4 ms·

I think you're overstating a little here. There were definitely popular websites running on linux in 2006. I won't make any claim about dominance (it's too hard

I think you're overstating a little here. There were definitely popular websites running on linux in 2006. I won't make any claim about dominance (it's too hard to find good data now and it's just a battle of memory at that point), but definitely some high rankers on alexa at the time were very much LAMP. Notably, I believe Facebook was LAMP, and was already becoming a pretty big force in 2006. It's hard to find a good citation for that, but it was my understanding at the time they were. I think it was pretty common among up-and-comer startups, really. Maybe not so much on the low or high end, which were still dominated by shared hosting and enterprise contracts at the time, respectively. Still, it's the year RHEL launched so things were changing.

pjmlp 4y ago
Better said, the year Red-Hat realized there was no money on the Linux Desktop and pivoted into RHEL.
Maursault 4y ago
> There were definitely popular websites running on linux in 2006. There were about 32M websites in 2006. Nearly all of them were not running Linux. Not in 2006.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  First of all, you said popular. Nearly all of those 32m websites were not popular by any useful definition of that word. At any rate, you’re definitely going to have to provide more than a stern tone to make me believe this is true as it’s either very at odds with my experience at the time or your definition of “nearly all” is very unusual. And finally, as another commenter suggested, if your idea is that this doesn’t also apply to netbsd (ie. nearly all servers weren’t netbsd) the i dunno what to tell you. Some kind of bsd maybe, but netbsd? I really don’t think so.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    No, I did not say "popular." It is quite simple. Linux took over in 2011. That is 5 years after 2006. We don't have to rewrite history to make Linux look better than it is. Absurd.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      > Linux was just not mature or stable enough for big iron nor servers for popular websites, On the other hand, I absolutely made no claims about taking over. That's not the argument I have with what you said. But I was running, or involved in the running of, large and popular production websites in 2006 that absolutely ran on Linux in the datacenter. There were BSD machines in the mix, sometimes as frontend proxies, but the actual website software and the bulk of the compute power of the sites were Linux. That’s the claim I’m making and i make it because i lived it: Linux was used by popular websites in 2006, regardless of your claims of overall popularity.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        I don't understand what you're on about, dangling on a word. My claim is that most of the WWW, the vast majority of public webservers, popular or not, ran on NetBSD between 1994 and 2007, the rest ran on Windows Server IIS. Linux, if it had any marketshare at all in the public WWW space in 2006, was in an extreme minority, part of a single percent or very low single digits of the 30M websites available in 2006. Barely perceptible. Things moved fast, and by 2008, Linux gained a lot of marketshare, and HP and Dell facilitated that by shipping Linux since 2007, but Linux still only had about 40% of webserver marketshare in 2008. But by the end of 2011, it effectively gained the rest. But you worked on a large website in 2006 that ran on Linux. So you were a pioneer. Satisfied? In what way does it offend you that Linux didn't have any webserver marketshare to speak of in 2006? It's nothing personal. You are not Linux.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        lproven 4y ago

pjmlp 4y ago

Better said, the year Red-Hat realized there was no money on the Linux Desktop and pivoted into RHEL.

Maursault 4y ago

> There were definitely popular websites running on linux in 2006. There were about 32M websites in 2006. Nearly all of them were not running Linux. Not in 2006.

stormbrew 4y ago
First of all, you said popular. Nearly all of those 32m websites were not popular by any useful definition of that word. At any rate, you’re definitely going to have to provide more than a stern tone to make me believe this is true as it’s either very at odds with my experience at the time or your definition of “nearly all” is very unusual. And finally, as another commenter suggested, if your idea is that this doesn’t also apply to netbsd (ie. nearly all servers weren’t netbsd) the i dunno what to tell you. Some kind of bsd maybe, but netbsd? I really don’t think so.
- Maursault 4y ago
  No, I did not say "popular." It is quite simple. Linux took over in 2011. That is 5 years after 2006. We don't have to rewrite history to make Linux look better than it is. Absurd.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    > Linux was just not mature or stable enough for big iron nor servers for popular websites, On the other hand, I absolutely made no claims about taking over. That's not the argument I have with what you said. But I was running, or involved in the running of, large and popular production websites in 2006 that absolutely ran on Linux in the datacenter. There were BSD machines in the mix, sometimes as frontend proxies, but the actual website software and the bulk of the compute power of the sites were Linux. That’s the claim I’m making and i make it because i lived it: Linux was used by popular websites in 2006, regardless of your claims of overall popularity.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      I don't understand what you're on about, dangling on a word. My claim is that most of the WWW, the vast majority of public webservers, popular or not, ran on NetBSD between 1994 and 2007, the rest ran on Windows Server IIS. Linux, if it had any marketshare at all in the public WWW space in 2006, was in an extreme minority, part of a single percent or very low single digits of the 30M websites available in 2006. Barely perceptible. Things moved fast, and by 2008, Linux gained a lot of marketshare, and HP and Dell facilitated that by shipping Linux since 2007, but Linux still only had about 40% of webserver marketshare in 2008. But by the end of 2011, it effectively gained the rest. But you worked on a large website in 2006 that ran on Linux. So you were a pioneer. Satisfied? In what way does it offend you that Linux didn't have any webserver marketshare to speak of in 2006? It's nothing personal. You are not Linux.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lproven 4y ago