Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:28:12 -0500 From: Drew Baxter <netmonger@genesis.ispace.com> To: jgrosch@mooseriver.com, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Internet Explorer and UNIX Message-ID: <4.1.19981104132722.00986ca0@genesis.ispace.com> In-Reply-To: <19981104060901.A15161@mooseriver.com> References: <363F5DA4.5A56B326@softweyr.com> <4.1.19981103140957.00b4d100@genesis.ispace.com> <4.1.19981103141736.00b57180@genesis.ispace.com> <363F5DA4.5A56B326@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:09 AM 11/4/98 -0800, Josef Grosch wrote: >On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 12:46:44PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: >> Drew Baxter wrote: >> > >> > Alright, first off, no I meant IE. IE is available for (as you pointed out) >> > HP/UX and Solaris. My question is *why* HP/UX and Solaris? Why is it that >> >> Because that's where they can make money? Microsoft is looking to invade >> the CORPORATE desktop, and this includes people with Sun and HP workstations >> on their desk, and people with Sun and HP servers in the datacenter and an >> X terminal on their desk. >> > >My current contract is at a very big HP/UX shop. HP/UX ships with Netscape >on the OS CD. We do have IE installed on a few machines but almost no one >uses it. In most corporate environments IT decides what tools, as in >editors, browsers, etc, will be on the servers unless some bigwig makes a >real stink. Most users go along with what ever IT decides to use. Baaaaa ! > >I don't think microsoft will make much headway with IE on the "Big" Unixes >in corporate environments simply because IE does not ship on the OS CD. Most >companies have a whole process to select the software to installed and used >on their servers. One has to give them a very compelling reason to use a >particular piece of software. Installing and using IE just because it is >from microsoft is just not a good enough reason anymore. Lots of big >companies are using win95/98 just because, and only because, of >office. Most companies know how bad microsoft software is, there is just >not a viable alternative to Office out there. > >[ DELETED ] > >> > Windows NT is easy to obtain at 300 or so bucks (workstation). But if I'm >> > getting Netscape Servers under Netscape Free Server Software program >> > anyway, why not support Free Unixes? >> >> Because Netscape can't make money there? Obviously, they believe they can >> make more money for their efforts on Solaris, HP/UX, and other "big iron" >> than on "itty bitty boxes." Another reason is probably the predominance >> of Apache and Apache-based solutions at the low end; they have very little >> incentive to compete in that arena. Would you want to compete with something >> that is entrenched, widely recognized to be a good solution, and FREE? > >At this big HP/UX shop we are using Apache for our default web server. I >asked my supervisor why we were using Apache and not Netscape server. The >answer was "Everybody is using Apache". Baaaaaa! > > > >Josef > >-- >Josef Grosch | Another day closer to a | FreeBSD 3.0 >jgrosch@MooseRiver.com | Micro$oft free world | UNIX for the masses > I use Apache too on my FreeBSD box. However, the Messenger Express software doesn't work on anything other than FastTrack and Enterprise Server. Have I tried it on Apache? Nope.. Why? because I still have the damned NT box running Messaging Server and Directory LDAP Server anyway, might as well have one machine do all of THAT work. --- Drew "Droobie" Baxter Network Admin/Professional Computer Nerd(TM) OneEX: The OneNetwork Exchange 207-942-0275 http://www.droo.orland.me.us My Latest Kernel: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT (ONEEX) #14: Mon Oct 19 22:36:58 EDT 1998 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19981104132722.00986ca0>