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!

Will Microsoft IIS Overtake Apache?

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the netcraft-hints-at-it dept.

Stats 303

First time accepted submitter jcdr writes "February's 2014 Web Server Survey by Netcraft shows a massive increase [in the share of] Microsoft's web server since 2013. Microsoft's market share is now only 5.4 percentage points lower than Apache's, which is the closest it has ever been. If recent trends continue, Microsoft could overtake Apache within the next few months, ending Apache's 17+ year reign as the most common web server."

cancel ×

303 comments

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

why not? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151789)

With so many botnets taking over IIS, it seems only fair.

Re: why not? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151877)

If I remember correctly, Microsoft was paying large hosting providers like GoDaddy to use IIS over apache

Re: why not? (4, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 7 months ago | (#46151965)

Next: Paying consumers to use Surface instead of iPad as their go-to breakdancing training device.

NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (2, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 7 months ago | (#46152023)

NETCRAFT IS DEAD!

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152109)

... BSD confirms it!

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (1)

doti (966971) | about 7 months ago | (#46152167)

... in soviet Russia!

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (1)

fgb (62123) | about 7 months ago | (#46152225)

... Profit!

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (2)

Melkman (82959) | about 7 months ago | (#46152311)

... covered in hot grits !

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 months ago | (#46152415)

... a beowulf cluster of 'em!

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 7 months ago | (#46152567)

... you insensitive clod!

Re:NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT! (2)

gabereiser (1662967) | about 7 months ago | (#46152579)

... sean bean has been confirmed for the sequel!

Re: why not? (5, Informative)

dmiller1984 (705720) | about 7 months ago | (#46152005)

I don't know if Microsoft paid them, but GoDaddy did move all of their parked sites to IIS by default instead of Apache, which caused a major percentage change for Microsoft.

Re: why not? (5, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 7 months ago | (#46152267)

If I remember correctly, Microsoft was paying large hosting providers like GoDaddy to use IIS over apache

The evidence of that is the "all sites" graph which shows IIS's share increasing vs. the "active sites" graph which shows IIS's share plummeting. IIS appears to be hosting a lot of dead sites, ironically.

Re: why not? (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 7 months ago | (#46152551)

IIS appears to be hosting a lot of dead sites

Which is good news for the IIS performance metrics MS will be releasing... :-)

Re: why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152687)

Let the dead bury their own dead.

Re:why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151929)

Rubbish. I get that it's supposed to be humorous but usually one would base humor on some kernel of fact and there is none in your post.

Re:why not? (4, Interesting)

Danzigism (881294) | about 7 months ago | (#46152143)

I seem to remember a substantial amount of botnets running on Linux servers that have Apache on them. Also thanks to poor coders with bad PHP, SQL injections are quite common as well. But this article is bound to spark knee-jerk reactions to OSS software fanatics. Just don't forget that tons of people are switching to nginx and lighttpd on a daily basis which also decreases Apache's use as well.

Re: why not? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152433)

SQL-injections usually result in an output of data or a valid login session or destruction of data. Remote code execution would be a rare thing.
Bots usually prefer the taste of client computers. Massive botnets written in PHP inhabiting LINUX servers? Sure there are plenty of bugs in PHP, but that has nothing to do with either Apache or LINUX.

Your point is invalid, my hair is a bird!

Re:why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152569)

hmm... I think the issue is not "my web server is bester than UR webserver!!!"

What makes IIS inferior to Apache in every way imaginable is the host OS. Windows is always the wrong choice for a server. When you build a desktop, it is not lean... needs a lot of stuff to be functional. Have 5000 workstations? Consider using Windows because it is a Swiss Army Knife OS and it can be managed. When you build a server, you don't include a shitton of insecure software that will never be used. Have a data center full of webservers? If you chose to run Windows, you either don't care about cost, or you don't care about your time, or you don't care about security, or you don't care about uptimes, or you can not be unconvinced that once size fits all, or some combination of these. Windows is the worst server imaginable due to its inherent problems that will never be fixed. Linux (or FreeBSD, NetBSD, ok any BSD) isn't all that much better than Windows, just a much less attractive target. Also, it runs a lot smoother, longer, and cheaper than Windows, and it always will.

Hell no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151833)

Are you kidding?

IIS better in almost every way. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151883)

Unless you're hosting simple static web pages IIS is better in almost every way, easier to manage, easier to configure, etc...

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1, Troll)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 7 months ago | (#46151963)

you're high

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 7 months ago | (#46152019)

Why has Apache started to lose ground?

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (5, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 7 months ago | (#46152217)

This kind of thing happens on a regular basis and is usually due to Microsoft making backroom deals with operators of parked domains, probably not paying in cash but in Windows license discounts for servers or hosting. Borderline illegal and classic Microsoft - don't ever be fooled into thinking that Microsoft has gotten itself a corporate personality transplant. The active sites graph tells the real story: Microsoft continues to languish. It is beyond me why Microsoft is so fixated on manipulating Netcraft stats.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152523)

probably not paying in cash but in Windows license discounts for servers or hosting

Considering that using Apache was free anyway, they're not gaining anything from those Windows license discounts.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152709)

Yes, they are. They can say their services supports IIS as an option, and extend their userbase by a bit for the few interested in such a service. This is a big deal in a competitive market, and who cares if they have to host a bunch of dead/parked domains on IIS when nobody visits them anyway? It's a win-win for the hosts.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1)

vajrabum (688509) | about 7 months ago | (#46152699)

Probably because it costs them exactly $0 to do it.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (2, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | about 7 months ago | (#46152427)

I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 7 months ago | (#46152431)

Because it's incredibly easy to pad numbers and claim them as fact without focusing on the real details?

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152573)

Nginx.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152133)

And you are clueless and have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever used both IIS and Apache? It's not even close.

Sorry, neckbeard ra-raism isn't going to change the fact that IIS is more powerful, has easier configuration management, better and simpler security configuration, excellent and easy integration with .NET apps, nicer deployment features, etc...

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 7 months ago | (#46152265)

I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with it because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition it is more lightweight, and has better security.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (4, Informative)

dkman (863999) | about 7 months ago | (#46152477)

I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with apache because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition apache is more lightweight, and has better security.

It got a little confusing about which it you were referring, so I FTFY. Why is it that after I've written the comment I get options to Submit - Continue Editing - Preview - Cancel , but not Login?

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 7 months ago | (#46152585)

That is what was intended, so thank you.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 months ago | (#46152219)

I wouldn't go quite that far. I would say the two tools aren't really comparable anyway. Which one you use really depends on what you're using for your backend development. If you want .Net, you (pretty much) have to use IIS. If you use PHP, Python, Ruby, or other langauges, you most likely are going to be using Apache/Nginx.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 months ago | (#46152349)

The last part of your post is the important one:

you most likely are going to be using Apache/Nginx.

IIS market share dipped a bit after 2008 and is now back to about where it was. Apache jumped a lot since 2008 and is now back a bit below where it was. Nginx has gone from 1% to 14% in the same time. IIS has hovered between 20-30% for a while. It's now closer to 30%. Apache has been in the 50-70% range for a long time, but is now dipping a lot. The only reason we're using Apache is that Nginx doesn't work as a reverse SSL proxy in front of Jenkins (apparently it can, with some magic incantations, but they didn't work for us). For everything else, Nginx is an obvious choice. It's somewhat sad to see that Nginx has completely displaced Lighttpd, as it would have been nice to have some more active competition.

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (1, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#46152243)

constantly in need of restart and quickest to get owned by crackers

it's rubbish, bad enough to have to fight with it for internal use but only an idiot would expose that to internet. yes, had to deal with IIS for over a decade

Re:IIS better in almost every way. (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 7 months ago | (#46152555)

Considering that the grow was caused because some big parked domains (with static pages) moved to IIS, i'd say that by a very wide margin, the main use of IIS is to serve domains with just one static page.

Regarding the "better in almost every way", is almost as funny as the article title.

I'm switching to IIS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151893)

It's by far the best web server, no dependencies on old fashioned 40+ year old "Unix" legacy technologies, with support for the full suite of modern Windows infrastructure. There really is no other choice for anyone who is a professional web developer.

Re:I'm switching to IIS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151969)

The dirty Linux neckbeards are out in force (and weight) modding down anyone with anything positive to say about IIS.

They are so uninformed it's hilarious, but what else do you expect from misfit Linux neckbeard dweebs?

Re:I'm switching to IIS! (4, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 7 months ago | (#46151995)

The MS shills are out in force posting as AC, you mean?

Re:I'm switching to IIS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152245)

Lol, yes. First, Microsoft cares what a bunch of irrelevant tech dinosaurs on SlashDweeb think enough to pay "shills".

Second, I doubt you know what a shill is. It seems to now mean anyone whose opinion runs counter to the prevailing opinion of a bunch of people who know nothing outside of the narrow niche of Linux dweebery they learned on the Interwebz.

You lot remind me of my dad. All he listens to is Pink Floyd and other hippie music, he's convinced any music after 1980 is shit, so he doesn't even listen to any of it.

You are the dirty hippies of the computing world, convinced of your great and enduring technical knowledge but ultimately stuck in 1975.

Re:I'm switching to IIS! (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | about 7 months ago | (#46152397)

Yet you are such a breathtaking, marvelous specimen of humanity that you would grace this undesirable place to enlighten the muck-dwelling Unixites. Truly we are all blessed. Let this day go forth! From this day forward, every February 4th shall be known as -

Oh, wait. You didn't even bother attaching a name to this pathetic holier-than-thou screed. Back to the comforting bosom of Mommy and Windows forums with you, you pathetic bastard.

So, that's your real name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152539)

AC ... How is "tripleevenfall" any better than AC?

Re: I'm switching to IIS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152505)

Aww! You're Adorable!

Re:I'm switching to IIS! (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 7 months ago | (#46152613)

I think Microsoft's new CEO decided to start the tenure off with a flood of propaganda.

Probably (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 7 months ago | (#46151915)

They went MS-Only where I work last year, traded in the Novell networking gear. MS has some sort of nonsense called "active directory" that all the pointy haired bosses love, and iinm you almost have to be 100% MS.

But really, it doesn't make much difference to me, now that I'm retiring and no longer will have to deal with MS's crappy software. God but I hate Access and Outlook (Excel's still the best spreadsheet, but I hate all spreadsheets).

Re:Probably (4, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 7 months ago | (#46151987)

Sounds more like you just hate the industry you work in. It's probably best that you're leaving.

Re:Probably (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 7 months ago | (#46151991)

*ring* *ring* *ring*

You hear that? That is the 1990s calling. They want their nostalgia back. (I say this as someone who used to be a CNE and who started his career with Netware)

Do you work for the government, either Federal, State or local? That is the only place I see Novell anymore.

Re:Probably (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 7 months ago | (#46152273)

Banks, they're extremely conservative and NDS's ability to replicate a sub-portion of the directory to each branch location helps keep bandwidth usage down, which can be important if you have hundreds or thousands of locations in podunk towns. I can also see using it if you're a anti-MS shop as it's the best directory server other than AD.

Re:Probably (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | about 7 months ago | (#46152331)

Novell totally blew it. It was a sad day as I watched NT 4.0 servers creep into our environment. Novell had LDAP based NDS long before Microsoft cobbled together AD. It was a much better solution and they brought it to market way ahead of the competition.

Re:Probably (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 7 months ago | (#46151999)

Something called "active directory", huh? You sure do seem tuned in with technology, I predict a long and fruitful career, lolzers.

Re:Probably (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152105)

Glad to hear it's not just our pointy haired bosses who point at MS for every solution. MS has it's place, just not in email and LDAP services.

Re:Probably (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 7 months ago | (#46152309)

LDAP services? Lolwut? Active Directory is incredibly nice. Ridiculously stable and very powerful. What concrete issues do you have with it? Same with Exchange in terms of corporate mail/voice/Lync/etc.. services.

I work in a large corporation and I don't recall ever having issues with AD unless someone on the support team does something silly, which has happened like 5 times in 17 years.

Re:Probably (3)

Bert64 (520050) | about 7 months ago | (#46152525)

"pass the hash" and "mimikatz"... two serious problems with AD...

It was bound to happen (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151919)

Apache is turning into one of the dinosaurs of the information age, being overtaken by the likes of Nginx and Lighttpd left and right but refusing to die already. IIS also is hardly the crippled pile of steaming crap which it used to be.

Re:It was bound to happen (5, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46152051)

IIS also is hardly the crippled pile of steaming crap which it used to be.

This is very true. It's made a lot of progress in the past few years, and is now an almost unrecognizable, completely new pile of steaming crap.

Re:It was bound to happen (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 7 months ago | (#46152281)

You mean they put a Ribbon on it? That seems to be Microsoft's go-to technique for refreshing crap heaps.

Re:It was bound to happen (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 7 months ago | (#46152327)

It's easy to say something like that, any tool can do so. Do you have concrete examples of why/how IIS is a pile of steaming crap? And not stuff people like to repeat but which isn't true (Uhh, you have to restart it all the time!).

Apache still dominates active sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46151933)

And the closest competition is nginx, not IIS.

large hosting company using IIS != IIS popularity (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 7 months ago | (#46151935)

Netcraft says, "Microsoft gained a staggering 48 million sites this month, increasing its total by 19% â" most of this growth is attributable to new sites hosted by Nobis Technology Group." I have no idea WFT Nobis Technology Group is, but that suggests that what is essentially one large installation swings Netcraft's idea of "the most common web server."

And that's a broken way of counting. If ten servers using Server A serve ten sites each, and one server with Server B serves 1,000 sites,Server A is still the most common web server, with ten times the installation base of Server B.

Re:large hosting company using IIS != IIS populari (5, Informative)

mtippett (110279) | about 7 months ago | (#46152089)

Exactly. A bit of sensationalism in the story.

All Sites (included millions of parked) are in 38%/%32 mix. Looking 600 pixels down and you see the active (non parked sites). The percentage is 52% vs 11%. The big drop in for MS in 2009 was probably a nail in the coffin...

Re:large hosting company using IIS != IIS populari (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152359)

hmmm.

I'm a dick and you're a swallower.

Re:large hosting company using IIS != IIS populari (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152437)

Nobis Tech is the holding company of Ubiquity Hosting. Web hosting & cloud services, so probably a lot of those sites are hosted on virtual servers. The company might have popped into some site admins' field of view when they seemed to have a little problem last spring (namely, hosting tons of spam servers), this problem has apparently been dealt with (though not before some people were prompted to modify their .htaccess files to block all addresses registered to Ubiquity/Nobis).

Very different when ... (4, Interesting)

Martin S. (98249) | about 7 months ago | (#46152001)

The results look very different when you look where the traffic is going:

Developer January 2014 Percent February 2014 Percent Change

Apache 98,129,017 54.50% 94,741,928 52.68% -1.81

nginx 21,548,550 11.97% 24,206,737 13.46% 1.49

Microsoft 20,901,626 11.61% 21,196,966 11.79% 0.18

Google 15,386,518 8.54% 15,245,912 8.48% -0.07

Re:Very different when ... (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | about 7 months ago | (#46152283)

It also looks very different if you sort them by name:

Apache
Google
Microsoft
nginx

nginx is replacing apache (2)

madmatty (3468483) | about 7 months ago | (#46152003)

Nginx instances are rapidly replacing apache setups , so this should be IIS vs Nginx

Re:nginx is replacing apache (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152147)

Yeah, Apache is losing to other OSS projects, not IIS.

And rightfully so. Nginx is a fantastic piece of software.

Re:nginx is replacing apache (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152187)

Most companies really don't need the speed of Nginx, it's good, so is Apache, so are other options. One thing Apache still has over Nginx (+others) is 3rd party module support (closed source/commercial).

Re:nginx is replacing apache (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 months ago | (#46152425)

A lot of modules are using things like FastCGI so that they have process isolation between them and the web server (for both security and stability). The main advantage of Nginx isn't the speed, it's that it's easier to configure than Apache, and that's a fairly compelling advantage for people who don't need all of the features of Apache.

obligatory xkcd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152017)

xkcd.com/... anybody?

Re:obligatory xkcd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152135)

xkcd.com/... anybody?

ok:
http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Extrapolation

Re:obligatory xkcd... (1)

dottrap (1897528) | about 7 months ago | (#46152181)

Maybe this one?
http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]

Re:obligatory xkcd... (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | about 7 months ago | (#46152521)

Of course this one is also relevant.
http://xkcd.com/1022/ [xkcd.com]

Sensationalist summary :( (5, Informative)

janoc (699997) | about 7 months ago | (#46152021)

One needs to look beyond the first graph that shows all sites surveyed to look at the actually active sites - there Apache appears to have more *active* deployments than the rest combined. Counting inactive, parked domains is not really indicative of particular server popularity.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152025)

Again Slashdot?
Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

Re:No (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46152347)

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

This is not true. There is probably some statistical probability which says that most headlines which end in a question mark can be answered with a "no". But not all of them.

Licensing costs? (1)

dysmal (3361085) | about 7 months ago | (#46152047)

On a completely unrelated topic, Microsoft records record profits: http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

Netcraft confirms it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152057)

Apache is dying.

Gee, look at how full that parking lot is (4, Insightful)

daboochmeister (914039) | about 7 months ago | (#46152067)

Parked domains are a pretty poor measure.

Re:Gee, look at how full that parking lot is (1)

flonker (526111) | about 7 months ago | (#46152459)

Also, due to the new ICANN email verification requirement, [gandibar.net] there is going to be an increase in the number of "parked" domains.

Massive increase in one graph... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152073)

Look at the graphs for 'Web server developers: Market share of active sites' and 'Web server developers: Market share of the top million busiest sites'. No need for concern unless your site is hosted using IIS.

Netcraft confirms it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152139)

Also, BSD is dying ...

From TFA (5, Insightful)

furbyhater (969847) | about 7 months ago | (#46152173)

Since I've unexpectedly RTFA, just a heads up, the headline is even more biased than usual. On the total number of active websites, there are still about 10x as many apache websites than IIS. Same picture for the top million busiest sites. There's almost no yearly change, and the server gaining the most marketshare is NGINX.

I'm starting to believe the hearsay: Slashdot has really been totally overrun by astroturfers (in this case paid by Microsoft). Maybe dice sells a number of "promotional posts" on a biased article to various companies, one of them being Microsoft?

Re:From TFA (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 7 months ago | (#46152289)

Maybe dice sells a number of "promotional posts" on a biased article to various companies, one of them being Microsoft?

Or maybe they're trying a "two wrongs make a right" balance for the garbage "IE's share is plummeting!!!" post from last week?

Re:From TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152453)

Let's see.

Explanation one: Atroturfers! Microsoft is paying Dice to pimp IIS on _fucking Slashdot_, where few have technical knowledge that would have exceptional for someone in 1995.

Explanation two: Dice knows they can rile up the neckbeards by posting an article showing something positive about Microsoft and get people to come post the same obnoxious nonsense in post after post, all the while racking up advertising loads.

Yeah, I know which is more likely.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152627)

We have created a Beowulf Cluster of Stallmans.

It's horrifying.

Statistics? (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about 7 months ago | (#46152185)

This is a count of sites running web services, right? Not volume served out by each brand of server.

Microsoft has had the practice of starting IIS on practically every server for the purpose of providing a web management interface. In some cases, without informing the system admin.

Anecdote:

Many years ago, when I managed a few Intranet sites at Boeing (SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, Linux), we had a variant of the Code Red [wikipedia.org] worm infecting IIS systems. Admins of *NIX systems could see the propagation of the worm payload in our web logs, even though our systems were immune*. We collected the source IPs of infected systems and turned them over to computing security. The next thing we knew, we'd get calls from Windows server admins, claiming that their systems could not be infected, as they were not running IIS. "Look again." Configuring many services automatically triggers a start of IIS. And now you've got a service running that the admins don't know that they have to keep patched. So even when Microsoft released a fix, it never got applied since many admins figured it wasn't applicable to them. I would venture a guess that most Windows Server (and many client) systems are running IIS, even if it only displays the default installation page.

*Typical Apache/*NIX systems just replied with a 404 since the target DLL didn't exist. But I wrote a Perl CGI that would capture the query source and fire back a Windows popup message to the effect that their machine was broadcasting an infection. I was surprised to see how many people with client (desktop) systems called me to ask when was going on.

Re:Statistics? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 7 months ago | (#46152633)

If you're not intending to run a web server then you shouldn't even have one installed...

And if something is installed, it needs to be patched even if it isn't running.

How about sum total of OSS web servers (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#46152251)

In the world of Open Source, I would also like to see the sum total of Open Source web servers VS. IIS:

Nginx http://www.nginx.org/ [nginx.org] ( really popular and at least this is in one of the graphs)
Lighttpd http://www.lighttpd.net/ [lighttpd.net] (personally, I have found many reasons use this one in the past and I'm sure I will again)
Cherokee http://www.cherokee-project.co... [cherokee-project.com] (yet to explore past a basic setup)
Roxen Webserver http://www.roxen.com/products/... [roxen.com] (Still need to take for a spin)

And then special purpose web servers.

HTTP Explorer http://http-explorer.sourcefor... [sourceforge.net]
HFS HTTP File Server http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/ [rejetto.com]

At least that's all I can think of. Anybody else?
I know some of these take up negligible market share, but I would still like to see their market share lumped together.

Re:How about sum total of OSS web servers (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46152405)

In the world of Open Source, I would also like to see the sum total of Open Source web servers VS. IIS

Why? What makes "Open Source" so magical?

Thank GoDaddy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152253)

This is due to GoDaddy shifting to IIS and now WHM/cPanel/Enkompass.. So, don't take this as the industry shifting when its not. GoDaddy has 10,000's of websites they host.

Netcraft confirms:Microsoft is dying (-1, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 months ago | (#46152291)

Microsoft cannot any further afford the wages of their long standing chair-flinging American CEO; so they went and hired a cheapo H1B visa Indian instead. Microsoft's demise is imminent.

IIS is actually pretty nice (2)

neminem (561346) | about 7 months ago | (#46152335)

I recently became acquainted with it at work, and it's actually quite nice to work with, I must say.

Still, this post reminds me quite a lot of the xkcd about extrapolating off of one data point. It seems unlikely that IIS will overtake Apache; more likely there was a one-time shift due to some particular event.

Huh (2)

koan (80826) | about 7 months ago | (#46152357)

Looks like obfuscation to me, and so not accurate.

Oblig (4, Funny)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about 7 months ago | (#46152467)

At the time Elvis Presley died in 1977, he had 150 impersonators in the US. Now, according to calculations I spotted in a Sunday newspaper colour supplement recently, there are 85,000. Intriguingly, that means one in every 3,400 Americans is an Elvis impersonator. More disturbingly, if Elvis impersonators continue multiplying at the same rate, they will account for a third of the worldâ(TM)s population by 2019.

http://crookedtimber.org/2005/... [crookedtimber.org]

Re:Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152747)

That's an American dream I can believe in!

Sharepoint? (1)

MacColossus (932054) | about 7 months ago | (#46152583)

My guess is this is largely driven by the push to use Sharepoint.

FOXACID has changed tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152643)

Perhaps the NSA's FOXACID servers (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/jacob-appelbaum-30c3-protect-infect-militarization-internet-transcript.html) have been modified to pretend to be IIS now, and that has confused the reporting.

Apache isn't the benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46152657)

Apache is getting phased out by the likes of nginx. This just in, Windows phone has finally over taken Android 0.9, I guess Windows wins! wait, they have an Android 2.0?! When did this happen?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>