The Chinese (Web Servers) Are Coming 231
Glyn Moody writes "The February 2009 Netcraft survey is not the usual 'Apache continues to trounce Microsoft IIS' story: there's a new entrant — from China. 'This majority of this month's growth is down to the appearance of 20 million Chinese sites served by QZHTTP. This web server is used by QQ to serve millions of Qzone sites beneath the qq.com domain.' What exactly is this QZHTTP, and what does it all mean for the world of Web servers?"
Neck-and-neck (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL- good to see MS prompted to fight for its second place standing.
Why mock this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software vs. content (Score:3, Insightful)
"...What exactly is this QZHTTP, and what does it all mean for the world of Web servers?"
Ah, what does it all mean? I dunno, are the Chinese proposing some sort of new web server protocol standard? Is there a new RFC out?
Seems we might be confusing web content with web server software and/or protocols. IM and blogging isn't exactly new, and neither is the idea that whatever China chooses to put online en masse would be larger than just about anything else in the world based on their population numbers alone.
Please no more... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop linking to zero content, zero insight, zero analysis blogs!
Re:LOL web admins (Score:4, Insightful)
Every job has a cost - the opportunity cost. Reduce that cost and you increase wealth.
It's whose wealth is being increased, is the question that we're asking here.
Re:Why mock this ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, that's not fair. I saw one good Geocities site....
Once....
A long time ago...
Ok, you're right. :)
Re:The GeoCities of China? (Score:3, Insightful)
Proprietary? Perhaps. But I'd be willing to bet that the codebase is more than likely a fork of Apache or another open source web server, or else a "customised" version of IIS. Copyrights are not a Chinese concept, and I doubt that a site as large as QQ claims to be is running off a web server they rolled themselves.
Re:Why mock this ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you want to do this?
It seems you want to elevate the Chinese by introducing them to your superior culture.
An entire generation of Chinese students is ALREADY learning English.
They ALREADY have net books and cell phones.
They ALREADY have their own mirror internet with youtube and facebook clones.
And I already know the real average Chinese point of view because I asked them. They think their nation and culture is superior, just like most people from every other nation and culture.
Re:Why mock this ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, what would be the point of this ? Do you think they don't have their own blogosphere, slashdot, webcomics, news sources ? All in the language that the biggest part of humanity uses ?
I, for one, am thrilled! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a whole new arena from which the Chinese hackers can continue to launch their lame--but oh, so annoying--port scans and root login attempts. I'm jaded enough to be willing to bet money that the security will be up to the usual high Chinese standards--absent unless they decide to block something. Every day I have the same struggle: Bad Self says, "Just block the whole goddamned country." Good Self says, "Shame on you." One of these days, Bad Self is going to win.
(Speaking of lame login attempts, the firewall just blocked the first one ever from Rwanda. Good Self is telling me that I should be encouraged that they actually have an Internet there...)
Might be a version of thttpd instead (Score:5, Insightful)
telnet qzone.qq.com 80
Trying 58.251.60.181...
Connected to qzone.qq.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET - HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Server: qhttpd
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 235
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>400 Bad Request</TITLE></HEAD><BODY><H2>400 Bad Request</H2>Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy.<HR><ADDRESS><A HREF="http://www.tencent.com/">qhttpd Server</A></ADDRESS></BODY></HTML>
Compare that message with:
thttpd-2.25b
libhttpd.c: "Your request has bad syntax or is inherently impossible to satisfy.\n";
Re:Self-Censored (Score:1, Insightful)
He cut taxes, where's the increase you're babbling about?
He cut taxes for the wrong people.
Bush gave billions to the financial and car industries anyway
It makes people angry, I know, but trickle-down economics *works*. Giving money to the ultra-rich makes people angry (myself included), but what are those rich people good at? Turning 1 dollar into 20.
Give them a million dollars and watch them create a multi-million dollar job creation machine. People that make $30,000 a year are not out there building wealth and creating jobs. People making $3 million a year, are.
Its simple, its mean, its cold, but it works.
Re:Self-Censored (Score:2, Insightful)
This of course is true as long the majority is not forced under 30$k level because then the only branch of economy that actually sees growth is security firms and prison service.
One must also ask question based on recent events - how much of these 19m$ (to keep your example) is real and how much was value 'added' by finance sector (mostly using spreadsheet software)?
By all means - let people make their business and get rich or super rich but if balance is lost then society dissipates and the only way to keep it together is by violence. This does not happen of course if these 3ok$ people can still provide food for their children and have at least some hope of getting their piece of the cake.
Now to the rationale beyond cutting taxes for different parts of society. I suppose whether you deliver a tax cut to super rich (30+m$) the tax cut does not matter that much as they have means to optimize their tax burden anyway. If you cut taxes for people that have little you have guarantee that they spend at home as they have direct needs they need to address. The same middle class with a difference that they may actually invest the saved income. From what I see tax cuts still cost money but have real effect only in bottom and middle part of society. This of course provided that the system is well balanced (again this word) as overtaxed businesses indeed collapse and those that do not especially small ones may find their progress inhibited. Again the international corporations will find ways to avoid too much burden anyway not because they are evil of course but because they can. So the actual burden is carried by small and middle businesses and that is where tax cuts are felt.
Now you may continue in believing in the system of
tax cuts for super-rich and big corporations but I think you should do what they do - look at your pocket - does the tax cut leave more money in it or not - if it does then it is a good thing for you. I would not worry to much about these super rich that you seem to care so much - they always find ways to survive. It gets unpleasant if small people cannot.
Re:Self-Censored (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it works. It gives jobs to people in Dubai, India, and China, all completely irrelevant to the average American.
Trickle down economics doesn't do a single damn thing for the American who is out of work and needing a job. Getting projects done like infrastructure does create American jobs. Look how the US got out of the Great Depression. It wasn't trickle down spending that pulled us out of that, it was getting people to build bridges, roads, and infrastructure.
In previous recessions, the FED was able to use control measures to help things. However, the FED has no more cards to play. Interest rates are at zero percent. Now the FED can't do its job in mitigating recessions, so there isn't a bottom in sight.
Finally, stocks are a zero sum game. What goes up must come down, and right now, the people in the stock market are paying for the other people who made soaring profits in past years.
Re:Self-Censored (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL web admins (Score:2, Insightful)
But he had no answer when asked what the other 3/4 of the people should then do. The 3/4 of people who had no skills beyond growing, and selling spice
Well, they could do what the USA did, and dole out degrees and cubicles to everyone, pretend that selling insurance to each other creates wealth, have them all borrow trillions of dollars to build up their houses, and then bankrupt the planet.