NOT SO - Huge Security holes in MS FrontPage 98

[ramin]

Danny is spot on with the server numbers.
I dont know where IDC get their stuff from (wink).
We looked at the servers being used by the Top 1000 Australia/NZ
companies
as per BRW list (and anyone can do this - what about IDC) and found
Apache
to be a little less than 50%, Netscape to be around 25%, MS IIS less
than 18%,
then CERN, NCSA and a bit of IBM and then some other stuff in small
numbers.
Stand By for Press Release.  Info for linkers only.


Danny Yee wrote:

> > Many ISPs around the world have implemented large hosting sites
> using
> > Frontpage Extensions and done this successfully - you can find a
> sample
> > list of such sites at
> http://www.microsoft.com/frontpage/hosting.htm.
>
> But wasn't there an article (in Wired?) that showed that almost all
> "big"
> (hits/second) sites were using Unix?  Could you even build something
> like Altavista on NT?
>
> > As for NT Server and its ability to function reliably, IDC confirmed
>
> > that last year, for the first time, NT Servers outsold all varieties
> of
> > Unix servers put together.  This would indicate that a large portion
> of
> > the market believes that NT Server does provide a reliable computing
>
> > platform.
>
> And 50% or more of the web servers in the world are Apache.   But
> volume
> alone doesn't prove anything -- cheap PC clones certainly outsold all
> other computing hardware, but no one would suggest that makes them
> "a reliable computing platform".  And one can sell anything if one has
>
> enough money to market it... (maybe sales per advertising dollar would
>
> make an interesting comparison :-)
>
> [Going by my limited experience of NT, it is considerably more stable
> than
> MacOS or other forms of Windows, but nowhere near as stable as the
> Unices
> I've used - and that includes Unices that were in use ten years ago.]
>
> > Hopefully I won't need to bore Link too much with my clearly
> affiliated
> > views, and we can all enjoy the higher level of non-product-specific
>
> > discussion that link is so good at providing :-)
>
> Does this mean we have to bash Microsoft generically rather than
> attacking
> specific monstrosities^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hproducts? :-)
>
> Danny.