What is running the different campaign websites...

The results are obtained from Netcraft, a very interesting site.

The site www.deanforamerica.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD.

The site www.johnedwards2004.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

The site www.dickgephardt2004.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

The site www.johnkerry.com is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 mod_python/2.7.8 Python/1.5.2 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.3 PHP/4.1.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2 on Linux.

The site www.kucinich.us is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.3.1 mod_ssl/2.8.14 OpenSSL/0.9.6b on Linux.

The site www.grahamforpresident.com is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) FrontPage/5.0.2.2634 on Linux.

The site www.joe2004.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD.

The site www.carolforpresident.com is running Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_webapp/1.2.0-dev PHP/4.1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.10 OpenSSL/0.9.6g on FreeBSD.

The site www.sharptonexplore2004.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

and if you are curious...

The site www.georgebush.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

Comments from the other geeks?

Whoever said to go with a provider w/ Microsoft 2000 servers are not paying much attention these days. Yeah, they're cheap - but.....

I'd rather not have someone who was oblivious to technology. The candidate need not be an expert, but I'd like them to have a clue about free or open source software.

Intellectual property stance will affect how I vote. (In the primary, anyway)

Using Unix technology and has already guested on Lessig's blog about intellectual property and free/open source software.

IIRC...

Someone just emailed me about my comment that Microsoft 2000 hosting is "cheap" noting that Apache is free. That's not what I meant. There are many small hosts using Microsoft 2000 which charge $6 a month for hosting. I see many cheap hosting solutions these days, and many of them use MS 2000......it's just an inferior product and hence, the inexpensive rates.

Edit: For stupid mistakes typing too fast.

If they aren't ignorant, it's a vote for the evil empire.

And Apache isn't the toughest thing to admin, even using vi like I had too.

Apache servers are both cheaper and more robust. You can generally host many more sites per box on an apache solution as opposed to IIS.

Hell, if you don't want php or sql or anything like that you can run an okay apache/linux server on a 300mhz server.

...is that Microsoft has been caught serving web pages with apache at various times. Hillarity.