    Hello Peter,This discussion illustrates what I mean. Whatever I say and proves with links Steve just says the opposite and then he boast gleefully "I have won the discussion!".

    I don't say the opposite. The contents of your links do. That is what is so much fun about debating with you. You demolish your own arguments.
    Some quotes from the report:

    Yes, let's deal with these.
    Microsoft dominates the mid-sized marketplace. With 75% penetration for Windows/XP, and 65% penetration for Server 2003, Microsoft is the clear winner for mid-sized companies.

    What does 'penetration' mean? Does it mean that the product is used at least once in a company? Does it mean that the product is used on that proportion of machines? I would not be surprised by these figures. Most desktops are XP, and Windows is widely used for low-end server systems (workgroup File and Print servers etc.)
    Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux.

    This is simply spin. The actual quote was:

    "48% indicated that they are not interested and another 15% are not sure (implying "not interested")".

    Well, I don't know about them, but my understanding of plain English is that "not sure" certainly does NOT imply "not interested".

    And then we have
    In the entire midsized market, only 10 percent plan to evaluate Linux in the next three years.

    Which is directly contradicted by:
    Only 27% of mid-sized companies currently have Linux installed.
    Strange use of the word 'only'! It is higher that I would have expected in this market.
    Of those enterprises that have implemented Linux, there is a skew towards the high end of the mid-sized market. Thirty-five percent of larger mid-sized enterprises have implemented Linux, compared with only 23 percent at the small end of the mid-sized market.

    Exactly. The bigger companies with the more demanding situations and more IT skills (so don't have the same requirement to stick with one OS throughout the company) use more Linux.
    The truth does not bode well for Linux-related vendors considering entering or expanding their presence in the mid-market. Microsoft dominates this market segment and is the de facto desktop and server standard.

    That is just a comment. Equally well, one could conclude correctly that Linux presence in this market has grown dramatically in the past 5 years. 27% using Linux is a lot.
    So to conclude, of the top 1000 corporate Web sites 53.5 percent of the sites surveyed ran Microsoft IIS. 19.3 percent running Apache. On the small/mid-sized companies 73% runs only Windows. 27% runs both Windows and Linux.That makes IIS at least 4-5 times as common as Apache in my book. And still Steve maintains that he has won the discussion! ;)

    You aren't adding things up. First 'top corporate Web sites' does not mean anything. What does 'top' mean? We know that the web sites with most traffic (EBay, Amazon etc) don't run IIS. So first you need to define terms. Secondly, a company 'running' something is not a measure of how many sites they use with that OS. That is what Netcraft measures. I know companies that still run DOS. That does not put DOS on an equal footing with other operating systems in those companies.
    And then he returns to the 95% targeting Microsoft and say I was wrong but he gives no proof or links.

    I had assumed that it was the responsibility of the person putting forward a statistic to justify it. This is up to you. You would need to present market share statistics of MS-DOS, DR-DOS, and Mac/OS in 1993/94.
    So how can anybody "present fact or evidence under this circumstances?" Steve just runs the good old flat denial (like the man as when his wife comes home and find him in a shower with another woman just deny everything). hi hi (i pronoced like in idiot)RegardsRolf Tollerud

    Ah. This must be the 'mature' discussion you say you want.
    (I also have proofs that Windows is 3 times faster both as fileserver and webserver but let us take that discussion another time, enough is enough)

    Ah. That would explain why Microsoft is trying to re-engineer XP to work on lower specification machines. The same machines that Linux runs on as a server system with no problems.

    I'm going leave it there, else things will degenerate even further into off-topic noise....
  135. I have showed my point[ Go to top ]

    Oh my goodness! I spared the time to reply to one of our beloved Mr. Tollerud's posts on a Friday afternoon and now I am responsible of one of the most spectacular mud-slinging weekends that TSS has hosted during the last months. And I was not even online to witness it until monday. I swear I'll be more cautious from now on.
    (I also have proofs that Windows is 3 times faster both as fileserver and webserver but let us take that discussion another time, enough is enough)

    Would you please find an appropriate place to show that, if TSS is not?

    And while you are at it (thanks for pointing out the correct expression to all non-native English speakers, Mr. Purdy), have you ever tried sharing the same filesystem with NetBios and NFS to compare the results?
  136. I was kind of hoping people would finnaly ignore Rolf, for all his troling on this forum, simply because this is the only way one can deal with trolls. Just count the number of flame baits he has thrown aimlessly throughout many threads las week, just hoping for a slight chance to take another thread to the thrash bin. Here we have a great example of his workings. Take last week's threads, where no one responded to his flame baits (which have been as blatant as ever), and see how many degenerated into flame-fest: none. May this be a lesson for us all: trolls should be ignored, no matter what they say, right or wrong.
  137. Don’t feed the troll[ Go to top ]

    I was kind of hoping people would finnaly ignore Rolf, for all his troling on this forum, simply because this is the only way one can deal with trolls.

    Wishful thinking I fear. Personally I favour banning Rolf. From the internet. Actually from using a computer altogether. It clearly isn’t good for him.
  138. Don't feed the troll[ Go to top ]

    Okay, I swear I'll not swallow any more baits. This last one used a huge amount of bandwidth for insults and off-topic syntax checking (English syntax, not Java).

    But banning or ignoring ANYONE is contrary to the spirit of this forum, and of any forum. In fact, it is contrary to the spirit of the Internet itself, at least if it must continue to be a medium of freedom and not a medium of mindless omologation, however this may apply to our favorite MS-supporter here at TSS. People, we may dislike Mr. Bill Gates, but Rolf Tollerud is no terrorist supporter!

    And, Rolf, p dot guccione at katamail dot com. I am curious to see this evidence even you are not gonna show it to Peter.
  139. Waiting for Godot[ Go to top ]

    Sorry Paolo,

    I am waiting for Peter to show me what is bona fide fact and evidence!
  140. on the bright side[ Go to top ]

    Now thats funny!

    -Pete
  141. Correcting my spelling?

    Trying to divert the attention from the fact that you are a vulgar beer drinking American without culture that doesn’t even speak a second language?

    Don't. That aspect of your character is one of the more appealing. Hypocritical and dishonest pompous frump is another.
  142. RIP, Sherman?[ Go to top ]

    And BTW, MS wealth and power is hard earned and justly deserved IMO. Microsoft is a perfect example on the good old capitalistic system that is responsible for most welfare and positive development on the planet.RegardsRolf Tollerud


    This is the problem. You continually post opinion, and that is hard to argue with. I have dealt with Microsoft products since the company started, and I disagree.

    What matters is evidence to back opinion.

    Your opinion is that Microsoft is a 'perfect example'. The evidence is that they (like most companies) are far from perfect, as unquestionably illustrated by the the legal actions that have been put forward against them by various governments, including US and Europe.

    There are two possibilities. Either Microsoft is a clever but far from perfect company, or they are perfect, and the innumerable legal experts in law in the USA and Europe are wrong.

    Which is it?
  143. RIP, Sherman?[ Go to top ]

    I am sure Standard Oil said the same thing 100 years ago.

    -Pete
  144. january 1994[ Go to top ]

    The World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, with the first working system deployed in 1990.Windows 3.0 that sold 10 million copies was released in May 1990. Windows 3.1 was released in April, 1992.I started work on Spyglass Mosaic on April 5th, 1994. Netscape didn't even exist yet, but things happened fast.From Memoirs From the Browser Wars by Eric W. Sink. So the years from 1990 to 1994 was the time where MS tools were most used. So the question is:How big share of all development do you think MS had in january 1994?

    Not a lot, and by no stretch of the imagination 'most'. This was before Windows 95 came out, and there was still a reasonable amount of DOS use, and products such as dBase were still in wide use. Microsoft had just released NT 3.1, which was slowly gaining acceptance, but still had a small segment of even the workgroup server market. The dominant PC server system of the time was Netware.

    Some of the most popular development tools were from Borland, with Turbo Pascal and Borland Pascal being widely used for client-side development. (Microsoft's competing Pascal project was a dud). I'm not saying Borland and others had the majority of the development market; just that no-one did.

    If you want proof of all this, have a look at Byte's on-line archive. It shows what was happening at this time.
  145. correction[ Go to top ]

    "Some of the most popular development tools were from Borland"

    Yes as for example the first draft document for the Delphi Visual Component Library (VCL) description, dated May 13, 1993.

    You made me realize that "made with MS tools" do not convey my meaning accurately.

    95% of all development targeted Microsoft Operating Systems only. (in January 1994).

    That's more like it.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  146. correction[ Go to top ]

    "Some of the most popular development tools were from Borland"Yes as for example the first draft document for the Delphi Visual Component Library (VCL) description, dated May 13, 1993.

    No, it was years and years before that. Borland had been providing Turbo Pascal for DOS, followed by the superb Turbo Pascal for Windows in 1990.
    You made me realize that "made with MS tools" do not convey my meaning accurately. 95% of all development targeted Microsoft Operating Systems only. (in January 1994).That's more like it.RegardsRolf Tollerud

    But that is certainly not true in 1994. Microsoft had virtually no server presence, and did not even have that level of client OS presence in the early 90s. DR-DOS had a market share of the high-teens in 1995, and that was only on IBM-clone PCs. The Mac had a market share of around 10% of desktops (it's highest) in the early 90s. Adding this up, Microsoft operating systems only had 70-75% of client-side operating systems. Add in server OSes and this could bring the fraction down into the 60%s.

    So, no, 95% of all development did not target Microsoft Operating systems only in January 1994.
  147. and rising all the time[ Go to top ]

    "So, no, 95% of all development did not target Microsoft Operating systems only in January 1994"

    That is funny. I certainly don't care about arguing matter that is history gone and forgotten and difficult or impossible to prove!

    So let us talk about the current situation instead. In a few months, as you are aware, the search java or j2ee vs c# or .net will show about 50-50 for the two systems. But that does not include the old VB6 programmers which there must be some left (of all that millions). Let us be conservative and give them 10%.
    Then 60% of all development in the world today is targeting Microsoft Operating systems (only). Not bad for a single company! And I that though that MS was basking in "former glory" when the truth is that MS is stronger than it ever! (according to you).

    And in addition we have all those systems that are done in cross-platform languages like Java or PHP but are deployed on Windows.

    Wow. Quite formidable don't you say?

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
    (If you deny that MS market share is constantly rising spend some time reading TSS old posts from 2000 - 2004)
  148. and rising all the time[ Go to top ]

    "So, no, 95% of all development did not target Microsoft Operating systems only in January 1994"That is funny. I certainly don't care about arguing matter that is history gone and forgotten and difficult or impossible to prove!

    Actually, that situation is far easier to understand as there are actual records, rather than the interpretation and guesswork that is involved with talking about things today.
    So let us talk about the current situation instead. In a few months, as you are aware, the search java or j2ee vs c# or .net will show about 50-50 for the two systems. But that does not include the old VB6 programmers which there must be some left (of all that millions). Let us be conservative and give them 10%. Then 60% of all development in the world today is targeting Microsoft Operating systems (only). Not bad for a single company!

    You can't say that. Even lots of the VB6 developers weren't targetting purely Microsoft operating systems. VB6 was frequently used as a front-end system for server-side database, which certainly included SQL server, but also Oracle and others. VB6 was a great system for developing front ends on Windows for non-Windows server systems. A lot of current .NET jobs are doing exactly the same thing, as large numbers of VB6 developers migrate to VB.NET and C#. .NET's SOAP technology is a great way to integrate with non-Microsoft systems (especially Java/J2EE) on the server side. One of the biggest things in IT right now is .NET (client)/J2EE integration.
    And in addition we have all those systems that are done in cross-platform languages like Java or PHP but are deployed on Windows.Wow. Quite formidable don't you say? RegardsRolf Tollerud(If you deny that MS market share is constantly rising spend some time reading TSS old posts from 2000 - 2004)

    Actually, I would definitely dispute that. I would say that Microsoft 'market share' in most areas has remained relatively static. In fact, Windows workstation market share has actually declined a few percentage points due to an increased interest in MacOS/X, and the small but significant uptake of Linux desktops. Some Microsoft systems are growing rapidly in use - XP, .NET etc, but these are largely a result of upgrades - Microsoft, in effect, competing with Microsoft.

    Microsoft is in a troublesome position at the moment - spending a large fraction of its budget dealing with security issues, while OS release dates and feature sets slip, they are being subject to continuous legal action, and their share price is stagnant. I'm sure they will get through this.
  149. self-suggestion[ Go to top ]

    "I would say that Microsoft 'market share' in most areas has remained relatively static"

    ha ha. If you repeat it the necessary amount of times you will start to believe it yourself.
  150. self-suggestion[ Go to top ]

    "I would say that Microsoft 'market share' in most areas has remained relatively static"ha ha. If you repeat it the necessary amount of times you will start to believe it yourself.

    Well, as someone who has said they are after serious discussions, you could have posted some evidence rather than comments like this. The fact that you haven't is rather illuminating. I'll provide evidence to back my statement:

    "The assault on software giant Microsoft". An article by that reputable European source, the BBC:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4508897.stm

    "Microsoft is not an innovator or transformer right now," says Forrester's George Colony. Many rivals are more focused and nimble."

    "Microsoft is in its most vulnerable moment in history, just like IBM in the 1990s
    George Colony, Forrester"

    So, who do we believe - you, or the BBC and Forrester?
  151. that's plausible[ Go to top ]

    "Some of the most popular development tools were from Borland"Yes as for example the first draft document for the Delphi Visual Component Library (VCL) description, dated May 13, 1993. You made me realize that "made with MS tools" do not convey my meaning accurately.95% of all development targeted Microsoft Operating Systems only. (in January 1994).That's more like it.
    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud

    that definition seems more reasonable. Since I've never had to write software meant for MS OS only, I really can't say if that is true or not. From the little that I do know from the gaming industry, between 90-94, a lot of games were still written for DOS. Whether the developers used MS tools is beyond me, but the game developers I've met, they didn't.

    peter
  152. I am too young[ Go to top ]

    I'm only 10 years old. Well, not really, but I could resist joking around.

    Again, you're post was pretty general and not very specific. If you want responses that fit your definition, then you're going to have to be specific.

    ;)

    peter
  153. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    That Microsoft survived this one is the greatest achievement of modern corporate history, possible only because of MS unique agile corporate culture.

    Come on Rolf, MS had already monopolized the desktop, in other words, a wast majority of Internet users were using their software already. If you are going to lose from that position, you have to be a complete moron.
  154. Much Ado About Nothing[ Go to top ]

    Why this great fuss over something that is not worth anything in the first place? RegardsRolf Tollerud

    Yep, and why own patents in that area too ? :-D. you schmuck.
  155. So what will happen to object people's Toplink now owned by Oracle. Is it April Ist again? If any one can own this patent in theory (even they are too late now) it is folks at object people who according to my understaning had been acquired thorugh a series of delegation by oracle, and they are rich enough to preempt M$ at any given sunday on this ground:-)
  156. I can't believe it ! Rolf did it again !

    He's found another victim, this time in Peter Lin's person. He's regularly doing this. He's highjaking threads using intelligent people who do not know what he's doing and take him for a fine, civilised person.

    I think we can build a profile for him. Obviously he's a frustrated person. Why ... I can't tell... And he allways turns the thread into one of the following:

    a.) M$ vs. the rest of the world, or the rest of the world agains M$, whatever he thinks is appropriate, depending on the distuation.
    b.) .NET vs Java, same scenario as above.
    c.) If not the two above, than something to start a flamewar. Like saying java people are kind of a bunch of retards. or whatever :-))

    To complete the profile, I have to say that Rolf strongly believes he's an intelligent, cultivated person.

    As I said: schmuck :-D
  157. I can't believe it ! Rolf did it again !He's found another victim, this time in Peter Lin's person. He's regularly doing this. He's highjaking threads using intelligent people who do not know what he's doing and take him for a fine, civilised person.I think we can build a profile for him. Obviously he's a frustrated person. Why ... I can't tell... And he allways turns the thread into one of the following:
    a.) M$ vs. the rest of the world, or the rest of the world agains M$, whatever he thinks is appropriate, depending on the distuation.
    b.) .NET vs Java, same scenario as above.
    c.) If not the two above, than something to start a flamewar. Like saying java people are kind of a bunch of retards. or whatever :-))To complete the profile, I have to say that Rolf strongly believes he's an intelligent, cultivated person. As I said: schmuck :-D

    Well, I have to admit I do it for fun. I don't expect Rolf to change his story, but it is amusing to hear him rant on and on. for that, I apologize and will repent. now if only I could resist proding him.

    peter
  158. Well, I have to admit I do it for fun. I don't expect Rolf to change his story, but it is amusing to hear him rant on and on. for that, I apologize and will repent. now if only I could resist proding him.peter
    I did that for some time, but after a while it gets too predictable and boring.
  159. OpenMoko, a Taiwan-based device manufacturer, is celebrating Independence Day by freeing smart phone users from the shackles of proprietary devices with its touch-screen Neo FreeRunner, an open source Linux handset to rival the coveted Apple iPhone.