Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Apache down, IIS up

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the falling-sky-repair-dirt-cheap dept.

282

Doctor Memory writes "Netcraft's June 2006 web server survey is out, and it shows IIS taking a dramatic upturn, at the expense of Apache. One of the biggest reasons cited is domain registrar Go Daddy switching to IIS for the domains it "parks". The report does go on to note that IIS is also making solid gains in active sites (including some large blog hosts), and further notes that it appears that large hosting companies are dropping Linux." Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's market share is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.

cancel ×

282 comments

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

probably on Microsoft's list of next important tar (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494933)

Just a thought, but Microsoft is probably as primed as ever to move aggressively on the Web Server market. Why not sooner? For one thing they've been busy locking down or trying to lock down everything else and manage the legal and foreign consortium attacks.

And, the first few generations of IIS weren't hardened. While Microsoft can (and has) dominated markets with non-superior products (not trolling, not saying "inferior", just not the best of breed), Apache got the classical head start on Microsoft, not necessarily (if ever) assurance of ultimate victory.

I've read articles, heard people talk -- it's hard to sort fact from fiction -- but I've heard stories of Microsoft coming in with big dollars and technical help to convert high profile and LARGE targets (Go Daddy, perhaps?) to their Web Server technology.

How do you resist that? If I had a large company and had ANY issues with Apache (who doesn't have any issues with any technology?, there's always something), I'd find it tempting to accept overtures from Microsoft.... "We'll come in and convert you to IIS, AND we'll help you do it, AND we'll give you money. All you have to do is brag on it in return."

I cringe just a little when I hear reassurances like (from the slashdot summary): "but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment..." I remember using that as reason to be confident about the browser market... there was a time when Microsoft IE's share was less than 5%. We all know how that bad boy ended.

If this is what Microsoft is doing (and IMO I suspect it is) this smells of once again abusing their monopoly in OS to extend their control of new markets at the expense of fair competition.

Doesn't seem to matter much if it's true, the current administration (in general) has shown little interest or appetite in reining Microsoft in.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (3, Insightful)

Azarael (896715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494989)

Thankfully, MS can only make so many gains this way. It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over. At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (3, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495054)


I'm afraid I have to disagree.

It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over.

What makes you think they can't? They certainly have the scratch, and as they've shown in the past, they're not at all averse to taking large financial hits to ruin a competitor.

At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.

Sure, until your PHB strolls in and declares that "we're switching to Microsoft!". Remember, Microsoft doesn't have to buy^H^H^Hconvince you, they just have to convince the guy who holds the purse strings.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495131)

At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.

Build a better mouse trap . . .and the world will ignore you.

Market an inferior mouse trap and get rich.

Ever notice that car companies tout the fact that their product is the number one seller in something or other? Why do they do that when what someone else buys doesn't actually have anything to do with my taste and needs?

Because it works. The great masses are herd animals. They instinctively incline to doing what they see others doing. This is an overall positive virtue in a tribe seeking tribal survival. It is also extremely easy to exploit.

Back in the day sysadmins were taken largely from the highly educated, highly cynical, highly independent portion of the population, motivated by their own drummer, the computers themselves. Nowadays most of them are just typical examples of herd members who got into computers because that's what they saw everyone else doing; and, of course, that's "where the money was."

They can be led. And if they can't be led, they can be ordered.

KFG

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495020)

If this is what Microsoft is doing (and IMO I suspect it is) this smells of once again abusing their monopoly in OS to extend their control of new markets at the expense of fair competition.

Going into a business and offering to help convert to IIS isn't abusing its OS monopoly. They don't have anywhere near a monopoly on server OSs anyway. But of course I agree Microsoft is using its financial power and businesses shouldn't be quick to oblige.

Doesn't seem to matter much if it's true, the current administration (in general) has shown little interest or appetite in reining Microsoft in.

In fact one of the very first things Bush did when he entered the White House was remove all of the DOJ lawyers on the Microsoft monopoly case who had any legal experience with monopolies. Young lawyers replaced those already working on the case. And the expert independant counsil was fired without any explanation. Bush intentionally sabotaged the case against Microsoft.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495148)

In fact one of the very first things Bush did when he entered the White House was remove all of the DOJ lawyers on the Microsoft monopoly case who had any legal experience with monopolies.
Could you please provide a link to this information? I was unable to find any.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495342)

In fact one of the very first things Bush did when he entered the White House was remove all of the DOJ lawyers on the Microsoft monopoly case who had any legal experience with monopolies.
Could you please provide a link to this information? I was unable to find any.

Google is your friend. [justfuckinggoogleit.com]

Especially this article from the first page of results: Slap on the wrist? [salon.com] (Salon.com)

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (-1, Troll)

CDarklock (869868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495397)

> businesses shouldn't be quick to oblige

Ever run a business?

You don't have enough money. You don't have enough people. You don't have enough work. And every last thing you have to do in your own house to run your own stuff is taking your people away from the work that pays the bills.

I tried to do the open source thing. I damn near went bankrupt. Then I partnered with Microsoft, and my income went from negative to just short of six figures almost overnight.

The weird thing is that I made every dime of that money working with open source products. But until I was a Microsoft partner, nobody would talk to me. Then I went back to the same companies that turned me down, and the word "Microsoft" somehow meant I was more qualified to work on their LAMP stack applications. Sure, that's retarded. We all know that. But that's the way it happened.

So tell me again how I should have stuck it out and gone down with the company. I go around talking principles and freedom, I go broke. I stick the word "Microsoft" on my marketing materials, and I make money. Go ahead. Argue with that. Tell me how I should have been happy to lose my house, my car, every dime of my savings, and all the other crap I would have lost riding the open source handbasket.

Microsoft saved my ass. Open source just kicked it. Screw you people, I know who butters my bread.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (4, Informative)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495460)

Uhh...you don't run your own business. You work for Microsoft (at least, according to your blog). Don't astroturf; it's unprofessional.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (2, Funny)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495077)

"We'll come in and convert you to IIS, AND we'll help you do it, AND we'll give you money. All you have to do is brag on it in return."

Catch 22 [imdb.com]

Lt. Col. Korn, XO: All you have to do is be our pal.

Colonel Cathcart: Say nice things about us.

Lt. Col. Korn, XO: Tell the folks at home what a good job we're doing. Take our offer...

Colonel Cathcart: Either that or a court-martial for desertion.

Just look at the graph (3, Interesting)

Thaddeus (14369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495107)

Microsoft's share was closer to Apache's in March of 2002 than it is now. There's no reason to believe it won't plateau or drop off again. There's not even a trend yet (like there was back then) that can lend itself to predictions.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (2, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495117)

I cringe just a little when I hear reassurances like (from the slashdot summary): "but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment..."

Personally, I cringe when I see editors making comments like that up there on the summary, rather than down here with the rest of us.

Apart from that, I agree with you; if one is serious about trying to keep IIS out of the web server business (for whatever reason), then the time to be complacent is when it no longer exists.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (4, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495173)

For the most part, the general Internet hosting market is pretty much the worthless segement of the market. Yes, this is an area where Apache/LAMP dominates, but mainly only because it's cheap for ISPs to offer the services and there's a ton of pre-cooked forum/ecomm/blog packages out there.

When you get into custom developed sites, there's a few things to note -- (A) A large percentage run behind firewalls and will never be counted by Netcraft. (B) People tend to use Java or .NET much more often than Perl or PHP. (C) IIS is very very common on the Intranet, even for Java stuff.

The truth is nobody cares what GoDaddy uses to park domains. Maybe it's a technical test of IIS in some fashion, but is it really worth it for Microsoft to convert sites that aren't doing anything? Windows/IIS will never compete in the $20/month free PHP package market, so it's not really worth bothering about.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (3, Insightful)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495193)

Apache is easy to use. There are a billion and one admins who know how to configure it. It's fast, extensible, and runs on Windows to boot. Why the hell would you want to run IIS if you're already running Apache? I have worked extensively in the hosting industry, and let me say that customers on IIS + ASP have many, many more problems than those running on an Apache + PHP/Perl based system.

In a web server environment, Windows costs more than Linux, period. Administration is more complex, downtime is more frequent (Windows requires you to reboot for a large number of security fixes,) site intrusions more destructive and harder to remove, and Windows Server 2003 gets very expensive in a server farm. Web hosting is a bottom dollar business; companies are trying to reduce IT costs, not raise them.

Windows is well suited for many environments. Web hosting is not one of them.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (4, Interesting)

mikecouk (556182) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495285)

Where I've worked in the past, it seems that the Web Server of choice follows the Application Server of choice.
If management find a great application that cheaper to run, and maybe has a great support contract at a low price, they buy into the idea, and don't really bother about the fact that they have to move the front end web server technology from say IIS to Apache.
I've been in a situation when a brilliant Apache / Java / Broadvision combination, was replaced by an IIS / .Net solution, just because of what seemed "a good deal" at the time.
However in my particular situation, us "Sys Admins" loved apache so much, we decided to leave it in at the front end, to serve media, protect the front end and internal-proxy the IIS data, and then have IIS as the middle layer just doing the .Net integration part and processing data.
So at the end of the day, Netcraft reports apache, but the real grunt of the work is being done by IIS.

Mike

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495294)

This is classic. IIS is gaining market share over Apache. It's all Bush's fault!

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (1)

shiftoner (158775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495415)

Yeah, That same decision worked out great for Lycos.

Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important (3, Informative)

Fyre2012 (762907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495479)

Perhaps the growing demand/use of asp based web apps has something to do with the marketshare growth as well.

I know that personally, i'd host my asp apps on a Linux box if chillisoft was more common, but it's tricky to find a host with decent support, and all the features needed to run an asp or asp.net.

OMG (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15494937)

First Post!

Fishy... (3, Informative)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494964)


Stumbled across this tidbit from a NewsForge article [newsforge.com] on the Go Daddy move:
The approximately 4.5 million domains that moved are, after all, inactive parked domains -- meaning few people are pointing their browsers at them. As for domains that actually do get Web traffic, plenty of those still remain on Linux at GoDaddy.com, something Microsoft failed to mention in its press release [microsoft.com] last month touting the domain transfer.

So, it appears that IIS is the webserver of choice for websites that don't actually need to be viewed. Hmm...

Also from the NewsForge article:
The obvious question is, did Microsoft pay Go Daddy or offer any incentive to move its parked domains to Windows? Adelman declined to clear up that issue one way or the other. "We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships."

That sounds an awful lot like a 'yes' to me...sure, I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.

So, basically, it looks like Microsoft paid Go Daddy to switch to IIS for their domains, the vast majority of which were parked anyway, in a rather transparent attempt to massage the numbers. Quelle suprise.

Re:Fishy... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495118)

Yes it is interesting. Why would you pay for a system that just parks domains? These are static pages that don't carry much traffic. I have to wonder just how many copies of IIS are running to serve those parked domains? Five maybe?
As everybody with a brain will say, so what? For Microsoft to win this one big they need to get everyone to move to .net and asp. With Ruby on Rails, PHP, and Python being so popular that one may be hard sell.

Re:Fishy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495292)

How does the licencing of IIS work? Do you (normally) have to pay per domain?

Re:Fishy... (1)

m85476585 (884822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495429)

So let's DDoS/Slashdot some parked domains and see what happens!

Re:Fishy... (2, Insightful)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495141)

That sounds an awful lot like a 'yes' to me...sure, I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.

I disagree. The standard response "We can't comment on rumors or speculation" (of which this is a variation) is given regardless of whether the rumor is true or not. Think about it: if a company said "We can't comment on rumors or speculation" when the rumor was true, but clearly said "No" when the rumor was false, they'd be giving it away. So they just say "No comment" to everything, and that way you never know whether it's true or false.

I'm not saying that your implication is correct or incorrect. I'm just saying that his response was perfectly standard, regardless of what the truth is.

Re:Fishy... (2, Insightful)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495302)

"So, basically, it looks like Microsoft paid Go Daddy to switch to IIS for their domains, the vast majority of which were parked anyway, in a rather transparent attempt to massage the numbers. Quelle suprise."

Or maybe Godaddy just wants to experiment with IIS and is starting with non-critical systems. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than this all being a crazy conspiracy.

Re:Fishy... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495410)

I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.

This is not an uncommon practice in the software industry. Some call it a "competitive upgrade discount," where you get kickbacks for switching from XYZ software to my software. Anyone who works with IT vendors in a large-ish corporate environment has played the NetWare, Linux, Notes, Oracle, etc. card with their regional MS rep.

Microsoft has a history of almost giving away Windows to corporations because they know you will come back for Server, Exchange, SQL, etc. That is why, at the end of the day so many corporations are MS shops - it isn't that much more expensive than anything else, and you have the advantage of your workforce already being trained on the OS and Office suite. And cheap(er) IT labor.

The last company I worked for bought the ERP package Navision from Microsoft in part because it is a new product/market for them and they offered a ton of help setting it up and supporting it. They even wrote a $5K check ("Make it Right Funds") post-install when a developer fucked up some of our data and we were down for a day.

Say what you will, but I don't know how this is bad for the consumer.

Wait for it.... (4, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494966)

Yes, Netcraft has confirmed that Apache is now dead. Thank you.

Re:Wait for it.... (2, Informative)

sjwest (948274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495024)

None of our web boxes - all apache 2 (upgraded from 1.3) where being monitored by Netcraft thus it is not definitve imho.

Our .eu hosts where not included either. - Somebodies been getting a cheque from Microsoft i sense....

Re:Wait for it.... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495058)

I spent 7 years of my career building web applications for intranet or private internet usage only; I bet none of those are counted either.

Re:Wait for it.... (1)

PMJ2kx (828679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495087)

I think *BSD just got jealous of the "dying" attention! O.o

Blah Blah (1, Troll)

OxygenPenguin (785248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494975)

Same shit, different day. Wasn't it yesterday that Didiot came out with an anti-Linux statistical analysis?
(Yes, it was).

Let's please get with the "right tool for the right job" program, and start spending our money on innovation and development. I'm just as much of a zealot for open source, GNU/Linux as the next guy, but I'd much rather see our time and energy go into making new technologies.

google (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15494982)

well, after the apache person got hired by google to write GoogleOnLineCalculator and GoogleOnLineMinesweeper, what'd you expect?

GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (3, Insightful)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494986)

Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.

Thank God. Why does it seem like if your favorite server software lost too much market share to Microsoft, you would pretty much be emasculated? Do geeks latch on to software like jocks latch on to sports teams, or what? No matter what is said, it always has to be punctuated by "but my team is the best." Sometimes OSSers have more in common with Christian Evangelicals and cheeseheads than geeks...

Re:GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (5, Insightful)

protohiro1 (590732) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495038)

For people like myself that work in web dev, this isn't religion. Its practical. Most of us have to work on what our employers work on. More gains for IIS mean more chances we have to work with it. If you have experience with apache IIS is like stabbing yourself in the head. If you want any extra features you often have to buy them, everything is managed through the clicky interface from hell and ISAPI hurts my brain. I'm sure that IIS is perfectly capable, but I just don't like it. So when I hear more people are switching it fills me with dread.

Bullshit (1)

melted (227442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495284)

>> If you want any extra features you often have to buy them

Like, for example, what?

>> everything is managed through the clicky interface from hell

Bullshit. You can manage everything from script or even by editing metabase (which is an XML file) or web.config or machine.config by hand.

>> ISAPI hurts my brain

Yeah, it hurt Microsoft developers' brain, too. So now you can do just about anything from ASP.NET which doesn't hurt.

Re:GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (1)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495111)

Apache & IIS are tools. Many of us use those tools as part of our job. It's normal for us to be interested in the popularity of those tools, because the popularity partialy reflects the quality and the future status of those tools. Sun's apache server has 2% of the market -- that

This situation exists in every industry -- there are gearheads who prefer Ford over Chevy, gardeners who prefers Craftsman tools over another brand, or darners who prefer one brand of yarn over another.

With OSS, we also have philosophies and political views which don't always exist in other industries. This adds to the interest ;)

Re:GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495195)

Do geeks latch on to software like jocks latch on to sports teams, or what? No matter what is said, it always has to be punctuated by "but my team is the best."

Do you really need to ask this question? Of course geeks do that. Unless they aren't computer geeks. Star Trek geeks battle over favorite episodes or captains, RPG geeks can't suffer a criticism of "their" game system, and I'm sure some Paleontologists geeks get their knickers in a twist when someone disses their favorite dinosaur, "Tarbosaurus could totally kick Dryptosaurus' ass!" "Could not!" "Could so!"

Sometimes OSSers have more in common with Christian Evangelicals and cheeseheads than geeks...

This is a human thing, most everyone is fundamentalist about something, and most people identify more with a particular group than they do with humanity as a whole. Should geeks be above this kind of thing? Maybe, but very few people have the emotional and moral intelligence to rise above their upbringing.

Re:GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495491)

Maybe, but very few people have the emotional and moral intelligence to rise above their upbringing.

Their upbringing?

"Mary Sue, I don't want you dating that, that, IIS boy."

"But daddy, I love him!"

"By god, this is an Apache house and this is going to stay an Apache house!"

"*crying* Daddy! I love him! Microsoft pays him a big stippend and we're going to move in together!"

"I HAVE NO DAUGHTER!!"

Re:GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495220)

Sometimes OSSers have more in common with Christian Evangelicals and cheeseheads than geeks...

Well, I'd say it's often closer to the former rather than the latter, and for good reason. The difference for many OSSers between open and closed source is an issue of basic liberty, not just cheering for the "home team". More people using OSS means more people who know about OSS, better press for OSS, more people who will be willing to choose OSS, and generally a more OSS-oriented software industry. It's like monitoring human rights in other countries (though obviously not as vital).

What good is that?! (4, Funny)

Dark Coder (66759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15494999)

Oooohhhkay.

So, after much years of expensive research dollars, Microsoft IE server has FINALLY become a highly optimized and finely honed webserver that serves just a single static page?

Most lopsided lie (um,,, I meant statistic) I've ever seen.

Re:What good is that?! (2, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495163)

Microsoft: The number one choice for link farms!

Let's get real (4, Insightful)

astrashe (7452) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495003)

These numbers are meaningless.

What possible difference could it make to me whether godaddy parks domains with IIS or apache? If godaddy's choice moves the stats in a significant way, then the stats aren't meaningful.

Re:Let's get real (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495042)

Market share == Mind share

It makes no technical difference. But when PHBs see numbers dropping for Apache they'll think twice before choosing it.

Re:Let's get real (1, Interesting)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495074)

You are absoltuely correct. Something like 90% of Netcraft is parked domains, vhosted thousands to a single server.

But every single "Security Doesn't Have Anything to Do With Marketshare" argument seems to start with a reference to these meaningless statistics. So, if the statistics shift, the faulty arguments about Linux security are weakened. Therefore it's a huge freaking deal to Linux Zealots.

Bruce Perens got so worked up about these stats, that he's starting a movement for people to park their domains on Linux servers. I wish I was making this up, but sadly it shows you the level of astounding intellect in play in Linux Advocacy circles.

Re:Let's get real (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495081)

There's also the statistic for active sites where IIS went +3% and Apache -3%.

Re:Let's get real (3, Interesting)

Psychotext (262644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495106)

More importantly is why does it matter anyway? X uses what they like, Y uses what they like. Story over.

erm.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495005)

"Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment. "

Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that --INSERT ANOTHER STATISTIC HERE EVEN THOUGH IVE JUST MADE AN INSINUATION THAT STATISTICS ARE TO BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT--

Let me give it a go (5, Funny)

damiena (263598) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495008)

user@internet:~$ sudo apachectl start
Password:
Starting httpd:

OK, try it now.

Apache vs. Linux (3, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495011)

The metrics from Netcraft are hard to read with respect to OS. They don't publish a free OS graph that I've found, and you can't assume that any particular percentage of Apache hosts are running on any particular OS.

All this tells you is that the majority of "sites" (that being a nebulous term) are using Apache on some OS as at least their front-line Web servers. They might still be back-ending to whatever, and that would not show up.

Personally, I don't think you can use Netcraft for any purpose other than to say "IIS and Apache are the most popular Web servers."

Re:Apache vs. Linux (1)

graveyhead (210996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495385)

The metrics from Netcraft are hard to read with respect to OS.
I totally agree [netcraft.com] . I mean the top 3 servers listed in the uptime report are supposedly using a BSD OS running IIS. How likely is that? ;) Anyone from NEC want to tell us what the real story is?

[rant]On an unrelated and slightly offtopic note I'd like to just say here that domain parkers suck hard. I mean, if you figure that there are 1,000,000 words in the English language which are common enough to make good domain names (in reality probably far fewer words). If you assume a per-domain price of 19.95 (which is also probably very high considering godaddy buys names in huge blocks for a discount), the entire English language can be had for $19,950,000. Actually, not really 'can be had' but 'is already had'. I know it would never work but I wish there was a way to force domain name owners to actually use the domains they purchased. These unethical fuckers get paid thousands for *not innovating*. You know what I have to say to that? Well I would tell you but freaking pooponastick.com [pooponastick.com] is already taken :( [/rant]

Whoop De Doo... (1, Troll)

cruiserparts (850633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495013)

Really, seriously, why does this matter? And why is it slashdotted? Should we all convert our servers to IIS because a few big companies did? Post some real news already.

Has the survey been credible in the past? (2, Interesting)

Jerim (872022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495014)

The parent seems to discredit the survey by saying "It is fun to play with statistics." Obviously trying to cast doubt on the numbers by saying that they can be moved around to suite ones needs.

However, since this survey is done monthly, the question is has it been credible in the past? Is the survey only being called in to question over it's validity now, because it reports on good news for Microsoft? Are we really so eager to turn on anything that provides positive news of any kind for Microsoft?

Re:Has the survey been credible in the past? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495130)

Drink your Kool-Aid and shut up.

I've always thought it was credible. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495203)

And I will continue to believe it.

All this shows is that Microsoft also reads it and has decided to make the biggest change in those statistics with the smallest effort.

Last month, there was a 40% difference in marketshare between Apache and IIS.
This month, the difference is 30%.
And it only took half a dozen companies migrating to make that big of a difference.

But that seems to be it. Those were the big players. They've been converted. That's the best Microsoft can do. We'll see how the numbers play out over the next 6 months. Will Microsoft target the more numerous smaller players?

Re:Has the survey been credible in the past? (2, Insightful)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495249)

The parent seems to discredit the survey by saying "It is fun to play with statistics." Obviously trying to cast doubt on the numbers by saying that they can be moved around to suite ones needs.

I don't think that's necessarily what it was saying, just that statistics only say what they say. The statistics are probably 100% accurate in what they're saying, the important thing is to make sure that you don't read too much into them (which people are known to do).

Re:Has the survey been credible in the past? (1)

Ambidisastrous (964023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495304)

Well, the numbers are true, but the reason for those numbers is really shady. Microsoft essentially gave free support for GoDaddy to switch an insane number of parked domains over to IIS, and the only reason for MS to do that that springs to mind is to tweak these numbers.

Microsoft has marketers, while Apache and open source in general have traditionally let statistics and comparisons speak for themselves. Did Apache's lead drop this much in a month just because IIS is so darn good? In this case, it doesn't appear the numbers really are speaking for themselves.

(I think Netcraft usually is reasonably credible and impartial, although seeing this abuse, perhaps it would be more illuminating if the published stats tracked bandwidth served, not number of domains.)

Re:Has the survey been credible in the past? (1)

sfontain (842406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495443)

This is Slashdot. The statistics are only credible when they point out a Microsoft flaw.

And you know what else is up??? (2, Interesting)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495026)

And you know what else is up? IIS exploits hitting my apache log files... :)
I also get a lot of php 'sploits too but I am seeing an increase in IIS "features" hitting my web servers. Wow, to be so popular... sigh.

Re:And you know what else is up??? (1)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495387)

Funny, when it comes to exploits (e.g. - secunia advisories), the IIS6 is doing better than Apache 2...

I don't understand... (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495040)

I personally love Apache. IIS is also a decent alternative, but there's something about apache that is just hard not to love. I think we all know by default that Apache on Linux = Free. IIS + Windows != Free. Seeing as Apache offers no downsides to as compared to IIS (to speak of) i have trouble imagining why this "upturn" is taking place. It's not like IIS suddenly got "better" or that Apache got "worse."

Could the whole GoDaddy deal really be that significant or is there another source?

Yet another unbiased Slashdot posting... (2, Insightful)

sfontain (842406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495046)

Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.

Has anyone else noticed that Slashdot is pretty much incapable of publishing any story with so much as a tiny semblance of being pro-Microsoft without taking some sort of potshot somewhere in the summary?

Re:Yet another unbiased Slashdot posting... (1, Redundant)

Burb (620144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495093)

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:Yet another unbiased Slashdot posting... (2, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495253)

That's because most of us cut our teeth on fixing problems caused by MS incompetence into the wee hours of the night.

We owe no love or respect to them.

Re:Yet another unbiased Slashdot posting... (1)

codzumd (979618) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495401)

./ Parent = OSTG OSTG = OPEN SOURCE technology group. I mean, you have to expext some kind of bias. :-P

Re:Yet another unbiased Slashdot posting... (1)

SoulRider (148285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495486)

yes, and your point is?

Hypocrits (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495059)

So when Microsoft gains some % in market share with IIS all Slashdotters cry out: "This must not be possible", "It isn't true", "These values are meaningless!". Yet when Firefox or some other $INSERT_FAVORITE_OSS_PROJECT gains a couple of % in market share over Microsoft, everyone is cheerful and never doubts the statistics.

Re:Hypocrits (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495247)

In the comments above I don't see anyone denying the statistics. What I do see I suggestions that there might be a sinister reason behind the statistics - i.e. that they might not be just down to a change in user preferences but to the application of vast financial and marketing resources.

For free software, the only thing likely to cause an increase in market share is that it is better than the commercial version.

Manipulating the market doesn't result in better product (which should cause sadness), releasing better a product does (which should cause happiness).

Nothing hypocritical there...

Re:Hypocrits (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495359)

Because Microsoft has been attacking OSS for years now, so the OSS guys shoot down anything pro-Microsoft for fear that it is just another attack on OSS. It is like an abused child not trusting any adults. This is especially true because everybody remembers what happened with Netscape, what happened to Java, and every other product that became a hit before Microsoft set their sights on it. Anything that could potentially indicate that either Microsoft is trying the bandwagon approach again or that Microsoft is gaining ground terrifies the OSS guys.

There are lies... (1)

cabinetsoft (923481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495069)

..., damn lies and statistics -- Mark Twain

Conflicting stats (2, Informative)

ASP (3295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495072)

SecuritySpace.com's web server survey [securityspace.com] . Of course the methodology is different....

Re:Conflicting stats (1)

debiansid (881350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495505)

The sample size is also very different. Netcraft has a sample of over 85 million sites while Security Space has a sample of less than 20 million.

lordy (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495091)

I think the reason a lot of these people use Windows Servers is because they get to point and click on icons, and are somewhat intimidated by a freakin' unix console.. which is fine.. i understand.. however, I bet if they had any clue about great Webadmin programs like Ensim and Plesk, they'd change their minds GREATLY about using Linux, or Unix as a server.. especially since its free.. c'mon.. its not that hard.. essentially you're just pissing your money away..

This doesn't follow my experience (3, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495116)

I can't fathom why large hosting providers would switch unless something is happening under the radar. Even then, I've managed both Apache and IIS. IIS by far requires more of a hands on approach and Apache is far more versatile in what exactly you can do with it.

I've rolled my own self-healing scripts that manage my Apache servers and warn me if something is amiss. Our IIS servers can be a pain at times...

Apache's marketshare is approximately 100% higher (1)

Filter (6719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495121)

note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment

Microsoft 29.7%

Apache 61.25%

Apache has more than twice the marketshare of Microsoft.

That's the way I see it.
 

Subtraction, not division. (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495466)

61.25%-29.7%=31.55%. That's the trouble when one compares percentages. :-)

a much more interesting statistic would be.. (1)

gonar (78767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495123)

a much more interesting statistic would be the percent of actual web traffic served by server type and average traffic by server type _not_ including "parked" domains.

"total websites hosted" is meaningless, as I could set up a hosting/registrar company, park ten bazillion domains and offer to sell my domain parking service to the highest bidding server vendor (or just pick my favorite (KHTTPD? matchbox-PIC-server?????) to screw the other guys.

Why are blog hosts counted individually? (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495124)

*.blogspot.com should be counted as together, same with typepad.com. With all of the spam blogs created to boost google rankings, these should be counted collectively so as to err on the side of caution.

Or then again, (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495139)

While GoDaddy moving all their parked domains to IIS certainly muddies the water, is it possible that .NET is actually starting to get some traction?
/ducks

Re:Or then again, (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495291)

Erm, on the web side, .NET has had some serious traction for years now. Many websites - intranets and publically-facing Internet sites - use ASP.NET. And for those who want to hate Microsoft, you can use this for ammunition - MySpace uses ASP.NET [asp.net] to power those pretty, accessible, user-friendly web pages.

Scalibility (1, Interesting)

Aslan72 (647654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495162)

IIS may be up but the question of scaliblity just is hard to beat for them. My experience and those of friends who are responsible for larger installations is that IIS just can't handle the performance that apache can. It's a fine server (except for 5.0 *cough* *cough*) but when you're ready to play in the big leagues apache is the only way to go...

but then again I'm preaching to the choir

what's ironic... (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495225)

When Intel's market share vastly outstrips AMD's, the anti-Wintel crowd cheers loudly about AMD's solid gains at Intel's expense.

When IIS makes solid gains in market share at the expense of Apache, the same crowd cheers loudly about how Apache still has 30% more share.

Guess it's all about the spin.

Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Shadowlore (10860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495229)

Seriously. Who cares about parked domains and what they are on. Parked domains are nothing more than a PR tool. A parked domain coudl be served from a dead simple serve-only-the-parked-page custom binary/script. Anybody relying or relishing how many domains are parked on their software has issues. Particularly since it wouldn't take much for a registrar to "park" a very high number of domains on whatever combo they wished. About the only interesting stat in the Netcraft report is that a little more than half of all "domains" are "parked". Half the domains on the web are nothing more than "for sale" signs by domain name speculators and entities who couldn't buy real webspace.

For those who actually care or might need to know which software serves up the most active domains, a report on just those is more beneficial.

Even then, why does anyone care how many domains are on what software? After all, a domain could be served up by multiple machines running different OS/Software combinations. So those numbers wouldn't be accurate either. Further, for those who may need to know "what server is best" these numbers only add confusion due to irrelevance. If you are setting up a truly large site, you'd better already know your stuff and don't need this kind of 'data'. The only data of this type that would be useful to you would be what the really busy sites run. Even then it also depends on active vs. dynamic.

As far as hostnames running a given OS, this too is not valuable due to key factor assumptions. The assumption underlying this statistic is that more is better. This is beyond mere OS capability. All hosts are not equal. A Linux box running a website(s) on 400MHz Pentium is not comparable to a Windows box on say a DL580, or vica versa. Regardless of OS in this case the DL580 will be capable of serving "more" of whatever it is serving.

The Netcraft web server report is a curious statistic and should be taken as nothing more.

Re:Who cares? (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495369)

Seriously. Who cares about parked domains and what they are on.

Everybody cared when they were all on Linux, now that some of them are on ISS we have decided to stop caring?

I love the retoric here (2, Insightful)

therealking (223121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495236)

When netcraft numbers favor Apache/open source, the streamers fly and there's nothing but back patting on how this proves {insert open source alternative here} is a better product.

But soon as MS gets some positive numbers. "OH THOSE ARE ALL INFLATED NUMBERS THAT MEAN NOTHING!"

Guys pick a standard to hold things too and stick to it.

Personally I don't care who's on top, long as what I use works for me.

Bleah to IIS (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495240)

Two of us in the I.T. group here are windows people who have transitioned to the Linux side. Both of us can't stand IIS. Even the more hardened versions have problems because they delve so deeply into the operating system.

Apache doesn't. Just set it run as u/g nobody and mostly forget about it.

Could it be that RHEL costs more than 2003? (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495258)

Granted, going with Scientific Linux or CentOS (or migrating to other gratis distros if you don't need locked-in 3rd party stuff like Oracle) brings the cost back down, but with orgs demanding 'official' support (after expanding enough to get non-hacker managers involved) getting 'legal' with RH can get verrrry pricey...

Confess to anything (2, Insightful)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495273)

"If you torture data long enough, it will confess to anything."

I don't know who said this originally, but it's a great comment.

Be Fair.. (1, Interesting)

DoctorDyna (828525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495280)

If we're leaving out spammy sites from being counted for IIS, shouldn't we leave out spammy sites that count for Apache? While were at it, leave out the MILLIONS of PORN sites that HAVE to be ran on Apache, because 99% of the major payment processors need to use .htaccess files, along with the payment gateway's CGI scripts to update user information when sombody signs up. Shouldn't that fit into "being counted unfairly", simply because PORN hosts are too lazy to use something cross-platform? Seriously, do some research, call some porn credit card processing companies and ask (iBill, CCBill, Paycom) and ask them which hosting platform they support.

I really don't care which is the winner here, I just don't like un-fairness. Im not trying to be shitty, I'm asking a legit question here. Let Apache loose some market share, then you might have a reason for your hearts to bleed.

I'd rather think Web edition is a large cause... (1)

millisa (151093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495290)

You used to have to buy the advanced server version of windows to get the load balancing (WLBS). It was significantly more expensive than standard edition. Now, you can buy 2003 web edition, which gives you the latest and greatest, it has all the stuff to do load balancing a couple systems, and the price is the cheapest of all the 2003 server OS's (~500 bucks retail). So, for 1000 in licensing, you can get a load balanced webserver setup. This will (and does) appeal to plenty of people out there.

Linux is good. LVS is great. But I would never say setting these up are easy for someone who doesn't have more than a little experience with Linux and networking. Setting up the new WLBS stuff on 2003 web edition is doable by most developers who come from a MS world...

I'm not advocating WLBS use, there's plenty of things wrong with it and I've had issues with it scaling up to 10+ servers (which is why where I *do* have 2003 web servers, they are fronted by LVS for balancing), I'm just saying that the pricepoint and ease of setup has to effect the marketshare...

Could also be because IIS is easy to get running. (1)

also-rr (980579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495297)

Should you have a Windows machine installing IIS is a doddle. (Installing and getting it to display a web page that is - not running it secureley).

Compare this to the http://www.revis.co.uk/site/?q=node/2 [revis.co.uk] Apache+PHP+MySQL steps that one normally sees. It''s not hard, but its very alien to a Windows user.

Thankfully projects like http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html [apachefriends.org] xampp are making life easier - well, not exactly easier, but rather acting in the way that Windows users expect these things to act. It'll help home users get to grips with it, and a large base of semi-skilled amateurs makes for a bigger pool of potential professionals and higher penetration in the long run.

C# (1)

IainMH (176964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495310)

I think at least a significant portion of this is down to the continued success of C#.

Stupid Slashdroids (2, Interesting)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495336)

Unless you live under a rock you should know that Windows server sales are higher volume than Linux servers (source [eweek.com] ). Since many of the Windows servers are used internally one could say IIS has been traditionally under-represented in the Netcraft survey.

Now they win over a domain parking service and everyone want to say the statistics are unfairly in their favor? What about all the years those statistics worked against them, I didn't see you complaining then.

I like to work with Apache, but 2k3 server is a large improvement from MS. If MS finally getting their act together on the server front means they win back some of the "Netcraft share" than great.

ARGH! (1)

ajlea2k (931096) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495365)

Is anyone else tired of these pointless pissing contests? IIS is up, Apache down. Apache is down, IIS is up. Apache is up, IIS is down. IIS is down, Apache is up. There that about covers it! It's the same with all the other pointless stories about Windows vs. Linux, PHP vs. .Net, etc. Let's move on shall we?

Be consistent, not self-assuring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495393)

Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.

Well, I never saw you making such a statement each time Firefox's usage is reported as growing when compared to IE's.

What an easy -speaking blabber, like Bush speeches (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495399)

it shows IIS taking a dramatic upturn at the expense of Apache.

The report does go on to note that IIS is also making solid gains in active sites (including some large blog hosts), and further notes that it appears that large hosting companies are dropping Linux." Check out the bold words above.

Noticed how similar do they sound like Bush's crapola 'address to nation' speeches, with so called 'strong' words ?

Not only vague and generic, but also giving a 'solid','definitive' direction to the paragraph.

Well, im in hosting since 2003, im member and contributor to biggest hosting communities on the face of the planet, and i can say that linux hosting has become a phenomenon in the last years, leave aside losing ground. And in contrast to 'some big blog sites', there are HORDES of big blog sites running over linux boxes, and that is everyday increasing.

People should know their shit, if they want to talk about it.

Re:What an easy -speaking blabber, like Bush speec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15495476)

People should know their shit, if they want to talk about it.
Totally. I mean, it's not like Netcraft's been doing this since 1995 [netcraft.com] or anything.

It's happening again. (2, Funny)

mikalveli (978602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495444)

Now it's only a matter of time before the Apache are forced to live within reservations while their former home lands are turned into McDonald's and Best Buy lined freeways all running IIS. Really sad.

If Netcraft confirms it... (1)

Garabito (720521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495463)

then Apache is diying.

Egypt and /.ers (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495520)

What do they have in common you might ask? Well as this article clearly shows... they both are dominated by denial.
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>