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!

2003: Year of Apache

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the way-to-go-guys dept.

Apache 440

John Chamberlain writes "Netcraft's numbers for the new year are in. The trend graphs tell a story: 2003 was the Year of Apache. If Time magazine had a server-of-the-year award the cover would be featuring a feather. Since October 2002 market share has grown from 53% to 64%, a 20% gain while Microsoft IIS, its nearest competitor has shrunk from 36% to 24%, a 33% decline. The change in server totals was even more dramatic. Apache HTTP Server increased from about 20 million to 32 million (+60%) while all other competitors remained flat."

cancel ×

440 comments

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

2004: YEAR OF THE TROLL (-1, Troll)

(TK21)Dessimat0r (736416) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944739)

-INSANE-PRIEST--INSANE-PRIEST--INSAN
I___________,.-------.,____________I Slashdot
N______,;~'_____________'~;,_______N fucking
S____,;____LINUX FUCKING____;,_____S sucks
A___;___SUCKS, YOU FUCKING____;____A
N__,'____SLASHDOT RETARDS.____',___N Rob Malda
E_,;___GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD___;,__E is a
-_;_;______._____l_____.______;_;__- cocksucker
P_l_;____________l____________;_l__P
R_l__`/~"_____~"_._"~_____"~\'__l__R Slashdot
I_l__~__,-~~~^~,_l_,~^~~~-,__~__l__I fucking
E__l___l________}:{__ (O) _l___l___E sucks
S__l___l_ (o) _/_l_\_______!___l___S
T__.~__(__,.--"_.^._"--.,__)__~.___T Rob Malda
-__l_____---;'_/_l_\_`;---_____l___- is a
-___\__._______V.^.V___((oo))./____- cocksucker
I__O_VI_\________________ll_IV___O_I
N_____I_lT~\___!___!___/~ll_I______N Fucking
S_____I_l`IIII_I_I_I_IIIIll_I__o___S lameness
A_O___I__\,III_I_I_I_III,ll_I______A filters,
N______\___`----------'__ll/____o__N will
E____O___\___._______.___ll________E this
-_________\..___^____../(_l___O____- ever
P_________/_^___^___^_/__ll\_______P fucking
R_O______/`'-l l_l l-';__ll_l___O__R WORK?!
I_______;_`'=l l_l l='__/ll_l______I
E_____O_l___\l l~l l__l/_ll_l______E Your mother
S_______l\___\ l_l l__;__ll_l__O___S was good
T__o____l_\___ll=l l==\__ll_l______T in bed, she
-____o__l_/\_/\l_l l__l`-ll_/______- grunts like
-_______'-l_`;'l_l l__l__ll_____O__- an ape.
I_O_______l__l l_l l__l__ll________I
N____O____l__l+l_l+l__l__ll___O____N Rob Malda
S_________l__"""_"""__l__ll________S is a
A__O______l____o_o____l__ll____O___A cocksucker
N_________l,;,;,;,;,;,l__ll________N
E_____O___`lIlIlIlIlIl`__ll________E
-__________llIlIlIlIll___ll_____O__- By Dessimat0r
P__________`"""""""""`___""________P (c)2003 Trollkore
-INSANE-PRIEST--INSANE-PRIEST--INSAN

The bishop, while living, was a follower of God.
Now dead, his rotting fingers are able to raise
an army of skeletons from the grave.

Trollkore
"I hate you, I hate your country, and I hate your face!"

# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Re:2004: YEAR OF THE TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944809)

Stupid redundant trolls... is it good or is it whack ?

IT'S WHACK YA FUCKIN' CREEP !

this story (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944742)

wehereas tfde negroz

Time Magazine (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944743)

Isn't limited to two major choices with maybe a half dozen others. They have millions of choice.

The platform they did the calculations on (-1, Flamebait)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944757)

...while Microsoft IIS, its nearest competitor has shrunk from 36% to 24%, a 33% decline.

I guess they compiled the statistics on a Pentium II.

Re:The platform they did the calculations on (4, Informative)

netsharc (195805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944786)

Well, 33% of "36" is 12.. 36-12=24.

I wonder though, when Netcraft (and subsequently Slashdot) reported about a rise in ISS-usage, many commented about "But they're just being used as domain parking servers". When the same thing happened but with Apache, most people just say "Yay Apache!"

Re:The platform they did the calculations on (2, Insightful)

benja (623818) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944793)

A 33% decline is a decline by a third. A decline from 36% to 24% is also a decline by a third. Ok, there was rounding involved. What's your problem?

Re:The platform they did the calculations on (1)

deragon (112986) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944825)

(36-24)/36=0.33 or 33%. No errors there. Its not (36-24)=12%. We are calculating the decline as of where MS was standing in 2002.

See it another way. You have 100 computers, 36 are MS. A year later, its down to 18 computers, half of what it was. Thus its a 50% drop, not 18%.

Re:The platform they did the calculations on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944961)

No, I understood where his numbers were coming from. I was just making a joke (and judging by the -1 flamebait score, a badly recieved one at that)

Re:The platform they did the calculations on (1)

LuKit (212684) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944826)

33% vs. 12%-points (or how u guys call it in English).

1 - 24%/36% = 33,3%, that's the decline in %.

Re:The platform they did the calculations on (1)

gorfie (700458) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944836)

Are you referring to the processor flaw? That was in the original Pentium (I had a Pentium 60MHz that crashed when playing X-Wing and gave faulty values for some of my engineering homework, that MUST be why I gave up on engineering... heh).

Actually, I think they're saying it's a 33% decline of Microsoft's actual numbers... like if you had 9 and went down to 6, that's a 33% decline. Although in the realm of things it might mean your market share dropped less (i.e. if there were a total of 15 and you dropped from 9 to 6, that's a 20% drop). I wondered briefly about their numbers too but you just have to examine what they're trying to say.

20 percent gain? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944759)

53 to 64 is more like 11...

Re:20 percent gain? (2, Insightful)

Sp4c3 C4d3t (607082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944781)

But it also happens to be about 20% more than 53... I think that's what they mean.

Re:20 percent gain? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944789)

oh, that makes sense.
i suck dicks.

Re:20 percent gain? (1)

AlgoRhythm (701779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944800)

no, gained 20% on previous market share, not gained 20% OF the market.

Wrong Section (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944763)

Shouldn't this article be in the apache section, home of the horrific grape purple and piss yellow color scheme?

Apache Section (-1, Redundant)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944764)

Funny--I assumed an article like this would go in the Apache section [slashdot.org] .

Topics and Sections (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944995)

This is redundant and offtopic, but I have to make the point again: Sections and Topics in Slashdot are an unholy mess. The list of topics [slashdot.org] is too long, has an obscene amount of overlap, has multiple topics for narrow areas of interest, and is generally illogical. It's never been clear to me what kind of subjects rate Sections and which ones have to settle for Topics.

Currently, the T&S setups has the following purposes/effects/unintended consquences:

  • Sections hold section-only stories that the editors think aren't of general interest. (So there's no really good reason to put general-interest Apache stories in the Apache section.)
  • Topics associate stories with icons (I have to admit that the icons are really good).
  • Since each section has its own second-level domain, Googling Slashdot is slightly more tricky.
  • The topic icons link to lists of topic stories, which provide the illusion of a drill-down feature. But since it's never obvious which topic a story belongs to, this is just plain useless.

A win for open source (5, Insightful)

mgv (198488) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944767)

The big advantage of measuring the fall in IIS vs Apache is that web servers are public, and easily counted.

I'm sure that the same thing is happening thoughout the open source movement, but its just alot harder to measure the number of (for example) Linux installs when there is no central body that really collects data on this (not that there is any need for this).

So its representing a victory for much more than Apache.

Michael

Yes, but measuring webserver market share is hard (5, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944806)

Web server market share is a funny thing. Do you count the total number of webservers, or just domains? What if you use a very ineffecient implimentation, and it takes twice the number of machines to do it? Should the server get a better market share because of it? The numbers are open to a lot of intepritation.

Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (4, Insightful)

rsheridan6 (600425) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944845)

Shouldn't these issues remain fairly constant? Maybe it's tricky to count market share in absolute terms, but the trend-line should be pretty accurate.

Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (5, Interesting)

ugen (93902) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944869)

Netcraft gives very specific rules by which it measures webserver counts here: http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/mechanics.html

Always helps to actually visit the site. Their methods will favor Apache somewhat, as IIS does not generally play very well in hosting environments with virtual domains for various reasons. Of course that in itself is an indicator of server quality :)

Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (2, Insightful)

Nexx (75873) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944955)

No, that's an indicator of server quality for that purpose. If the majority of server operators didn't want virtual hosting, for example, IIS not playing well in that environment won't make a shred of a difference.

These surveys also do not count the millions of intranet-only sites that these servers serve, and given the nature of the beast, I'm going to guess IIS is rather prevalent in that market.

I have recommended IIS-based solutions before, and given the same requirements, I'll do it again.

Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (3, Insightful)

sosume (680416) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944911)

It's even funnier, since Netcraft only counts public webservers. They do not include the zillion corporate intranet servers that used to be publicly available shielde by only NTLM authentication.
Thanks to the blaster outbreaks and the growing number of vpns these servers are now shielded off the regular internet. And thus the number of IIS in Netcraft's reports declines..

Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (5, Interesting)

Tet (2721) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944912)

Do you count the total number of webservers, or just domains? What if you use a very ineffecient implimentation, and it takes twice the number of machines to do it?

Even then, how do you count them? How many machines are running any given web site? My sites currently have 8 servers behind a pair of load balancers. But it appears to the outside world as if it's a single machine. Also, do you consider all servers equal? Should my personal site be given equal weight with my company's banking sites? I'd be interested to see a weighted graph so that sites with more traffic have a greater impact. But the problem with that is, how do you measure it?

As an aside, I'm getting mildly concerned about Apache's market share. Not because I don't like it -- I do, and run both personal and corporate sites with it. But I distrust software monocultures, and I fear Apache's heading that way. So I hope that Apache gets some viable competition. I also hope, however, that it comes from somewhere that isn't intent on displacing it with proprietary, incompatible servers. So that'd be something other than IIS, then...

Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (0, Troll)

mantera (685223) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944915)


"The numbers are open to a lot of intepritation."

That may be true, but the correct spelling of interpr*E*tation remains NOT a matter of "interpritation".

Re:A win for open source (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944863)

Apache is NOT a better piece of software. It is free - that is its one and only advantage.

I just love the zealotry - a bunch of jobless Linux geeks who set up little mom and pop websites are declaring that Apache is superior. Guess what, slashbots? Real professionals that have to set up large, professional sites, will ALWAYS choose IIS because study after study has shown that it handles heavy loads better.

I can't wait under SCO drives the final nail in Linux's coffin. You know that annoying geek at work that is so fucking stupid that he thinks open-sores is the answer to EVERYTHING? You all know one, many of you are probably that person yourself (always a sys-admin, never an actual software engineer). Well, I can't wait to listen to that person whine when SCO finally kills off Linux, which will effectively kill Apache (Apache on Windows is dogshit).

Re:A win for open source (2, Informative)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944891)

You know SCO is running Apache on Linux, right?

Re:A win for open source (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944895)

What's wrong, bitter? Are you the guy that thinks Microsoft creates the best software ever, and can't think beyond anything a class has told him?

Re:A win for open source (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944930)

It's sad that you can't tell his pragmatism from your relentless zealotry.

Re:A win for open source (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944996)

Astroturfing your own comments, eh? That's pretty sad.

Re:A win for open source (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944964)

Although we DO appreciate the effort, I'm sorry to have to tell you that your troll does not meet the high standards that we expect on Slashdot.

Please practice further at amateur sites before returning. Although you have a long way to go, the thrill of achieving excellence in this field will be very rewarding.

We look forwards to your return when you are able to meet our minimum standards.

HAND

Re:A win for open source (1)

noselasd (594905) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944913)

But what about intranet sites ? Most companies I've visited runs one or
more intranet sites. And they seem to run lots of diffrent things. Would
be nice to get some statistics on those.

Mac OS? (0, Offtopic)

Orien (720204) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944772)

I wonder how much OS X has to do with this?

Re:Mac OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944824)

With the Apple's stunning 3% marketshare in the server sector? Probably not much.

Re:Mac OS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944886)

Being that MacOSX's "personal web sharing" *is* Apache, could be that an OS with single digit marketshare may have an impact. Doesn't need to be a server OS to be part of the mix.

Spammers and p0rn sites prefer Apache (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944780)

It is a known fact. Most of spam unsubscribe links point to sites running apache.

TCO (5, Insightful)

Nadsat (652200) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944784)

MS's recent campagin of Total Cost Of Ownership does not factor well into this. They cite recent studies which heavily stress human maintenance and development costs into the TCO. Yet what they don't cite is the fact that as software popularity grows, such as Apache here, TCO is driven down because the technology is more accesible.

Basic technology such as web servers are on their way of being removed from the realm of competition. 2004 is promising.

Bravo Slashdot editors (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944785)

Stealing current news on Kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org] once again uh ?

I'm one of those (5, Interesting)

gorfie (700458) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944791)

Our department is moving from IIS 4.0 to Apache 1.3.29 within the next few months. The server is up & running and I'm working on porting our site over. The reasoning for the switch?

While MS requires patching & monitoring, so does Apache/Linux (although it's not as time-consuming IMO). I also haven't had up-time issues with IIS although I inherently believe Apache would beat IIS in that category.

The true reason is that Apache processes SSI from the outside, while IIS processes them from the inside. I can make more modular code using apache (i.e. a single template for the whole site that the index files link to, and that template links to "content" and "data" files in a given directory). It also seems to perform better, but that's because I was using Access on the IIS machine, and MySQL on the Apache machine. Also Apache/MySQL are cheaper (putting SCO aside).

The only other good reason was to learn something new/different to make myself more marketable. :)

That should be... (2, Funny)

twoslice (457793) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944831)

(putting SCO aside)

(punting SCO ass-side).

Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944859)

Why were you using Access instead of MSDE (the free version of SQL server). People who use Access deserve what they get. I am sure that Microsoft will be happy to tell people like you, "good riddance".

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944901)

I agree. MSDE is far superior to any of the other 'free' alternatives (MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.)

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944923)

Because I've never heard of MSDE and have no idea where to get it.

I'm glad mysql is easily available (mysql.org) and runs on windows! ^_^

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944952)

MySQL is a scabby, pus-ridden sore on the backside of the Internet. If you are glad that it exists for any platform, then you are two steps below stupid.

Look at the MSDE website [microsoft.com] , and learn how to use a real, reliable database.

Me too (4, Interesting)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944921)

We run an online testing and certification engine, written in perl. It WAS hosted on a Win2K/IIS box, but about once a week the server would lock up with IIS hitting 100% CPU utilisation and the only way to 'fix' it was to reboot. The same code's been running on a Redhat 9/Apache server for about 2 months now with no downtime.

Our MD was so impressed with the port (which was very trivial), that she's asked me to consider migrating our main in-house server to Linux too - it's mainly a 'file and print' box so this should be a piece of cake.

We WERE looking at a contact management system (possibly Maximizer or Goldmine), but now we're seriously considering an open source alteratives-should save us about 7000UKP in apps and licences.

Re:I'm one of those (3, Interesting)

Dalroth (85450) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944978)

May I ask why you're moving to Apache 1.x and not 2.x?

Bryan

Makes you wonder (5, Interesting)

twoslice (457793) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944799)

People don't generally switch web servers just for the heck of it. Obviously, there must be something seriously wrong with IIS to make people switch - I wonder what that could be...

Re:Makes you wonder (4, Insightful)

Stile 65 (722451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944841)

Actually, the post says the number of servers for IIS stayed flat. Their percentage decreased, but that seems to be a function of a huge number of ADDITIONAL web servers, of which an enormous percentage are Apache rather than IIS.

Re:Makes you wonder (2, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944899)

So, the question for MS is what percentage of those additional servers were operated by potential IIS customers as opposed to individuals or organizations that simply wouldn't operate a site if the server wasn't free?

It's bit like the complaints from the record companies about how much money they lost to illegal downloading: the downloaders couldn't possibly afford to pay for all the music they download, so the actual losses are a lot smaller.

Re:Makes you wonder (1)

PhiberOptix (182584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944897)

I did some consulting in a really big corporation in South America last year.
They buy mostly everything from Sun (from software to hardware).
Their web application servers ran Sun http server, which i don't remember the name right now and weblogic.
But you know what? they switched those sun http servers for apache. This one guy in the IT showed to the PHB that not only that would be cheaper (no license fees) but also would make the job easier (better product, more features and documentation).

it is up to us to show the manager types what tools are better for the job, i guess.

I love Apache (2, Informative)

dominator2010 (735220) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944802)

I love apache, but the one thing that bothers me is the two versions (1.3.x and 2.x). I originally started using the 2.x and found that a lot of people weren't using it. Then later to my dismay I found that wanting to adapt PHP would be troublesome so I had to switch to 1.3.x. It's okay either way because it was painless. And no trouble. So take that people who pay for bloated products that work just as well or less than the ever loved free Apache. All hail Apache.

Re:I love Apache (1)

gorfie (700458) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944857)

That caught me off-guard too... originally I was wanting to go to the most recent version, but then I noticed that most people were on 1.3.29 because it worked and 2.0 might present problems with things like PHP. I was a victim of the tendency to want the most recent version just because it was the most recent version... not because it had features/improvements that would benefit me or my organization. Good lesson to learn... I hope I remember it in the future. :)

Re:I love Apache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944879)

Elaborate. I've never had /any/ problems with PHP4 and Apache2 since official support was added.

Re:I love Apache (1)

gorfie (700458) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944944)

The Apache 2.0 installation documentation [php.net] (http://www.php.net) suggests "Do not use Apache 2.0 and PHP in a production environment neither on Unix nor on Windows." The reasoning I found, after researching this on Google, had to do with a lack of testing and the fact that something could go wrong because Apache 2.0 is multithreaded (or something like that). So, if you have two versions of an application, both of which meet your needs, you pick the one that has been proven in the field (in this case, Apache 1.3.29). I probably could have used Apache 2.0 without incident, but there was really no reason to risk it.

Re:I love Apache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7945001)

If you run Apache 2.x with the Prefork MPM, the thread model is exactly the same as in Apache 1.x. Thus PHP _will_ work as good as in 1.x.

If you change to Worker MPM you might run in to trouble, since not all of older PHP versions are completely thread safe.

Red Hat ships Apache 2.x with the Prefork MPM enabled by default. Running PHP on that works perfectly fine.

Apache 2.x usually gives you better performance too, compared to 1.x.

Build a better mousetrap... (2, Insightful)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944803)

Is anyone surprised? It's a superior piece of software from the competition. And the users (meaning IT folks and people who run web sites) are not your average Joe Blow, so having open source software makes absoulute sense. It's not like a desktop app (like a word processor) where the person using it would have a need or want or ability to go mess with the code for some reason.

Additionally, any serious security bugs have been fixed with blazing speed. Compare that with the amount of time MS takes to patch a IIS hole when an exploit is found.

-S

Couldn't see this one coming, huh? (1)

rylin (688457) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944804)

Netcraft confirms. . . ;)

Who *are* these guys? (5, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944810)

We need to a series -- a long series -- of Slashdot interviews with key Apache people. I mean, look at all the stuff they're into [apache.org] . And the list doesn't seem to have any vaporware or bogged-down projects -- which is damned remarkable in the Open Source community, where people tend to be big on ideas and short on followthrough. Let's get these people under the microscope and find out what they're doing right!

Re:Who *are* these guys? (5, Insightful)

maelstrom (638) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944847)

You make a very good point. Many people can list off Larry Wall, ESR, RMS, and Linus off the top of their head, but don't know the first thing about the principles in the Apache project. Seems to be a nice counter-point to ESR's ego currency as a motivation for OSS. Apache is in my mind the most successful OSS project.

Kudos.

Re:Who *are* these guys? (1)

GustavoT (732121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944876)

I agree. These people put in a lot of hard work with little monetary gain. It should only be fair to recognize their work since a large majority of Slashdot readers use it.

Apache 2 runs well on Windows (5, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944817)

If you assumed Apache was *nix only you haven't checked out Apache 2.x on Windows. Perhaps this is the cause of the gain -- Windows users switching to Apache?

Re:Apache 2 runs well on Windows (4, Informative)

caino59 (313096) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944937)

I can confirm that one...

apache is just so much easier to configure and use...it runs so much smoother, have never had a hiccup or headache with apache.

i don't use php, so using 2.x isnt an issue for me.

as mentioned by others, patching/upgrading is a simple process, be it on linux or windows. no reboots of course, just take the server offline momentarily, run the upgrade, restart server. don't have to worry about your config files being overwritten or anything.

when i first started using apache, i tried both appache and iis, and just found apache sooo much easier to manage, used less resources - all the good stuff kids go for.

and like another person said...the guys over at apache have a lot more than just the webserver going on, if you havent checked out some of their other projects [apache.org] ...by all means do!

Re:Apache 2 runs well on Windows (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944986)

Another nice thing about Apache, you don't have to take it offline to upgrade it! You can install the upgrade while the old version still serves pages. Once you're done installing the new version:

service httpd restart

and off you go!

normalize for traffic? (4, Interesting)

Hollins (83264) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944818)

It would be nice to see how this would look for percentage of http traffic rather than percentage of domains. I'm not sure who would be favored, but it seems like a better metric.

Apache is racist. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944819)

The audacity of the American people to name sports teams (the Indians, the Brewers, etc) after the American Indian race never ceases to amaze and disgust me.

Now we are naming our most wide reaching open source software after the American Indians.

Imagine for a minute that your society and culture are destroyed over a period of mere decades and afterwards you find your conquerors nostalgically naming things after you -- would you not be disgusted?

Let me be the first to call for a change in name for the Apache project.

Re:Apache is racist. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944880)

Let me be the first to call for a change in name for the Apache project.
How?

Re:Apache is racist. (2, Insightful)

Trurl's Machine (651488) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944943)

OK, I see it's a troll, but... I'll bite anyway. The whole history of Western Civilization in a nutshell looks like that. Once there were the pre-hellenic mediterranean cultures, like the Phoenicians. The Greeks conquered and destroyed them all. Then came the Romans, who conquered and destroyed the Greeks (not to mention the Celts). Then came the German and Slavonic barbarians, and they conquered and destroyed the Romans (and then repeatedly conquered and destroyed each other, like the Goth who perished for the Vandals etc). So if you live, say, in London, there are ashes of dozens of destroyed cultures under your feet, under the pavement of the very Oxford Street. The Celts, the Celtic-Romans, the Roman-Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Anglo-Danes, the Normans etc.

Now, for a long time Americans were fed with the not-exactly-true fairy tale about the Mayflower settlers, who arrived to a no-man's-land. It was not a no-man's-land at all. It had its native inhabitants and they were, indeed, conquered. But the British Islands were not a no-man's-land neither, when the William the Conqueor arrived, and he is still regarded as hero.

There's nothing racist in Apache, just as there's nothing racist when modern Britons use greek, latin, saxon or celtic words. Or when modern Italians use the name La Fenice (="country of Phoenicians") for an opera.

Sorry for feeding trolls.

Re:Apache is racist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944982)

I'm glad you 'bit', because that was a very interesting response.

Anyway, it wasn't really a 'bite' as such, because not only did you acknowledge that you were replying to a post that was designed to incite an emotion-driven response, you also did not provide such a response -- instead, you gave us some very interesting facts.

Thanks.

Re:Apache is racist. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944993)

Actually, the name comes from "A Patchy Server" because it was built as thousands of patches instead of one reliably growing code tree.

I wonder, why... (3, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944827)

...so many even tiny sites - home PCs, private tiny hosts and such, run Apache.
It's big. It's slow. (okay, it can stand a big load without much slowdown, but overall latency is high) It's a system hog. These computers are often older Pentiums, sometimes 486s, sometimes used as clients/terminals, sometimes serving several other tasks.

Why people so rarely use tiny HTTP servers like Boa [boa.org] , Mathopd [mathopd.org] , thttpd [acme.com] ... especially, that those tiny thingies are extremely fast under light load, light on system resources, have most of features every "amateur webmaster" wants, and because of small code base, usually completely bug-free.

Field for "Evangelism"?

Re:I wonder, why... (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944860)

"because it works"

I've run apache on all kinds of systems, from the older pentiums you mention to big-iron Solaris systems.

The beauty is that it works on all of them. You tune some parameters slightly different, but you don't have to learn a new software because you're now hosting your site on a big machine.

Sorry, I applaud all the tiny-http-server efforts, but in real-life the only thing that I ever seriously considered was the kernel-httpd. That was for the image-server of a major dot-com site that made a several hundred hits a second at peak times.

Re:I wonder, why... (1)

jhines (82154) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944931)

Even with a big, slow, daemon like Apache, my older AMD K6 machine, has average idle of 96% over the time it has been up?

Those older machines can do a whale of a lot of work, when running in a non-graphical server environment.

Re:I wonder, why... (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944946)

Because of the documentation. If you are a fledgling webmaster there is a bunch of good documentation available from the project; not to mention enough howto's on the internet to sink a ship.

Re:I wonder, why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944960)

This kind of reminds me of the "Emacs is big and bloated" arguments. Yes, Emacs is big and bloated...on a 1991 computer. Yes, Apache is big and bloated...on a 1991 computer. Or a pocket calculator, for that matter.

Apache is not big and bloated today. As I recall (and, please, somone correct me if I am wrong) Apache 2.0 even can use a select() model for people who feel that Apache's pre-fork() model is too slow.

Re:I wonder, why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7945000)

That's a terrible comparison. Emacs is non-intuitive and has a terrible command syntax and help system. Apache, on the other hand, is very well thought out and logical in its configuration and implementation.

Why anyone in this day and age would consider using emacs for any text editing, when there are dozens of better-designed, modern text editors out there, is beyond me.

Apache, on the other hand, is excellent. A marvellous piece of work in all respects.

Dip in Apache July 2002 (3, Interesting)

Clay_Culver (583328) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944832)

Did anyone notice that in July 2002, Apache took a hit in numbers, and Microsoft gained for a brief period of time? (Check the graph, you will notice a spike in Microsoft's numbers, a dip in Apache in July 2002.) Does anyone know what this corresponds to?

Re:Dip in Apache July 2002 (5, Informative)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944862)

That was a switch from one of the big parking companies, IIRC. Thousands of domains all changed at once. It's one of those things that fits into the "how do we measure this" decision. If a website in the middle of the forest doesn't have an index, is it still counted?

Re:Dip in Apache July 2002 (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944918)

A large hosting company started using IIS for the "Coming Soon" pages you see on registered domains.

Re:Dip in Apache July 2002 (1)

Stinking Pig (45860) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944928)

domain parkers represent a lot of the "users" in Netcraft's graphs, so a single company switching back and forth or two companies merging (thereby switching back and forth) has an effect. There was talk a while back of massaging the data to de-emphasize these big do-nothing chunks, but I don't know if it went anywhere.

This is not news (1)

Baddsectorr (709324) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944834)

most ISPs run some form of Unix/Linux and the why would you spend a zillion dollars paying for an inferior piece of software when you can get a proven quality piece of software for free?

Re:This is not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944925)

What Unix-based "inferior piece of software" are you refering to?

"across all domains" ? (5, Insightful)

ubiquitin (28396) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944844)

Note that the numbers are "per domain" So 2003 is better proclaimed the Year of NameVirtualHost. Hopefully, this means that there really are more httpd's out there, but the correlation was not made in that necraft study. Hopefully someone will do (perhaps already has done?) a study to establish IP# to domain name ratios. My guess is that there is a lot more virtual hosting being done now then there was in, say 1999, when having a corporate web site was more directly related to purchasing dedicated web server equipment. I'll bet that the Microsoft push into public key infrastructure will be used to leverage growth for IIS but at these rates, it may well be hard to catch up with Apache.

But perhaps the real story for 2003, as far as growth technologies go, is likely PHP [php.net] . The ratio of deployments and actual usage to press coverage of the technology is pretty impressive too. :)

The ANALysis should look at ACTIVE sites (1, Informative)

Amsterdam Vallon (639622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944864)

This analysis includes all sites, but the more realistic and "telling", if you will, analysis would be to look at ACTIVE sites ONLY.

That analysis has been done, and the results were that during 2003, considering new sites, Apache was chosen four times more often than IIS.

You can see the actual figures at http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_182.html [cabalamat.org] .

Apache has 77.54% marketshare, and IIS only has 19.06%.

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EARS, MICROSOFT - Apache was over three times more popular than all other web servers put together.

REALLY COOL ANALYSIS - MOD PARENT UP +1 (-1, Offtopic)

Amsterdam Vallon (639622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944947)

Neat stuff!

Is it really switching over? (0)

puckmaster87 (740068) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944875)

A question has come to my head:
Is it really people switching over from IIS to Apache or is it tons of new web servers starting up in 2003? Of course there are lots of new servers every year. Also, many webmasters and server administrators like Open Source better than closed source. Some will like IIS better, because they can get direct support from Microsoft.

yes but (1)

relrelrel (737051) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944882)

Is this Apache on UNIX and/or Windows boxes?

Re:yes but (1)

cayfer (563445) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944929)

both...

This means nothing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944896)

Okay, what this is essentially saying is that Apache is the server for delivering HTTP. What does this really mean? Nothing. With most open source projects running out of funding, have you guys ever asked yourself what a small piece of the $25,000 WebSphere Application Server processor license could do towards advancing society? To me, you guys are smucks for giving big companies a product to sell under their own name. Perhaps the open source community can do more to help Walmart profits, oil companies and potentially hostile nations like China. Nice work.

Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where? (5, Insightful)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944900)

Alright - let's have it! Where are they hiding all the exploits? They obviously have waaaayyyyy more since viruses and exploits are dependant on popularity, not how well the software is engineered. Since Apache is kicking IIS's scraggly ass all over the 'net, it must have more exploits, right? No? Oh? So all those people that keep saying Windows suffers so much are admitting they're wrong?

Oh, that's right. IIS is also an FTP server, mail server, dinner server, and a cheauffer that takes your wife out on dates then screws her in your bed while you're out of town on business.....

... whoops.. sorry, go a little carried away there. Seriously - face it, that's a flaw. If the software wants to do everything, and, by doing everything, fails, it still failed, AND it failed BECAUSE it does everything. That means the Apache software is a better engineered web server and IIS is, well, a load of crap.

Sorry... a little bitter. If you've ever had to administer that horrendous piece of garbage IIS you'd understand. I think, perhaps, the reason Apache is whooping up on IIS is that IIS is so ludicrously twitchy and convoluted. Normally, I'd say point and clicky interfaces are easier to manage, but god... setting something up in IIS that's not set up by default can result in tremendously time-wasting efforts searching through numerous, poorly labeled, badly designed interfaces. Apache? Whip out a reference book, type in a few lines, and you're done. Even if you have to restart the system, it's not much hassle. I've NEVER managed to shut down IIS and bring it back up on Win2k where it didn't stop responding and, eventually, chew up all the resources on the box forcing a hard reboot of the whole system. That pisses off SQL Server which then fucks up the TrendMicro stuff... Ick.

Long story short? IIS sucks and few (smart) people debate that whether they're pro-Microsoft, pro-*nix, pro-Mac, or, smarter than any of them pro-whatever-works.

Re:Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where? (3, Interesting)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944932)

Most definitely. I think these numbers will finally silence those misguided idiots who continue to say that Apache doesn't get exploited as much because "it's less popular" or "it's not used by anyone" or "it's written by a bunch of unpaid amateurs". Apache gets used because it's clean, simple, reliable, robust, and most importantly, EASY TO CONFIGURE.

If 2003 was the Year of Apache, then 2004 will be the Year of the LAMP [uoregon.edu] .

Re:Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where? (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 10 years ago | (#7945007)

I am 100% with you. I was sysadmin at a company about a year ago where they had about a dozen Linux/Apache boxes, one Windows/Apache box, and one IIS 5.0 (win2k) box. The Linux/Apache boxes and even the Windows/Apache box worked flawlessly. If there ever was a problem, I could look at the logs (at least on the Linux boxen). IIS would crash randomly. Do you know what the "Event Viewer" (which, incidently, is the most piss-poor logging I have ever seen) showed as the error? "IIS died unexpectedly". Great.... when you expect it to die will you let me know? The only fix I could find was to tell services to restart IIS when this happened. /rant

Apache counts... (3, Funny)

cayfer (563445) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944904)

These are crooked figures. Don't take them seriously! The real marketshare of IIS is above 80 percent. The catch is, IIS boxes are declaring themselves as Apache servers to avoid attacks. Note: This not an MS sponsored report (yet). Hopefully they will contact me and it will become one. :)

when we're finished patting ourselves on the back: (4, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944905)

These statistics make us happy, but they're not the whole story.

When we bragg about these numbers, Microsoft respond with:
"Our webserver is used by more Forbes/Fortune 500 companies and is used by more secure websites. Apaches numbers are only high because a lot of amateurs use it".

What is our argument to that? (we don't have one. We just ignore it and continue patting ourselves on the back.)

If we are to progress, it's better to look at what going *wrong*, and try to improve that.

Re:when we're finished patting ourselves on the ba (1)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944969)

Amateurs?

So I suppose the people who run the Transport for London [tfl.gov.uk] web site are amateurs?

What about the folks running BlogSpot [blogspot.com] ?

How about the admins of Rutgers Univesity [rutgers.edu] ?

Finally, how about Kyle Bennett, the creator of [H]ard|OCP [hardocp.com] ?

Sure, Microsoft can say that Apache is used by amateurs. But I'm certain that for every half-assed amateur using Apache there are 100 admins who run Apache for mission-critical stuff and don't bat an eyelid.

Netcraft confirms it... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944924)

'Netcraft confirms it' jokes are tired.

Apache is so good, it is actually hurting itself (2, Interesting)

phoxix (161744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944950)

How many people have plans of leaving apache 1.3x to newer apache 2x ?

Enough said

Sunny Dubey

Re:Apache is so good, it is actually hurting itsel (1)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7944980)

Why should they be forced to?

Statistics are for losers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7944975)

The real losers are the open source projects without funding because large companies take the hard work of open source projects and sell it off nearly unmodified for large sums to corporations. You guys are getting powned. Good work financing some CEOs vacation to Spain and second vacation home's mortage. Aren't you tired of being used under the moniker of "Open Source"?

Open Source's shining star - Real Performer (1)

shamitbagchi (641092) | more than 10 years ago | (#7945006)

Apache HTTPD [apache.org] has gone on to new strengths with new features and support for all types of scripting languages and add-ons and settings ease in config files. I remeber during college grad projects most people used Apache by default on linux only few used other personal web servers But its streangth in Enterprise and industry is amazing as its open source and gives a befitting slap on the faces of those who repeatedly point out that open source software is unusable unstable buggy(Apache httpd code review found it to be the best in error per klocs in all industry...) Some Documentation : Apache 1.3 [apache.org] Apache 2.0 [apache.org] - Shamit [blogspot.com] ITS A TRIBUTE TO OPEN SOURCE TO SAY THE LEAST
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?