Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apache Web Server Share Falls Below 50 Percent For First Time Since 2009

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the netcraft-confirms-netcraft-meme-is-dying dept.

The Internet 303

darthcamaro writes "Apache has always dominated the web server landscape. But in August, its share has slipped below 50 percent for the first time in years. The winner isn't nginx either — it's Microsoft IIS that has picked up share. But don't worry, this isn't likely a repeat of the Netscape/IE battle of the late 90's, Apache is here to stay (right?)" The dip is mostly the result of GoDaddy switching to IIS from Apache. Which is to say GoDaddy hosts a whole lot of sites.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st post. (-1, Redundant)

bprice20 (709357) | about a year ago | (#44547515)

apache 4 life!

Re:1st post. (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44547627)

apache 4 life!

No kidding. I hate IIS right now. It's so much more time consuming to sort out configuration issues with than Apache.

Re:1st post. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547769)

But IIS is NSA-friendly!

Re:1st post. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547813)

There hasn't been any serious security holes in IIS for years now. So the government ordered MS to add PHP support.

LOL. PHP will provide plenty of holes (0)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44548431)

funny

Re:LOL. PHP will provide plenty of holes (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | about a year ago | (#44548501)

They're gonna tear Microsoft a new one.

it is getting a LOT better (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44548771)

Having acknowledged the sometimes extreme security issues PHP has had in the past, I have to say it's getting a LOT better. PHP was designed as something like a blogging system, not a general purpose programming language. Because people are using it for general programming, they have made huge improvements.

Now if only people would read the giant warning at the top of the SuExec documentation: "SuExec can result in severe security risks. Do not consider using SuExec unless you are knowledgeable about ...". That warning is there for a reason. SuExec / suPHP really is dangerous as hell, just like it's documentation says.

Re:1st post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548259)

Will the NSA honor IE11's do not track default setting?!

Re:1st post. (3, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44548521)

Be that as it may (I hate the IIS administration interface as well), for an enterprise who runs microsoft on the desktop, microsoft SQL, and other microsoft services, IIS integrates far easier into that environment.

And I suspect this is where it is winning share - the web isn't static pages any more.

Sure, Apache can do this, but the environment is totally foreign to your average corporate type.

And as usual, security is probably some way down the priority list.

Re:1st post. (1)

bprice20 (709357) | about a year ago | (#44547927)

Seriously though. Apache, nginx, lighthttpd, hell.. mongrel, thin, etc... Anything before IIS. The point and click mentality works for people that know how to follow instructions but don't care how things work. That having been said I guess this news is legit.

Re:1st post. (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44548685)

IIS is an absolute fucking nightmare when you have to deal with a buggered up config. Actually that applies to most MS point and click services. Apache can be a bastard, but at least I can back up the configs with a quick "cp".

Worst experience I ever had was with IIS and Exchange and something going wonky with IIS's settings, and OMA completely screwing up. In the end I literally had to uninstall IIS. Only MS would build things with such fragility and such insanely dangerous solutions.

Re:1st post. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548149)

I'm not using either. I got burned on the most recent apache/php upgrade where all of my sites went down because of some retarded issue with PHP not handling something or another. I don't know what the problem was nor do I give a fuck, all I know was that it was poorly planned for by Apache and within 2 days of fighting to get any of my sites to keep from crashing I just switched to Nginx. I've had a few issues due to the fact that Nginx wasn't installed initially so all the permissions were still set for apache:apache on some directories but it works much faster and with far less delay than apache ever did. I imagine it will work much better when I do a fresh install where apache isn't included.

What I'm getting at is that these numbers are dropping for a variety of reasons and IIS isn't the whole reason, sometime it's apache.

base it on traffic vs. how many domains host'd (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547523)

I'm willing to bet you'd see drastically different numbers...

Re:base it on traffic vs. how many domains host'd (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44548409)

Netcraft's report shows the percentages for all domains as well as for active domains [netcraft.com] .

This article is a bit sensationalistic - no surprise. As a percentage of all domains, Microsoft is at 23% (Apache's at 47%). Looking at just non-parked domains, they're at 12% (versus 54% for Apache). Not really much of a "Apache vs. IIS" story there...

If there's any news at all, it's that servers other than Apache and IIS have managed to gain significant traction over the past couple of years. I remember when it had really turned into a two horse race, and gains by one exactly mirrored losses by the other. But now it's a bit more of a healthy competition.

note to self.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547529)

..another reason not to host on godaddy.

Anyone else? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547533)

Anyone else read that as "Apache Web Server Shares Falls Below 50 Percent For First Time Since 2009"

Never knew it was floated on the stock exchange, or wait..

GoDaddy can make such a dent? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547537)

How many placeholder sites are out there?

GoDaddy IIS (5, Insightful)

naubrey (1452173) | about a year ago | (#44547553)

Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547693)

Parked domains didn't stop Linux fanboys from bragging about "web server marketshare" for years. Netcraft confirms it!

Re:GoDaddy IIS (4, Informative)

Manfre (631065) | about a year ago | (#44547697)

Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.

...which were previously served using Apache. None of these stats will ever be able to convey the usefulness of site content based upon web server software.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44547791)

You could look at what the share is among the top N domains, for N=1000 or N=10,000 or whatever, at least as a sanity check.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (1)

t4ng* (1092951) | about a year ago | (#44548059)

...or better yet, analyze each home page, if it has no links to other pages within the same web site assume it is a parked domain (or spam domain) and ignore it.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year ago | (#44548343)

That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44547777)

Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.

Honest question: Why did they switch? I have never understood why anyone would use IIS, and always assumed ISS users were clueless newbies. So why would GoDaddy go to the time and expense of switching? What do they gain?

Re:GoDaddy IIS (1, Interesting)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year ago | (#44547811)

Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547859)

Which is why they were using apache + mod_php before.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year ago | (#44547915)

asp.net

That's really no reason to move customer domains. As a customer I'd immediately leave a provider, which moved my domains to a new platform without asking me first. Customers that want asp.net should have to choose so on their own. The only way you could suddenly move a lot of sites from one platform to another without breaking something would be if they didn't need any server side scripting in the first place.

It could be done with parked domains. But why would you want to do that (except as a marketing stunt to promote Microsoft)?

Re:GoDaddy IIS (2)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#44548717)

Simple reason really. Microsoft serves static pages faster than Apache and scales better under this scenario. It allows Go Daddy to park more sites on the same host, which then saves them money.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (3)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#44548231)

Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.

Sounds like a great accomplishment and major win for Microsoft.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (2)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year ago | (#44548291)

Your half-assed crap code. Our passion.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548509)

I knew this was true when a "developer" had an issue with an outgoing HTTPS endpoint and said "it works in the application I cut-n-pasted it from. I almost ended is life right there.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44548531)

Other types of web developer are exceedingly rare.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (3, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#44547935)

Honest question: Why did they switch?

My WAG is that MS threw a bunch of money at Godaddy, not directly, you understand, but indirectly.

Furthermore, my conjecture is that MS is prepared to throw this money at Godaddy because Microsoft's share of sites was looking rather sad (3rd place for market share of active sites last month).

Microsoft was paying large hosts to switch $10 sit (4, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44548463)

A while back Microsoft was paying hosts and registrars with large numbers of domains parked, or $30 / year type, to switch over.
I don't know if that program is still active.

Re:GoDaddy IIS (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#44548707)

Honest answer: Because IIS serves static pages faster than Apache does so they can park more domains on the same hardware. With the amount of domains they park, it's not an insignificant difference.

Hmm (3, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#44547617)

The statistical effect of millions of empty, neglected GoDaddy hosted sites will not ultimately mean a great deal. It does raise a question for me, however; what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS? My last contact with IIS was about 9 years ago. At that time it was fragile, insecure and plagued with mysterious "metabase" corruption problems. The thought of using such a thing for large scale hosting seems absurd and I've ignored it ever since.

Has it since improved enough to entice really large operations?

Re:Hmm (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44547639)

No doubt it has improved, but it's still a PITA to work with. I have to work with it now and really miss Apache.

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#44547675)

IIS runs on Microsoft Windows.
GoDaddy administrators do not have the skill to manage Linux boxes.

Re:Hmm (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year ago | (#44547853)

IIS runs on Microsoft Windows.

Apache runs on Windows as well, so this is no reason to choose IIS.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

readingaccount (2909349) | about a year ago | (#44547881)

You basically just admitted that Linux boxes are harder to administer than Windows servers. This makes Linux servers much less appealing for companies when you can find Windows server admins for a dime a dozen, but Linux admins are harder to find and generally cost a lot more.

Re:Hmm (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year ago | (#44548045)

"Not having the skills" just means they lack a breadth of training.

Re:Hmm (5, Interesting)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#44548125)

Linux isn't harder to administer because of any inherent problems, it's harder for the average person to administer because we probably had Windows in the home computer and at the office, and at the school. Making the jump from Windows 95 to Windows NT or from Windows Vista to Server 2008 is a lot easier than jumping from Windows to Linux.

If you're a serious power-user administrator, Linux and Unixes in general has been easier to administer than Windows Server for a very long time. You have more interoperable shell tools at your disposal. The Server GUI is better for an admin novice, but terminal tools are quicker for a power user than toggling through programs and hunting through menus. Microsoft is catching up with PowerShell, but even if the technology is extremely flexible and mature (and it may well be), they took the odd step of inventing a new syntax different enough to be confusing to people comfortable with bash or cmd.exe - me among them. Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile. It probably is, but I don't look forward to it.

Re:Hmm (2)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year ago | (#44548331)

Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile.

It's worthwhile.

Re:Hmm (3, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44548549)

+1. Powershell is quirky. It is prettty excruciatingly slow. There are bugs. But it really is pretty neat, and nothing similar exists in the Unix world as yet. If you need to admin Windows boxes, you'd definitely be well advised to learn powershell.

Re:Hmm (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44548709)

My experience with Powershell is sufficient to state that Windows users can keep it. Bash is a far far more mature shell with a helluva more lineage and experience behind it.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548733)

One law: Sarbanes-Oxley

I can justify MS stuff to the auditors because it is commercial, meets FIPS, Common Criteria, and all those other items.

Without those certifications, if I use tools (RedHat is certified, but a lot of web stuff isn't), I can actually be fired on the spot or maybe even arrested for not following due process or making a due diligence effort in software.

Same with AD. AD is "blessed" by a lot of certifying agencies. A number of LDAP implements may be better, but they are not. Since I don't want to wind up in a PMITA fed pen, it is AD or nothing in most companies.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548269)

Yes. They are marginally harder to admin. What you get with an increased skill requirement is a reasonable assurance that your admin is competent. Windows server admins ARE a dime a dozen, but the vast majority don't have the skil to be deemed a server admin. But hey... look on the bright side, at least they're a dime a dozen when you fire your "admin" for screwing something up.

Re:Hmm (2)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44548597)

Not really true. I've seen Linux boxes administered by muppets, and back in the day when I was 20, I was one of those muppets in charge of looking after a fleet of Linux boxes. Just because someone can use google and click their way through a redhat installer, doesn't mean they have a clue.

Platform choice is pretty irrelevant as far as judging competency goes actually, IMHO being a competent administrator/architect is more about change management (i.e., how do we get from A to B without fucking everyone over), engineering resiliency into your designs, being proactive about security and using the best tool for the job, in a platform agnostic manner.

Trade-offs will be involved (this is essentially what engineering is). If (for example) running a Windows web server makes it 10x easier for your internal web development guys, and it can be secured by spending a little more time than an apache box, then you run a Windows web server, and stick whatever content-aware firewall you deem appropriate in front of it.

In other situations (e.g., DNS servers, firewalls, mail relays, etc) - Linux, BSD or other unix platform of choice may be more appropriate.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44548537)

Windows servers undoubtedly have the advantage of being able to turn up a service almost on accident, and have it minimally work. Actual administration and maintenance of them, though, is a Kafka-esque nightmare. I feel bad for Exhange admins. I've heard many horror stories of Windows support telling Admins there's no fix, no fallback, and they'll have to reinstall the entire server recreate datastores, and then they take a few months manually importing All user emails.

Linux/Unix servers take more knowledge and effort to get up and running in the first place, but then are much more stable and deterministic, handle higher load, need less babysitting, and are easier and more consistent to keep updated and make changes to, knowing you're never going to have unrelated services break, or mysterious slowdowns and service unavailability.

There's no doubt what comes out ahead in the end... Linux adminsa can mantain many times more servers than Windows admins. Consider that those Windows admins won't be free, and you'll be cash positive by hiring Linux admins in a very short time. I've worked for some of the most penny-pinching tight-wad companies around, and they emphasize Linux heavily (including on the desktops) paying their Linux admins more than even most management, and yet they heavily prefer Linuxx, and wouldn't dream ofusing Windows for anything important.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548589)

knowing you're never going to have unrelated services break

Just wait for systemd or enable SELinux you will see

Re:Hmm (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44548541)

I'd say its a bit misleading. Sure, Windows is easier to make work, but to actually secure and keep maintained is a pain in the arse.

"admitted" 3rd graders can reboot Windows $4 hosti (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44548543)

No, he "admitted" than any 3rd grader can reboot Windows. $4 hosting companies don't get server admins, the get phone monkeys. I used to get frustrated with their "admins" being clueless, but then it happened. I was working with HostGator, a top hosts who has the same business model as GoDaddy hosting, and I found out their "admins" don't have access to the datacenter. They are literally just a phone bank and marketing company, with The Planet running the servers. So yeah, it's easier to hire Windows phone monkeys than Linux phone monkeys. (Maybe because Linux users tend not to be the phone monkey type?)

If you want actual qualified admins, people who know the difference between a gigabit and a gigabyte, you're going to pay no matter which OS. (Though I do know a _certified_ Windows admin who doesn't know the difference between bits and bytes ...)

Re:Hmm (4, Interesting)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about a year ago | (#44548695)

You basically just admitted that Linux boxes are harder to administer than Windows servers. This makes Linux servers much less appealing for companies when you can find Windows server admins for a dime a dozen, but Linux admins are harder to find and generally cost a lot more.

Er, no. Windows makes the easy things easy (pick what you want from the list rather than, horror of horrors, type something) but still hasn't succeeded in making the difficult easy. This lulls people who think they know what they're doing into jumping into the deep end and finding out they can't swim. Lots of things when setting up a server (web or otherwise) that require an understanding of the underlying networking. The Windows admins who don't know this are the ones who are "a dime a dozen." The ones that do can create a secure, functional site with Windows but wish they had Linux since it's easier and more secure and faster and more flexible and....

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547765)

It does raise a question for me, however; what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS?

Cash?

Re:Hmm (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#44547847)

I was forced to use it during school. I can't say much for the fragility or insecurity (I only had to run some rudimentary static websites on it to pass the class), but the administration was much easier for the learn-by-rote students (which my school seemed to love the most).

From the perspective of a guy who often doesn't even start X on his *nix boxes, it seemed a bit inflexible. But perhaps they have some weird .NET crap that works better for what they need.

Re:Hmm (1)

readingaccount (2909349) | about a year ago | (#44547901)

Technology changes a lot in 9 years. 9 years ago I honestly though Linux was superior to Windows on a technical level, at least for desktop purposes. Now, I'm quite convinced of the opposite.

Re:Hmm (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44548307)

Perceptions change a lot in 9 years. 9 years ago I honestly thought Windows was superior to Linux on a technical level, at least for desktop purposes. Now, I'm quite convinced of the opposite.

Re:Hmm (1, Flamebait)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44548415)

what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS?

It's a lot cheaper for Micro$oft to pump up IIS by paying off godaddy than spending tons of money on devs, and you know, testing.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548423)

what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS?

It integrates with the rest of the Micro$oft stack of which GoDaddy is a huge retailer. Also, C# is a really neat language IMHO. While the language isn't inherently Windows only, it is backed by the .Net framework. Theological discussions aside, it's a powerful platform for certain solutions.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548593)

Actually, IIS has improved very significantly in the last 9 years. In IIS 7, released in 2009, they pretty much got rid of Metabase completely in favor of XML-based config files (though the files were extremely complex and not easily hand-editable). They also made IIS management scriptable (via PowerShell) without the nasty hacks that the older versions required. More recent versions have added a lot of useful features, including SNI support in IIS 8. Performance is much better than the older versions too.

Re:Hmm (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#44548737)

It's improved significantly. There is no "metabase" anymore. Everything is stored in .config files that you can edit with a text editor if you want. It has some really nice features, and is really easy to manage via GUI if you prefer too. Or powershell if that's your thing.

Editors at it again.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547621)

We're not writting camel case code here guys. I suck at both grammer and spealing. I do try and get the company names right though still though. Pretty easy in 2013...

The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
https://www.google.com/finance?q=go+daddy&ei=LXUJUvicE6_p0QGVHg

but the real question is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547631)

did netcraft confirm it???

*ducks*

stand alone nginx? (1)

mozar (3017311) | about a year ago | (#44547667)

I always thought nginx was used as a web accelerator, working in conjunction with other web servers like apache. People use nginx as a stand alone web server?

Re:stand alone nginx? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547727)

Nginx is a great webserver. We use it for mostly everything. FreeNAS uses it for the GUI.

Re:stand alone nginx? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547745)

Netcraft statistics are meaningless currently.

They only analyse the "header" layer of the sites, which means that even if the site uses webserver a, it can post webserver b signature, or none at all (as most would/should do).

What is the benefit of publishing the fact that you run a specific web server?

Re:stand alone nginx? (1)

rainer_d (115765) | about a year ago | (#44548525)

I have a busy Typo3-site running with NGINX+PHP-FPM.
No Apache anymore.
Unless you need complex rewrite rules or the need for user-accessible .htaccess files, there's no need for Apache.

Microsoft paid GoDaddy for exactly this reason (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547683)

Microsoft paid GoDaddy a while back to switch to IIS because of all the domain placeholder pages they host to drive up IIS's "market share"

Not "always" dominated (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#44547687)

Apparently it did not dominate at some point back in 2009.

Removed parked sites (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#44547733)

In my book, the stats ought to be excluding "parked" sites, ones which don't have any content beyond a parking page. I'd also exclude sites whose only content is boilerplate advertising (eg. the one you get if you're on Cox Cable's internet service and type a nonexistent domain into your browser). I'm more interested in what servers are being used for productive work without the numbers being skewed by the guy who registered 10,000 domains related to the latest fad and is waiting to see which ones he can sell at a profit.

Re:Removed parked sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548071)

Indeed. Perhaps they could compile a new statistic, listing web servers according to the amount of traffic they handle. They'd probably only have to look at the top 100 sites or so to get the answer down to a 1% margin of error.

As long as it works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547739)

IIS has come a long way.
It's still closed proprietary bullshit but it works.
As an end user, I could not care less what engine is the backbone of a given service.

Re:As long as it works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547797)

"I could not care less..." - you are a moron!...

Re:As long as it works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547889)

He might be a moron, but I could not care less

Re:As long as it works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547959)

"I could not care less..." - you are a moron!...

How convenient that you left out the first part of his sentence, which is "as an end user..." Seems pretty clear, as an end user who is viewing/using a website, not as a sysadmin or developer, the webserver used doesn't matter as long as it works. Now, it may be off topic since the intended audience of the article is clearly people in a role where they may care, but saying he couldn't care less as an end user doesn't make him a moron. On the other hand, taking half his quote out of context makes you an asshole.

back-end security doesn't matter to you? (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#44548375)

You could care less if the back end that has your credit card numbers or medical info' has less-effective security, either because of the built-in Windows back doors or the MS-certified script followers called admins operating the site?

I've cancelled credit cards because they could not convince me that they even understood the question regarding the boundary between the web access for those that want it and the actual database of account information.

I've dealth with both (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year ago | (#44547763)

And hands down I prefer Apache. IIS is still closed and tries to be cute but fails miserably both for configuration and security.

Citation needed - When/why did GoDaddy switch? (1)

bramp (830799) | about a year ago | (#44547793)

I'm curious to find out why GoDaddy switched from Apache to IIS?

Re:Citation needed - When/why did GoDaddy switch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547841)

Money.

What about... (1)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44547807)

Greg Stein - I'd like to here what he has to say?

lighttpd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547879)

That's what I use. And what I'll continue to use. Articles like this are just noise.

Wait Wait Wait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547925)

When GoDaddy runs Apache and parks domains on Apache, you're quite happy to accept and recite NetCraft statistics as empirical evidence that Apache is the most widely used web server? Ok, fine.

But, when they switch to IIS and the statistics change in Microsoft's favor, suddenly those same parked domains, that previously counted, no longer count? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

NetCraft confirms that IIS is now the most widely used web server, Slashdot makes excuses and tries to twist that facts in favor of their own favorite. There's objectivity and there's bias. Slashdot needs a little more objectivity.

Apache? (1)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | about a year ago | (#44547931)

In many respects, it is the most successful and widely deployed open-source technology today.

Not even close. OpenSSH owns Apache here and that's not even considering things like BSD sockets.

What about Linux (the kernal)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548121)

I suspect the Linux kernel in its various incarnations with and without the GNU-slash is the most widely deployed open source project. This is if we count all those backend installations that users never directly interact with. It's in Android smartphones, home routers, USB stick computers, servers, HPC nodes, etc. I've read somewhere that it's not the most widely deployed piece of software by a long, long shot, the honor belonging to some Japanese RTOS, which may or may not be partly open source, that most people don't even know exists.

Re:What about Linux (the kernal)? (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44548653)

I suspect the BSD ip stack would give it a good run, given that it is in every i-device, every mac, Windows, Juniper, Netapp, some Cisco devices, etc. It also formed the core of the original Linux IP stack.

But don't worry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44547955)

I'm more interested in what people are doing with their technology, not what technology they use. I'm sick of lunkheaded fanboi bullshit.

Didn't I hear that story YEARS ago?! (1)

Brad Goodman (2906427) | about a year ago | (#44547991)

I thought I heard this EXACT story *years* ago?! Verbatim. Or is my browser doing some weird caching ;-)

Re:Didn't I hear that story YEARS ago?! (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44548395)

You probably did. From time to time Ballmer issues an order to ramp up the web share for IIS, so a couple M$ salesmen drop by to bribe the usual suspects at godaddy. Of course all they get is parked domains, and only for a while.

Not the first time either (3, Informative)

MrNemesis (587188) | about a year ago | (#44547995)

Dupe! [slashdot.org] ...and the knock-on. [slashdot.org]

I'm beginning to wonder if GoDaddy's web server policy follows the solar cycle... :)

From the look of Netcraft's graph, prior to the GoDaddy move it looked like most of the marketshare lost from apache went straight into nginx (itself also frequently used as a caching proxy/frontend to another web server on the backend) so I'm not quite sure what the summary/TFA are trying to imply.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/04/02/april-2013-web-server-survey.html [netcraft.com]

Wow (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year ago | (#44548077)

Godaddy must have been running apache on Windows server, otherwise the licensing costs would have been a fortune.

RE: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548145)

They will switch back, it's just a matter of a little time. IIS is junk.

Version 1.3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548155)

Now that 1.3 is no longer freely supported for the last 3.5 years and 2.0 and 2.2 were too far away for many developers to port custom modules, I wonder how much of an effect that has on the stats and people moving away.

"For the first time since 2009"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44548219)

If only there were people still alive who could tell us what happened back then.

How does GoDaddy feel about MS price hikes? (0)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#44548225)

Previous Slashdot topic:

Microsoft will squeeze datacenters on price of Windows Server

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/08/09/2021205/microsoft-will-squeeze-datacenters-on-price-of-windows-server [slashdot.org]

I wonder if GoDaddy knew that this was going to happen? If they didn't then they must be angry. If they did then then why did they act so foolishly? Either way, they look really stupid.

For a lot of us, Microsoft == stupid, and this is an example.

Re:How does GoDaddy feel about MS price hikes? (0, Troll)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44548369)

I presume that godaddy only ever moves its parked domains to IIS when M$FT hands over a new bag of payola. Then they drift back to Linux at their convenience, lather, rinse, repeat. Must be a profitable little scam.

Rubbish (5, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44548353)

it's Microsoft IIS that has picked up share.

No. Microsoft picked up a bunch of parked domains and its long term trend is still down, even for parked domains. In terms of active sites, Microsoft's trend is steadily down, now around 12% and sinking. And it is indeed nginx that is mainly picking up share from Apache, though Google is hanging in there pretty well too. This puff piece glosses over the one fact that can't be denied: Linux servers rule the web by a large and increasing margin.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/08/09/august-2013-web-server-survey.html#more-12060 [netcraft.com]

Uh, didn't godaddy switched over years ago? (3, Interesting)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#44548471)

why is it that everytime I read about a dip in apache stats, it's because of godaddy switching over? Bloody hell, they've been switching over for years, just how many effing sites do they have?

Paying Go Daddy again? (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about a year ago | (#44548641)

fork() vs epoll() (5, Informative)

NynexNinja (379583) | about a year ago | (#44548721)

I think when Nginx first came on the scene (a little bit after libevent was released), Apache had known about the scalability problems associated with using fork() versus epoll(). This was almost a decade ago. Apache has yet to provide a scalable implementation using epoll similar to what Nginx provides. Its at least a 10x speed improvement on the same hardware.

All that I can say is that all new installations over the past I'd say about 5 years, I've been doing using Nginx only because Apache just can't scale well with their fork() implementation compared to Nginx. I'd say this has something to do with people leaving Apache, at least all the people I know.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?