Mailing List Archive

On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:

> "shareware" ?????
> How dare they call Apache "shareware"

Um, what DO we call Apache? "groupware"? "niceware"?
"technically-superb-ware"? "consortiumware"?

Seriously, the only way around this "shareware" moniker
is to make up our own and put it on the masthead.

let me see, I offer "betterware".

dave
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Oliver dave@newshare.com |
| Managing Director-Technology Newshare Corporation |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

> > I just got this in the mail on my home machine where I have a couple
> > small web sites. Heh..competitive upgrade. ;) I've removed the
> > name to prtect the clueless from too much abuse. I think the
> > group would enjoy this, long live apache.
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 7:59pm, X X wrote:
> > } Subject: Would you like to use Netscape?
> > } Hello,
> > }
> > } Hey, nice web site but I noticed you are running shareware. Have you ever
>
> "shareware" ?????
>
> How dare they call Apache "shareware"
>
> Anyone have Johnny Cochran's phone number ?
>
> Cliff, tell this marketing droid to stop telling lies, or we'll respond..
> e.g. I'll plaster something over the newsroups, they hate negative
> public comments.
>
>
>
> rob

Lovely. Can we frame this?

Er sorry if I came over all stroppy earlier. I just have a problem with
trying to parcel out credit for a project that really is max collaboration
from everyone. My home page has tons of bullshit on it, I dun't really
want to see the same stuff here, it's too nice ;)

Cheers,
Ay.

On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> If the Netscape people don't apologies and target their potential
> customers in a more civilized way, we should perhaps consider
> *advertising* Apache as
>
> beats-the-shit-out-of-netsite-and-is-free-too-ware

Okay, easy tiger - let's not let this turn into a football game or
anything. Remember that Rob McCool has been a more-or-less regular
contributor to this project, and I wouldn't want to lose him. Similarly
for the NCSA crew. Apache was *not* started as a Netsite-killer -
there's no point to that. It has accomplished one of my major goals,
which was to create a stable and fast *basic* web server for people who
can't afford commercial software and don't need support or like having
source to the application their livlihood depends on. Just because their
Larry-Ellison-trained sales staff are unprofessional doesn't mean we have
to retaliate.

> Also, how the hell can anyone "trade" Apache for a 40% discount on Netsite..
> they're not allowed to "sell" Apache, only support for it.

Hey, I wonder if I gave them the "secret key" to prep.ai.mit.edu, if
they'd give me a free publishing system.

Rob, if you want to direct your anti-N energies towards something
productive, consider writing an Apache API/Netsite API interface module,
or an http_config.c that parsed Netsite config files... :)

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: cliff@steam.com (Cliff Skolnick)
> Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:53:52 PST
> To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
> Subject: netscape marketing

> I just got this in the mail on my home machine where I have a couple
> small web sites. Heh..competitive upgrade. ;) I've removed the
> name to prtect the clueless from too much abuse. I think the
> group would enjoy this, long live apache.


> On Sep 6, 7:59pm, X X wrote:
> } Subject: Would you like to use Netscape?
> } Hello,
> }
> } Hey, nice web site but I noticed you are running shareware. Have you ever

"shareware" ?????

How dare they call Apache "shareware"

Anyone have Johnny Cochran's phone number ?

Cliff, tell this marketing droid to stop telling lies, or we'll respond..
e.g. I'll plaster something over the newsroups, they hate negative
public comments.



rob

On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:

> beats-the-shit-out-of-netsite-and-is-free-too-ware

:-)

sure hope we dont have any Netscapers on this list...

Actually, I beat the software guys at Netscape dont like
the marketing tactics either...

> Also, how the hell can anyone "trade" Apache for a 40% discount on Netsite..
> they're not allowed to "sell" Apache, only support for it.

In the case of a "trade in" for betterware, the "trade" just
amounts to a greater discount off the "normal price".

According to the survey one person on this list mentioned,
over 75% of all commercial servers are "betterware". That's
a big open market for a salesman, but it also means that
commercial server vendors had better start recognizing that
perhaps "betterware" has something to offer, for example,
state of the art protocol support.

dave
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Oliver dave@newshare.com |
| Managing Director-Technology Newshare Corporation |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

> On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
>
> > "shareware" ?????
> > How dare they call Apache "shareware"
>
> Um, what DO we call Apache? "groupware"? "niceware"?
> "technically-superb-ware"? "consortiumware"?
>
> Seriously, the only way around this "shareware" moniker
> is to make up our own and put it on the masthead.
>
> let me see, I offer "betterware".

If the Netscape people don't apologies and target their potential
customers in a more civilized way, we should perhaps consider
*advertising* Apache as

beats-the-shit-out-of-netsite-and-is-free-too-ware


Also, how the hell can anyone "trade" Apache for a 40% discount on Netsite..
they're not allowed to "sell" Apache, only support for it.


rob

> Rob, if you want to direct your anti-N energies towards something

my anti-bullshit energies are being used elsewhere at the moment.


If they apologies for propogating misinformation, I'd be satisfied.

There are laws to prevent this kind of marketing in all other media. If
Netscape want to be considered as professionals, they should act like
professionals.

rob

> > beats-the-shit-out-of-netsite-and-is-free-too-ware
>
> :-)
>
> sure hope we dont have any Netscapers on this list...

we do. Rob McCool (author of NCSA 0 -> 1.3) and now Netsite programmer
is on this list. I'm sure he can see the errors of the marketing people.

I'm with Brian on the "netscape marketing" business... Apache is freeware,
not shareware (though even that terminology gets you into trouble with the
multiple, mutually contradictory definitions of "free" that keep running
around), but I don't see what anyone gains by starting a big public fight
over the difference... it's just puerile. If anyone's really annoyed by
this, a simple and *polite* correction will probably get the job done...

rst

So I need to understand what your issues are with our marketing
department before I can tell them why they might be upsetting people
and what they should be doing instead.

Brian B, you called the mail you got unprofessional. Were you upset
because of unsolicited e-mail? Because he called it an upgrade?
Because he called Apache shareware when it's different?

Rob H, I'm not going to get dragged into a pissing match with you
about which server is better or worse than the other. Each server has
its pluses and its minuses. I think you all, especially Rob T, deserve
a great congratulations because you've assembled a fine product with a
lot of interesting features.

Is the problem really only a semantic problem of calling Apache
shareware when it's more accurately freeware? If that's it, then I can
have them call it whatever you like. Just tell me and I'll let the
appropriate people know.

Or is the problem that our marketing is trying to convince people that
Netsite might meet their needs better? If so, I'm having trouble
seeing why that is a problem. Freeware/shareware is not about market
shares, or establishing user bases, or piling every feature that
everyone else has into your own product. It's about something much
deeper than that and I hope you can see that.

For a while at NCSA, I watched market shares very closely. People
there are very enthusiastic in the same way, many of them seem to
think that the web is a great big competition for users attention. But
after the first couple of months, I began to realize that competition
wasn't what it was all about, and that market share wasn't very
important in the grand scheme of things. Why did it matter to me if
ten people were running my server, or fifty, or ten thousand? It
didn't make a difference because I was doing it because I liked to do
it. I liked creating new features and functionality and watching how
people put them to use. If people started to use CERN because it met
their needs better, I had no problem with that. The Apache goals I saw
when the project started were similar: provide an alternative, robust
public domain server for people who wanted it. That doesn't mean that
if less or more people want it, that it's any less valid.

So if you tell me, in rational terms, what you would like the
marketing people to stop doing and why, then I'll pass the information
on to them. I can't convince anyone to do anything with the
information and threats I've seen so far.

--Rob

>
> For a while at NCSA, I watched market shares very closely. People
> there are very enthusiastic in the same way, many of them seem to
> think that the web is a great big competition for users attention.

Is there any reason at all for bringing us into this? No offense,
Rob, but having someone from Netscape accuse us at NCSA of thinking
"the web is a great big competition for users attention" is pretty comical.

The points you made in your post were reasonable, but you can't expect
the rational responses you desire while making such a gratuitous
slap at us in the same breath.

To clear the air, I know that the current members of the NCSA server
team welcome the efforts of Apache, and are in no way concerned about
losing "market share". We think Apache serves a niche (a very LARGE
niche if you will) that would be increasingly difficult for us to fill
given our mission.

> So if you tell me, in rational terms, what you would like the
> marketing people to stop doing and why, then I'll pass the information
> on to them. I can't convince anyone to do anything with the
> information and threats I've seen so far.

I doubt if I will be contacted by your marketing people, but if I were,
I would appreciate it if, rather than thinly insult my current setup,
he/she explain in detail what I am going to get for my 40% discount
that I'm not getting for free right now. I realize unsolicited email
is probably an effective marketing tool. What I found odd about the
mailing is what a poor marketing effort it was. I could make a better
case for "upgrading" to netsite than this fellow did.

Stanford S. Guillory
Httpd Server Development Team
NCSA-University of Illinois
guillory@ncsa.uiuc.edu

/*
* "Re: netscape marketing" by guillory@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Stan Guillory)
* written Fri, 8 Sep 1995 17:51:11 -0500 (CDT)
*
** For a while at NCSA, I watched market shares very closely. People
** there are very enthusiastic in the same way, many of them seem to
** think that the web is a great big competition for users attention.
*
* Is there any reason at all for bringing us into this? No offense,
* Rob, but having someone from Netscape accuse us at NCSA of thinking
* "the web is a great big competition for users attention" is pretty
* comical.
*
* The points you made in your post were reasonable, but you can't
* expect the rational responses you desire while making such a
* gratuitous slap at us in the same breath.

Well, I said "many" and not "all". It seems I should have said "some"
or "a few". I was also commenting from my personal experience. If
things have changed in the past year, which is quite possible, then
that's all the better.

I didn't mean to say anything bad about the NCSA team and if I
offended anybody then I didn't mean it and I'm sorry.

* I doubt if I will be contacted by your marketing people, but if I
* were, I would appreciate it if, rather than thinly insult my
* current setup, he/she explain in detail what I am going to get for
* my 40% discount that I'm not getting for free right now. I realize
* unsolicited email is probably an effective marketing tool. What I
* found odd about the mailing is what a poor marketing effort it
* was. I could make a better case for "upgrading" to netsite than
* this fellow did.
*/

Thank you, that's exactly the type of feedback I'm looking for.

--Rob

[stuff from Rob M]

Zen. We should all go home and eat some good food and call Mom
and stroke the cat and take a dump. And mebbies we can come back
tomorrow and haq kewl kode.

Life is sweet. The more so cuz of Apache.

Ay.

/*
* "Re: netscape marketing" by Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
* written Fri, 8 Sep 95 17:00:50 MDT
*
* when I read the mail it suggested someone had looked at the site
* and thought it was good (the standard letter suggests otherwise)
* but could be *improved* by changing to Netsite, or the task of
* managing the site would be made easier or something unspecified.
*
* it basically says "Netsite is a better option" without saying why,
* and as a direct result of the reference to existing software, it
* suggests Apache/whatever is inferior... that's for people to decide
* themselves, not be told by a biased salesman posing as some kind of
* consultant.
*
* The mass mailing makes it quite obvious that the salesman hasn't
* examined the needs of the people he's writing to, so the whole
* thing is misleading.. "I see you are using.." when it's really "As
* a webmaster, this is a note to let you know about or latest offer
* for our Netsite server".

Okay, I see where everyone is coming from now. The problem is that the
upgrade offer is too vague and isn't specific enough about what
exactly our server would do that the webmaster's current server
doesn't. It implies that there is something that our server offers
that the others don't without saying what that is or why the site
being mailed needs it. Is this accurate?

I'll talk to them about it. No guarantees that they'll listen to me,
but I'll talk to them about it.

* So far there hasn't been a public slanging match (or pissing match
* if you prefer) regarding which server is best. The mass mailing
* changes that.
*/

Well, it's something I personally hope to avoid. Pissing matches with
certain commercial competitors are inevitable but freeware isn't a
commercial competitor.

--Rob

On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Rob McCool wrote:
> Or is the problem that our marketing is trying to convince people that
> Netsite might meet their needs better? If so, I'm having trouble
> seeing why that is a problem. Freeware/shareware is not about market
> shares, or establishing user bases, or piling every feature that
> everyone else has into your own product. It's about something much
> deeper than that and I hope you can see that.

I will admit to glee in seeing Apache used by a large number of people,
as anyone who's worked on software would, but I also agree that free
software's goals are different than commercial software's and that there
is enough room for each. To the extent that making Apache a usable
service, and communicating that, is "marketing", that makes the Apache
group members and proselytizers competitors with Netsite, even if not in
our own eyes. The marketing industry has some sections which obey rather
strict ethics against slamming competition, and other sections which just
let loose without remorse. I would hope we could be the former.

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

> Er sorry if I came over all stroppy earlier. I just have a problem with
> trying to parcel out credit for a project that really is max collaboration
> from everyone. My home page has tons of bullshit on it, I dun't really
> want to see the same stuff here, it's too nice ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Ay.

I should probably go check the archive to see how Brian got out
of this similar f*ck up in the past... :-)

Please don't let my attempt at crediting some people in this
group for their work cause hard feelings. I was simply taking
the lead on a suggestion made by RST (who I really do believe
deserves some recognition for his effort) in Email to the group.


-Randy

On Fri, 8 Sep 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> So far there hasn't been a public slanging match (or pissing match if
> you prefer) regarding which server is best. The mass mailing changes
> that.

No. Please. It will get us *nowhere*, fast.

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

> Rob H, I'm not going to get dragged into a pissing match with you
> about which server is better or worse than the other.

Good, it's not what I had in mind.
I should have added a :-) to a couple of my comments.

> Is the problem really only a semantic problem of calling Apache
> Brian B, you called the mail you got unprofessional. Were you upset
> because of unsolicited e-mail? Because he called it an upgrade?
> Because he called Apache shareware when it's different?

when I read the mail it suggested someone had looked at the site
and thought it was good (the standard letter suggests otherwise) but
could be *improved* by changing to Netsite, or the task of managing the
site would be made easier or something unspecified.

it basically says "Netsite is a better option" without saying why, and
as a direct result of the reference to existing software, it suggests
Apache/whatever is inferior... that's for people to decide themselves, not
be told by a biased salesman posing as some kind of consultant.

The mass mailing makes it quite obvious that the salesman hasn't examined
the needs of the people he's writing to, so the whole thing is misleading..
"I see you are using.." when it's really "As a webmaster, this is
a note to let you know about or latest offer for our Netsite server".

So far there hasn't been a public slanging match (or pissing match if
you prefer) regarding which server is best. The mass mailing changes
that.

rob

> Okay, I see where everyone is coming from now. The problem is that the
> upgrade offer is too vague and isn't specific enough about what
> exactly our server would do that the webmaster's current server
> doesn't. It implies that there is something that our server offers
> that the others don't without saying what that is or why the site
> being mailed needs it. Is this accurate?

yes.

> I'll talk to them about it. No guarantees that they'll listen to me,
> but I'll talk to them about it.

thanks.