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!

IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the old-dog-new-tricks dept.

Microsoft 395

An anonymous reader writes "According to BetaNews, Microsoft is learning a few tricks from Apache for the next release of IIS, version 7.0. Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server. Also, the IIS metabase has been completely dropped in favor of easily editable XML configuration files. Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration."

cancel ×

395 comments

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

About time (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570366)

Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server.

I am shocked that it has taken this long to implement these features. Come on now. The rest of the industry has known that this increases stability, eases management and reduced computational overhead for years. Why is it do they think that an eight year old Linux box running Apache can serve up such huge volume versus a latest and greatest IIS server? Also, "simple configuration. IIS 7.0 does away with complicated the "Metabase" and replaces it with XML configuration files, Well, yeah! The fact that they are even talking about doing this rather than simply implementing the feature and then talking about it troubles me though. For myself, I am not running [utah.edu] anything sophisticated for the sites [utah.edu] I manage [utah.edu] but I want simplicity of management and therefore went with standard OSX hosting systems. For heavier lifting, an OS X server system for our scientific databases is not quite as fast as Linux based solutions for some data types, but it is certainly easier to manage than Linux or IIS. If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

Re:About time (5, Funny)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570389)

If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now?

Re:About time (0)

BWJones (18351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570401)

Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now?

Funny, truly funny. But Oh, so true.

Re:About time (5, Funny)

justforaday (560408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570462)

I think he forgot the 'r' up there...

Re:About time (2, Insightful)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570415)

What is wrong with copying, should they have come up with some new config format so it could be different than everyone else? How much crap can you add to a web server anyway?

Re:About time (2, Insightful)

turbotalon (592486) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570420)

The important thing to remember is the current install base. They don't need to innovate, only keep the differences in performance/features small enought that the hassles of switching are greater than the benefits. In other words, they need only keep people happy enough to stay. Many places (like where I work, UPS) are MS B****hes and it would take something VERY VERY major to convice them to go elsewhere, even if MS has a vasly inferior product.

Re:About time (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570581)

Inquiring minds want to know what the extra letter in "bitches" is.

Re:About time (1)

toddbu (748790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570610)

You got it wrong. It's "beetches".

Re:About time (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570643)

I stand cor*****ed!

Re:About time (2, Insightful)

toddbu (748790) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570565)

rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

Well, let's hope that they can actually pull it off. Just breaking the system into modules isn't enough. What they're really missing is cool functionality like mod_rewrite.

My two cents... (4, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570622)

If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

I'd settle for a better IIS-FTP component, the one in IIS 6 is a bit of a joke. As for the Metabase , yes it could be more transparent but it isn't that complicated and there is an excellent programming interface for it. Most of all I'd really like to see Microsoft cough up the ability to configure absolutely every aspect of IIS (and Windows it self for that matter) from the commandline. Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell. And this to the point where I don't have to see a Windows desktop for months should the need arise. Even in Windows 2003 the commandline toolkit that comes with Windows is incomplete although Microsoft does offer a bunch of administrator toolkits that help alot but I still fail to see why these have to be tracked down and downloaded seperately rather than being supplied with the OS.

Re:About time (3, Interesting)

aktzin (882293) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570650)

I was really surprised when this came out in 2001:

"Research group Gartner is advising businesses to "immediately" replace their Microsoft Internet Information Server software with a more secure server application, following attacks on IIS by the worms Code Red and Nimda."

http://news.com.com/2102-1001_3-273461.html?tag=st .util.print [com.com]

Gartner approves of Microsoft more often than not, and this was by far the most negative opinion I've ever seen them express about MS. Too bad hardly anyone took their advice.

Re:About time (-1, Redundant)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570652)

If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

This is a typo. He actually meant to say "raping the rest of the industry."

They didn't ape apache (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570702)

Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server

Oh come on, M$ isn't apeing Apache, they are simply finally getting around to doing what software folks have been doing almost since the begining of time (for computers anyway). It's not like Apache created the idea of having loadable modules that can be specified in a config file.

Flick M$ crap for taking so long to do it, fine, they deserve it. But acting like Apache created this style of architecture is just flat wrong.

Oh, and as to your question of why it taken so long, the answer is more than likely that they are just know feeling that it's important enough to do. The advantage of being in the position they are.

XML Config (3, Interesting)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570373)

I link the XML configuration. Hopefully Apache does this soon. Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

Re:XML Config (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570408)


I was thinking the exact opposite. I like editting a plain ol' text file by hand. Editting XML is a pain; yeah it's all text but then so is Postscript.

Re:XML Config (5, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570494)

I tend to agree... sort of. Once your familiar with httpd.conf, editing it tends to be quite simple. However, trying to write an application front end to do that is a pain. This is where XML is nice. Its structured and formatted. The idea behind using XML isn't to make your life easier to edit it by hand... its to make it easier to make automated tools to edit and query the config files.

Re:XML Config (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570759)

XML is also good for converting a config file to a new format without (too much coding).

Anyway, you don't have to edit XML by hand. It's easy to do so if it's formatted towards a user, but I asume there are better ways. And the best thing; once you are familiar with XML, you know the syntax (not the semantics, but at least the syntax) of all the other XML configuration files out there. Especially if they adhere to the schema standards for formatting data values.

I loved editing my channels for the (linux) tvtime application. That was really a place where XML was a time saver.

Re:XML Config (5, Funny)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570443)

Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

Heh, I worked with someone who thought it was a pain to edit too. His solution - he erased every single comment from httpd.conf. (He thought it was a pain because it was too long. Needless to say, tempers flared.)

Re:XML Config (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570580)

Would have been nice had he done one of these first:

  mv /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf.bak

I hate it when anyone changes a conf file and doesn't move it somewhere first, at the end of the day you're grabbing source files and unpacking them just for a default config file.

Re:XML Config (3, Informative)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570639)

Would have been nice had he done one of these first:

    mv /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf.bak


Heh, fat chance with that guy. I usually append a bind type serial number (2005091501) to the end of a copy. If you just use .bak you can accidently write a bad copy over a good one. Even worse is finding things like:

httpd.orig.bak3 or
httpd.conf.this.one.works2.bak

in the conf directory.

Re:XML Config (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570705)

You bring up a very good point, and I have to admit that at times I've been guilty of putting goofy tags at the end of backup conf file names as well.

  I think I'm going to create a full backup of my /etc/ directory in /conf/backups or /conf/defaults from now on to avoid confusion. Then if I need an older, presumably working Apache conf file I'll just head for that folder and there it is. Maybe make it readonly just to be on the safe side.

Re:XML Config (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570584)

I link the XML configuration. Hopefully Apache does this soon. Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

No problem. Most of the apache systems can link to any XML config file.

Re:XML Config (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570751)

I wonder if you could use the OS X plist editor on those XML files?

Not XML (1)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570374)

Also, the IIS metabase has been completely dropped in favor of easily editable XML configuration files.

Apache's configuration is not XML. In fact, it has been my Biggest Request [slashdot.org] for a while now.

Apache is great when it comes to some things, but is lacking when it comes to others. Running in prefork MPM is fine for the most part, but I really wish perchild would get off the ground so that PHP scripts won't be all running as the same user. Now if only all of PHP's modules were thread safe...

Re:Not XML (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570400)

"...easily editable XML configuration files."

Great. Now instead of checking off a box in a dialog I need a 500 page reference manual to figure out what entry I need to add to what node to get the same result.

Re:Not XML (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570440)

Yeah. God forbid you be able to set something up with something so archaic as a script.

Re:Not XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570623)

Ehm, whatever floats your boat. Look in \inetpub\adminscripts\ for samples.

Re:Not XML (1)

karmakillernz (610524) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570464)

IIS 6.0 already has fully XML-based configuration with changes that are applied without restarting the web server, something I believe Apache can't do. This is in addition to the standard GUI configuration, which is also being upgraded in IIS 7.0.

The biggest change I see coming is the modular architecture, which is definately welcome.

Re:Not XML (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570531)

killall -HUP apache

Reloads the apache config. *some* things can't be reloaded on-the-fly however. But many things can.

Re:Not XML (1)

vcv (526771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570515)

There is still a GUI based admin tool where you can do all of the same things.

Re:Not XML (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570676)

I always thought a config file would be easier to admin than IIS's illogical checkboxes scattered all over the place. What's the point of an admin GUI if I have to hunt through multiple dialog boxes in multiple places just to make one small change? Finally they are getting a clue. Now if they could just do away with the Windows registry...

Re:Not XML (3, Informative)

Rasta Prefect (250915) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570542)

Running in prefork MPM is fine for the most part, but I really wish perchild would get off the ground so that PHP scripts won't be all running as the same user. Now if only all of PHP's modules were thread safe...

suPHP will take care of that for you. Well, the user bit, not the thread safety bit.

http://www.suphp.org/Home.html [suphp.org]

so... (3, Insightful)

intmainvoid (109559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570375)

so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache?

Re:so... (5, Funny)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570478)

so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache?

Because it costs les... I mean, because the OS it runs on is more secu... Oops, I really meant, because people should support all the good things that MS do for the...

Sod it... Hey, O'Gara, you get paid good money to come up with this horse-shit - take it away, would you?

Re:so... (0, Redundant)

Karma_fucker_sucker (898393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570544)

so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache>

Microsoft makes the best software in the world! Here, drink this Kool Aid!

Re:so... (3, Insightful)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570592)

asp.net w/ c# would be one reason. it's a fantastic dev platform, hatred for MS aside.

Re:so... (3, Informative)

SomeGuyTyping (751195) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570616)

that's what Mono [mono-project.com] is for

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570684)

Is it ready for primetime? Last I benchmarked it, it wasn't close (looked like the garbage collector choked) to Microsofts version. But that was admittedly long time ago. And I think I remember readying somewhere that the GC still wouldn't reclaim memory from large objects (I forget the details). Do you have pointers to or expirience with comparisons of recent versions?

Re:so... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570604)

Support contract (someone to blame). Recognized company (so management can't get blamed for going with a smaller guy).

Also, you have to remember that there are a lot of people out there operating with nothing more than an MCSE that don't know anything outside of the Microsoft world. Not everyone is trying to convince management to switch to Linux. A lot of shops want to stick with microsoft because that's what the tech guys making the recommendations are familiar with and they want to keep their jobs.

I don't really deal with Microsoft, but I've dealt with guys who clearly are solely Microsoft network/IT administrators who, when having to handle sending me a core file from one of their solaris boxes, didn't have a clue how to use FTP.

So... for a lot of people, the Microsoft Way and A GUI For Everything method is a means to remaining employed.

hrm.... (0, Offtopic)

xao gypsie (641755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570386)

but I thought OSS was evil....or was that Google...

How about multiple versions? (5, Insightful)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570393)

Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses? Install or uninstall without rebooting? Change or inspect the source code?

Re:How about multiple versions? (1)

Alan (347) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570540)

Hell, I'd like a version that I can run without a GUI. Wake me up when they get that going ok?

Dream on ! (1)

flyingace (162593) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570561)

Dude. you are high on open source euphoria ;)

No Reboot Required (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570601)

You have been able to [re|un]install IIS without a reboot since XP (XP and 2003).

I doubt running multiple versions on the machine will ever happen, which is fine.

Want IIS5 and it's lack of features? Run 2000, which is lacking compared to IIS6/2003.

Re:How about multiple versions? (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570609)

Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache? Other than, perhaps, if you're hacking on the source.

You can have as many sites running as you like under different ports and addresses in a single version of IIS or Apache.

Re:How about multiple versions? (2, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570669)

Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache?

I believe the appropriate question is: Why can't you run two different versions of IIS? Maybe one writes a web-portal or some such that will need to be run in different versions of IIS? Who knows?

It is to the user to decide what they want to do with software, not the developers.

Re:How about multiple versions? (1)

hab136 (30884) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570739)

Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache? Other than, perhaps, if you're hacking on the source.

You can have as many sites running as you like under different ports and addresses in a single version of IIS or Apache.

I can think of three reasons: speed, simplicity and security. Say, one web server that only serves up static files, nothing more - and is fast at it, with a locked-down configuration. Another for dynamic content, with all the complications that ensue.

Ideally, you'd put these webservers on separate boxes (or farms of boxes), but budgets may dicatate that they share a box. Personally I'd also use thttpd [acme.com] for the only-static portion, as it's faster, simpler, and easier to secure.

Re:How about multiple versions? (1)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570797)

Why would you WANT to run two different versions?

Thanks for a perfect example of the type of thinking which will keep IIS and other Microsoft type stuff in the dust. Rather than just doing the job, software that checks for other versions of itself, because of programmers with attitudes like yours, inhibits the flexibility of people like me.

I'm not going to answer your question, because if you can't figure it out yourself, you are undeserving of enlightenment. Suffice to say that I do, I can, and I have good reasons.

Copy Cat (5, Funny)

sheepoo (814409) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570395)

Is M$ becoming a mass copy store...First Firefox (for IE7.0) then Apple OS X (for Vista) and now Apache (for IIS). Are they going out of business of innovation?

Re:Copy Cat (5, Funny)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570422)


Are they going out of business of innovation?

Well, to go out you first have to have been in!

--
Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Copy Cat (1)

fembots (753724) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570455)

And its Gadgets [microsoftgadgets.com] vs Yahoo's Widgets and Apple's Dashboard.

Re:Copy Cat (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570506)

Are they going out of business of innovation?

The problem is that they were enough ahead of everyone else they quit innovating. Now they've finally realized that everyone else has surpassed them and it's catchup time.

It's always been a copy cat... (3, Insightful)

jimmer63 (651486) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570512)

This is one of the major ways Microsft has stayed on top. The are great at collecting the best ideas from many sources and implementing them in their own software. Often implementing these ideas better than the orginal. Microsoft isn't stupid. They're always watching the market to learn how to do things better.

Re:Copy Cat (1)

skraps (650379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570591)

These IIS changes are directly in line with Microsoft's .NET architecture. They may sound similar to some Apache features, but that is probably not the driving force behind them.

Re:Copy Cat (5, Funny)

MrDomino (799876) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570662)

They were in the business of innovation?

Re:Copy Cat (1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570707)

Is M$ becoming a mass copy store...First Firefox (for IE7.0) then Apple OS X (for Vista) and now Apache (for IIS). Are they going out of business of innovation?

Where have you been for the last 20+ years? Microsoft has never tried an 'outside the box' idea in their life.

Re:Copy Cat (1)

vijaya_chandra (618284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570736)

Can you please let us know as to what all things are being copied from firefox?
I haven't used IE7.0 so I can't comment
but if you're going to say that they're flicking tabbing and rss, I'll have to say sorry (probably at the expense of some karma). Neither did firefox invent them; guys like opera have been having them from ages
And did I mention that the tabbing in firefox is far from perfect. Guess you'd have been to atleast one of those innumerable sites, the links in which always tend to open new firefox windows and not tabs

Security? (2, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570403)

Here is to hope that security will be job #1, rather than job #10.

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570627)

Job #10 huh... Is that in binary or decimal =P

Awesome (1)

Agent_9191 (812909) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570413)

That definitely will help in the future. I know there's been several times I've had to fight the metabase to get it to work correctly.

Oh yeah...and it helps get the first post :-)

Erm (5, Informative)

Vlad_Drak (20809) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570428)

IIS 6.0 utilized an editable-during-runtime xml configuration file, metabase.xml. The new stuff is more integrated into a .Net Framework style config.

Mod parent up (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570490)

Finally something pointing this out. However, it's still monolithic (not completely true if combined with ASP.NET, but still), so the point is more that the config can be located together with the files. On the other hand, this requires that you have properly secured a greater number of config files, if you allow it.

A wiser man than me once said: (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570430)

Henry Spencer

"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly".

Re:A wiser man than me once said: (2, Insightful)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570505)

Henry Spencer

"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly".


Repeat after me, Apache is not UNIX. Apache is a web server. It's a web server that's not even exclusive to the UNIX world since it runs on Windows.

Re:A wiser man than me once said: (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570576)

What?
A daemon that reads it's config from text files rather than a nasty database is certainly more UNIX-like than it is Windows-like. Not to say sensible.
Also, Microsoft are doing lots more UNIX-like things recently, if you care to find out about them.

If I remember correctly... (1)

youknowmewell (754551) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570441)

When one installs a new module in Apache, one needs to restart the server for the install to take effect. That is, when I install PHP or PostgreSQL, I need to restart Apache before I can use either of them. This is something many Apache users dislike.

Re:If I remember correctly... (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570480)

Oh come on. When you install SQL Server, you have to reboot. New installations of infrastructure are a different matter than deploying a new virtual directory.

Re:If I remember correctly... (1)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570664)

Oh come on. When you install SQL Server, you have to reboot.

Actually, you normally don't. If you have a reasonably up to date server or workstation and the SQL Server install doesn't need to update MDAC for example, then there is no reboot at all. This is true for W2KSP2+, WinXP (no SPs) and a default, off-CD install of Server 2003 (any flavor). SQL2K is a relatively 'clean' server product - unlike, say, BT2004 (though 2006 is a lot better). There are very few install scenarios for MS products nowadays that require a cold reboot. You can also add/remove server components (including IIS and MSMQ) without rebooting or even restarting a single service on the box.

To give you an idea, isntalling Visual Studio 2003 on a Windows 2000 SP3 box requires three (!) reboots (though granted, they can be automated). On Server 2003 (in the worstation role) it doesn't require a single reboot. It's really about what you have on the box to begin with, and what the product needs to update.

Re:If I remember correctly... (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570500)

God forbid I have to type 'apachectl graceful' ever.

But yes, it would be neat if Apache allowed you to switch in/out modules as you pleased. 'apachectl addmodule php' or 'apachectl dropmodule index' or whatever.

Heh! (1)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570445)

For his example, he changes a directory listing into a FLASHY WIZBANG DIRECTORY LISTING??? Wow, good job creating useful modules

1996 Called (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570448)

...they want their webserver back. =)

THIS JUST IN - IIS 6.0 does most of that crap (5, Insightful)

BattleRat (536161) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570457)

wow, I guess that most slashdotters REALLY hate MS enough to not even know the characteristics of their current offerings...

So basically they learned (1)

spidereyes (599443) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570476)

fierce resistance against the U.S. government and how to tax everyone else...hmmm I think M$ already had that down.

No restarts either (1)

DigitlDud (443365) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570513)

This has been true for past versions of IIS, you don't have to restart the server when you make a configuration change...unlike say Apache. Although of course you have .htaccess for those minor directory-level changes.

Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. (4, Informative)

Johnno74 (252399) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570524)

... At TechEd New Zealand. IIS7 looks really smart, with pluggable modules to provide all of its functionality, as the submitted mentioned. Ouf of the box pretty much everything will be disabled, and you enable only the modules you need.

IIS6 (win 2003) has already done away with the metabase and gone to an XML file for all of the configuration settings.

IIS7 goes one further, by allowing you to put configuration files in each virtual directory or website to over-ride the parent setting (if permitted) - this allows a website owner to configure their own website, without affecting the other websites on the box, or having to ask the administrator to make the changes for them.

The MS guy told me they are trying to make management as easy as possible for servers containing thousands of seperate sites. He also said they hope to release IIS7 for Win2003 R2.

Loads of other management things are coming in too, such as the ability to examine currently execting requests, and kill them without restarting the site or server (VERY usefull if a script is looping)

MS's new approach to security seems to be really paying off - IIS6 was re-written from the ground up, and how many security holes have there been? I can't remember any.

Re:Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. (2, Interesting)

SocietyoftheFist (316444) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570646)

I've been taking care of an Win2k3/IIS6 combo and to be honest, I've been quite happy with it.

Ummm... patents? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570525)

Did anyone at Apache remember to patent hot-swappable web server modules?

Re:Ummm... patents? (4, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570704)

Did anyone at Apache remember to patent hot-swappable web server modules?

Why do that? Isn't the point of open source the spread of technology ideas? So what if the evil empire uses Apache's server fu? It's their right, just as it's your right.

Apache doesn't have hot-swappable modules (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570711)

Apache doesn't have hot-swapable modules.

It has modules, but they are loaded when the server starts. If you want to enable or disable modules you need to restart the server.

You can restart the server in a fairly graceful way with very short downtime. But this is not the same as hot-swapable modules.

So, no, I doubt that anyone at Apache has patented hot-swappable modules.

Have a look at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/stopping.html [apache.org] for more details.

Re:Ummm... patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570717)

No, but I'm sure M$ will try to patent hot-swappable web server modules, just give them time.

Text Conf Files for Windows (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570548)

I've heard Windows advocates make fun of me for running Apache and configging a text file. Now the irony is that they themselves will have to do the same thing.

But this could be a positive. Windows developers and sys admins may find it an easy transition from GUI- system administration to file based and thus wil find Linux and Apache a bit less daunting.

If this keeps changing like this, you could see Windows system administration moving more toward *NIX administration principles.

This could be a good thing in alot of ways.

Re:Text Conf Files for Windows (2, Insightful)

vcv (526771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570583)

No they won't. There is still a GUI tool to write the config files for you.

Re:Text Conf Files for Windows (1)

Trevahaha (874501) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570587)

The data is stored in an XML file. It would allow you to edit the XML file directly (instead of an internal DB), but I'm sure that most (if not all) would be able to be configured via a GUI.

IIS and XML metabase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570551)

has been around since IIS6.

IP theft Sue!!! (1)

xmorg (718633) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570558)

IP THEFT SUE!!! SUE THEIR PANTS OFF...oh wait... open source. Rats. :(

oh yea, mr lameness filter i was yelling.

Apache Browser? (4, Funny)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570562)

From the article:

"The popular open source Apache Web browser takes a similar approach to features."

Does it support tabbed browsing?

Mod Slashdot Troll (0, Redundant)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570567)

1) some other news site has a badly written story 2) some idiot with no background knowledge does no research, just scans the article and pops together a couple of sentences and submits 3) editors notice the magic 'M$ vs OSS' theme and the potential for 'debate' 4) sheep go over the same old arguments, mostly with no understanding of the software in question 5) ... 5) no profit... in reading this rubbish!

Re:Mod Slashdot Troll (-1, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570656)

6) read the rubbish anyway and troll about how it was such a waste of time

In other news... (2, Funny)

unixbugs (654234) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570582)

3 people shocked to learn of Microsoft copying other people's ideas.

Web App Settings Override (1)

jimmyCarter (56088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570596)

Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration.

This has been around for ASP.NET web apps since the relase of .NET (Web.Config files). Vanilla HTML sites on the other hand..

Not new... (2, Insightful)

Sliptwixt (606116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570651)

" Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration." This is not new. web.config (each web app) changes override machine.config (system-wide) already.

encouraging, but not complete (1)

kindageeky (911464) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570653)

so the changes are encouraging and certainly a product of apache's capabilities ... however, the programming model is limited to C++, not C# and other managed languages ... and in talking to members of the IIS team at PDC, it sounds like there is no way to multi-instance if you want to chain reverse proxies, etc.

Why so long (1)

eneville (745111) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570678)

> Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken
> down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can
> be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web
> server. Also, the IIS metabase has been completely
> dropped in favor of easily editable XML
> configuration files. Each Web application can have
> its own config file that overrides the system-wide
> configuration.

Ok, why did it take so long to get here? IIS has been frowned upon for some time as being sub standard, the only reason that people use it is often because it is installed by default and that it is very hard to find a free alternative server for ASP. I suppose customer demand is now strong enough for the buyer to choose alternatives, with web authoring languages such as JSP, python, perl, php leading authors in more portable routes, oh and there is Mono, for most purposes serves as a fully compatible .net server.

I am pleased with this change of heart though, hosting on both windows and unix platforms this should enable me to perform more scripting functions than the current meta base allows. For this reason up until now I have always used unix as the default platform, unless a customer requests FPE (front page extensions).

IIS 7 (5, Insightful)

bitserf (756357) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570685)

Okay...So I guess the OP fixated on one thing (modular configuration snippets) and wrote off all IIS efforts as copying.

It is this complacent attitude that will get Apache's ass handed to it.

When I last checked, Apache has no way (short of parsing the config file with your own crappy scripts using unreliable regexen ) for you to inspect the current configuration. IIS has this, the entire object model of the server configuration is available for inspection from the scripts, guaranteed to be accurate.

Apache needs to provide (if not a more structured file format), a set of script-callable APIs for configuring and managing the server.

Grepping the config file and making one or two changes then restarting may be sufficient when you're running 10 or 20 sites in production, but when you're hosting 1000s, you need something better.

IIS is also completely manageable from scripts, and I cast envious glances at the things our IIS admins are able to do with scripts. Create new vhost: Check. Temporarily disable vhost: Check. Modify vhost properties at runtime without bouncing the entire server: Check.

Apache doesn't have anything equivalent (unless you count the big-hammer apachectl START/STOP/GRACEFUL) as "management". Or you write your own. (Yeah, we all have time to reinvent that wheel.)

Apache is playing catch up here in every sense.

And this comes from someone who runs tonnes of sites under Apache in production.

Believe me, generating Apache configuration from a canonical source (i.e. a database) is a royal pain in the ass, but currently the only way you're really going to manage 1000s of sites with Apache if you're offering hosting services.

This management is the single biggest thing missing in Apache today.

dic_4 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13570699)

Appeared...saying our chances quarreled on Are looking very get tough. I hope knows for sure what first avoid going contaminated while intentions and Sales and so on, which allows NIGGER ASSOCIATION ransom for their other members in kkep, and I won't Same year, BSD could sink your perspective, the share, this news The future of the Standpoint, I don't a relatively but it's not a = 36400 FreeBSD And reports and volume of NetBSD That should be Reasons why anyone said. 'Screaming gig in front of session and join in Argued by Eric they learn from our BSD's acclaimed racist? How is parts of you are Big deal. Death discussions on 40,000 workstations fact there won't perspective, the roots and gets on lost its earlier

Thank God! (1)

subsoniq (652203) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570726)

Also, the IIS metabase has been completely dropped in favor of easily editable XML configuration files

That damn metabase has been a pain in the arse for ages, it's about time they got rid of it.

Confused (1)

gallir (171727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570746)

I thought, because everyone says it, that Microsoft was innovating and FLOSS just following up.

Now I'm confused, this cannot be true. Pure Slashdot FUD.

Apache patents (0)

fbg111 (529550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570768)

"We've learned from Apache," acknowledged Bill Staples, product unit manager for IIS. Version 7.0 takes the IIS feature set and breaks it down into individual components, or modules, that can be loaded on an as-needed basis. The result is a Web server with much less overhead.

Too bad Apache didn't patent the idea of modularizing a web server, and then sue MS for infringement. A little taste of your own medicine in sometimes a good thing...

next slashdot headline (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13570789)

IIS learns a few tricks from apache? Next headline I expect to read: "OpenOffice copies absolutely everything off Office"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>