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!

Netcraft Says IIS Gaining on Apache

CmdrTaco posted about 7 years ago | from the trolls-rejoice-in-netcraft-story dept.

666

benjymouse quotes this month's netcraft survey "In the August 2007 survey we received responses from 127,961,479 sites, an increase of 2.3 million sites from last month. Microsoft continues to increase its web server market share, adding 2.6 million sites this month as Apache loses 991K hostnames. As a result, Windows improves its market share by 1.4% to 34.2%, while Apache slips by 1.7% to 48.4%. Microsoft's recent gains raise the prospect that Windows may soon challenge Apache's leadership position."

cancel ×

666 comments

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

Should be tagged with haha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129647)

/No Text/

Re:Should be tagged with haha (1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | about 7 years ago | (#20130109)

/No Text/

I think you meant:

// no

or

/* no */

Of course, I have to laugh along with you because IIS topping LAMP is simply absurd. I've seen a few moves in this direction, but they are always some kind of top-down brain death that lessens reliability and features. In any competitive environment, where people are competent, IIS does not stand a chance.

Google Web Server (2, Interesting)

Major Blud (789630) | about 7 years ago | (#20129651)

The article refers to Google as being one of the web server providers. Is Netcraft referring to the Google Web Toolkit, or is there actually a Google web server that I don't know about?

Re:Google Web Server (4, Informative)

Leffe (686621) | about 7 years ago | (#20129681)

With this month's survey, Netcraft has begun tracking Google's custom web server software known as GFE (Google Front End), which is currently found on 2.7 million hostnames, or 2.3% of all sites. Google customizes its web infrastructure, with in-house solutions for software and hardware, including energy-efficient servers and power supplies. GFE is the server found on Blogger sites at blogspot.com, while Google uses GWS (Google Web Server) on some other services, although none with the volume of hostnames seen at Blogger.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/01/may_2 007_web_server_survey.html [netcraft.com]

Re:Google Web Server (1)

Major Blud (789630) | about 7 years ago | (#20129717)

Ah, didn't think to look back at May. Thanks for the info.

IIS dying out in Germany (5, Informative)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | about 7 years ago | (#20130069)

There is also a serious discrepancy in that other stats seem to show IIS on the last moments of extinction [securityspace.com] in hi-tech zones like Germany. NetCraft report doesn't really have any explanation of the figures it presents.

What's really problematic is that over time NetCraft has become less informative. No mention has been made lately of what the changes in market share are attributed to. In years past, even a percent or two got a few lines of explanation or analysis. Did one of the service packs or 'security' upgrades install and turn on IIS for all Windows users? Or are more domain parkers and cybersquatters using IIS in the server identification string?

This downturn started last year when MS paid GoDaddy to swap out (or claim to swap out) its domain parking. GoDaddy did get the OSS community to lay off by throwing some chump change to OpenSSH and we can see the result of these last 12+ months. The money did some good, but if it's just a one-off donation, then it's questionable whether then benefit offsets the harm. Either way it's funny to see GoDaddy decision makers thinking they can buy indulgences [thehostingnews.com] . Maybe it ought to become an annual fee.

GoDaddy and the like? (4, Interesting)

dsginter (104154) | about 7 years ago | (#20129657)

Is this the possible result of Microsoft converting Godaddy's parked domains [microsoft.com] to Windows servers?

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129731)

Of course.. Microsoft has not gained any legitimate share of the market. That is at least what Microsoft wants you to believe.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129755)

That is an interesting point. How many of them are "parked" domains and how many are active sites? ANY web server can handle 5000 inactive URLs pointing to flunky advertising sites. I would like to see those states with the domain registrars excluded.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 years ago | (#20129839)

If that's the methodology, then the more obvious solution is to base any statistics on IP address, and not on sites. Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would use a "site" as the primary means of doing web server counts.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (3, Insightful)

hab136 (30884) | about 7 years ago | (#20129943)

If that's the methodology, then the more obvious solution is to base any statistics on IP address, and not on sites. Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would use a "site" as the primary means of doing web server counts.

Many legitimate hosting sites use a handful of IPs for hundreds or thousands of sites. Counting by IP isn't valid.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129761)

I use GoDaddy as a host and I always specify Windows based hosting even for the Economy sites.

I just enjoy knowing that my web server was designed by professionals and backed by a well known corporation.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129821)

I just enjoy knowing that my web server was designed by idiots and backed by a well known monopolist.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129989)

In fairness to the GP post, his statement is accurate. People were paid to develop IIS and therefore can be called professionals and MS is a well known name. If that makes him sleep better at night and doesn't mind throwing his money around for that solution and its artificial restrictions, so be it.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20130043)

I'm not wrong either though. They are idiots and a convicted monopolists.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20130075)

No, you ARE wrong; they aren't idiots. They have some of the smartest people anywhere.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#20130067)

In fairness to the GP post, his statement is accurate. People were paid to develop IIS and therefore can be called professionals and MS is a well known name. If that makes him sleep better at night and doesn't mind throwing his money around for that solution and its artificial restrictions, so be it.


People were paid to develop Apache. Open source != everybody worked for free.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (2, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | about 7 years ago | (#20130097)

Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 7 years ago | (#20130113)

also Microsoft professionals created the IT infrastructure that has caused billions of dollars in malware-related downtime, and degraded to useless performance of infested machines. Thank you Bill Gates, you've fucked up more businesses than any world war.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129879)

That's basically saying that you're not a professional, so you have to rely on a corporation and their professionals that you feel comfortable with trusting. Fine for you, but that doesn't mean it's the best product.

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (1)

Smortex (876779) | about 7 years ago | (#20129795)

As far as I remember, Netcraft talked about this a few month ago when releasing the results of a previous survey.

Btw, is the "technology platform that is security-enhanced" they speak about the same used on this page? If yes, sure it's secured: the page links point to "C:\..." and only those who have the static pages of microsoft.com on their hard disk (and running windows) can expect securely browsing the "presspass" corner :)

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (3, Interesting)

the_mighty_$ (726261) | about 7 years ago | (#20129825)

I don't think parked domains are considered "active servers." The Netcraft stats show that IIS is gaining ground against Apache even faster among active servers than nonactive servers (see this graph [netcraft.com] ). Godaddy switching to IIS would not explain that.

Or am I misunderstanding what "active servers" are?

Re:GoDaddy and the like? (4, Funny)

OriginalArlen (726444) | about 7 years ago | (#20129955)

Not likely - if you look at the Netcraft charts, you can see the decline's been steady and consistent for several months (6-9-12 or so IIRC. No, I haven't read the article yet because I was only looking at the Netcraft survey & getting depressed a couple of months back, and I know that I'll be mightily cheered up by the comments in a few hours' time -- the lame humour, I-for-one, accusations of M$-funded FUD, assertions that it's because Windows shops are all full of fules and madmen... and so on. That really gives me hope that Free software will triumph in the end.

What?! (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | about 7 years ago | (#20129659)

Is there any compelling reason _not_ to use apache?! o.O

Re:What?! (5, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 7 years ago | (#20129705)

People (I.T. guys included) will almost always go with what they are comfortable with. IIS is very easy to configure and you could have a Windows Server up and running in no time. With Apache, it's not so simple. Modifying text files gives the admins great control over nearly everything; but it's not so simple. And some n00b admin couldn't exactly master Apache in a weekend like they could IIS.

I personally use Apache on my servers. But I could also take my good old time configuring them because I'm not planning on making any money from them.

Re:What?! (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#20129781)

The sheer usefulness of mod_rewrite makes up for all that imho.

Re:What?! (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#20129965)

Modifying text files gives the admins great control over nearly everything; but it's not so simple.
You can say that again. The pseudo-XML in httpd.conf makes me long for something nice and simple like sendmail.mc...

Re:What?! (3, Insightful)

ameoba (173803) | about 7 years ago | (#20130033)

some n00b admin couldn't exactly master Apache in a weekend like they could IIS.


A "n00b admin" isn't going to be able to master anything in a weekend. They might figure out how to set something up & get it working but mastery is a long ways off.

Re:What?! (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | about 7 years ago | (#20130083)

Agreed. Maybe "master" was a poor choice of a word. Maybe "become familiar enough to do useful things with" would be better.

Re:What?! (1, Informative)

zig007 (1097227) | about 7 years ago | (#20130107)

Easier to configure IIS than apache?
Hell no, i use webmin for that(unless tweaking is needed). Can't get much easier.

No one "masters" IIS in one week.
In many ways, IIS is way more complex and difficult than Apache.

Apache, on the other hand, has a certain "way" everything is done. If one bother to RTFM and learn that "way", one can actually "master" apache in a weekend. Or at least be securely productive.

IIS has one way for each thing and it is relatively common for different parts to conflict with each other.

Security on IIS is really hard. It is really easy to forget some obscure setting, because of all those damn tabs.

Troubleshooting an IIS server is also really hard. Its logging plain sucks(although it has gotten better) and almost the entire operating system is involved in answering a regular http-request. Also, i have on 2 or 3 occasions had its settings database go corrupt on me. Which is fantastically difficult to deduce since things just slowly deteriorates for no apparent/actual reason.

And, sometimes, when for example the permissioning subsystem crashes(aaaaaarrrrgghh..), only a reboot works. Great.

Re:What?! (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | about 7 years ago | (#20129709)

At least in higher education, you sometimes find yourself having to run 3rd-party software that requires IIS. In a nutshell we do all our in-house development on pure LAMP, but departments tend to buy commercial software that won't run on LAMP at all. This same software tends to own/modify/taint the IIS machines so they become single-purposed windows servers. Hopefully Vmware ESX is gonna tame that beast sooner or later for us.


Michael

Re:What?! (2, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#20129711)

IIS comes with Windows servers and has an easy configuration GUI?

Easy? (2, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | about 7 years ago | (#20129837)

...and has an easy configuration GUI

Based on my experience with MS products, GUIs make really shitty configuration interfaces. You have to click all over the place to set things up, and there is no way to look at very many of the options at a time when they are spread across multiple tabs. Fine when you are following a "run sheet", but a total nightmare when you are trying to troubleshoot something.

Have you ever actually used the IIS or Exchange (or even Outlook) configuration GUI? <shudder>

Re:Easy? (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about 7 years ago | (#20129903)

Have you ever actually used the IIS or Exchange (or even Outlook) configuration GUI?

Yes, and to me it's easier to see/find stuff then when I have to scroll for miles through the config files on my apache servers. To each his own.

Re:Easy? (2, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | about 7 years ago | (#20130011)

to me it's easier to see/find stuff then when I have to scroll for miles through the config files on my apache servers

Not a very convincing argument.

First, text editors have this really nifty feature called "search". Takes you right to the string that you request.

Second, what if I want to see/verify all settings? What if I want to make sure that Server B is configured exactly the same as Server A? Much easier to scroll through (or diff) a config file than to click on every single frigging tab and subdialog, remembering which ones I have looked at and what they were set to.

Yes, to each his own, but anyone who has done anything beyond setting up a single web server once, curses the MS GUI configuration interfaces.

Re:Easy? (1, Troll)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about 7 years ago | (#20130099)

Not a very convincing argument.

You are mistakenly thinking I am trying to convince you what to use. I don't care what you use. I was explaining what was easier to ME.

First, text editors have this really nifty feature called "search". Takes you right to the string that you request.

And if I'm not sure what the key work is I'm supposed to be searching for because I haven't touched the config file in a few months? The tabbed headings make it easier to find things for me in that case.

Second, what if I want to see/verify all settings? What if I want to make sure that Server B is configured exactly the same as Server A? Much easier to scroll through (or diff) a config file than to click on every single frigging tab and subdialog, remembering which ones I have looked at and what they were set to.

That's very true, and if for some reason I wanted to compare settings of several of my web servers that might be handy. I just never seem to need to do that.

Yes, to each his own, but anyone who has done anything beyond setting up a single web server once, curses the MS GUI configuration interfaces.

Patently and untrue and a troll. I've set up a good number of both Windows/Linux/BSD/MacOS web servers and I don't curse the MS GUI.

Re:Easy? (1)

quanticle (843097) | about 7 years ago | (#20130025)

Why are you scrolling. The entire point of storing configuration in a text file is that you can search (using your favorite text editor's find feature) for the exact option you need. With GUI's searching for a specific option isn't simple if you haven't written down the exact menu path that you went down last time.

Re:Easy? (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 7 years ago | (#20130071)

If you are "scrolling for miles through the config files" I would strongly suggest learning how to use your editor (the "Find" function), and how to use separated configuration files for apache.

Work smarter, not harder.

Re:Easy? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 7 years ago | (#20130133)

Enough of that nonsense, unless you have a 10,000 line display, you don't see ALL the options on one screen editing a text file. Nevermind how easy it is to have an error by typo.

Yes, I've been using IIS for about eight years now and have always been able to easly find the options I need. I also now run exchange / outlook. 95% of the time I can find what I need without even consulting the documentation. Not true with Apache (or linux in general). That's one of the reasons I swtiched my servers to Windows; it was much easier to manange.

Re:What?! (2, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | about 7 years ago | (#20129729)

There is, in fact, a reason not to use Apache.

The configuration/managment tools suck. In fact, they're mostly non-existent. To get the most out of Apache, you are going to be editing configuration files by hand.

Now, don't get me wrong, Apache is great, and dealing with the configuration issues is not THAT difficult, and the benefits are worth the effort. But MAN. IIS is *so* much easier to deal with when it comes to 99% of the configuration duties that you need to do on a web server. The defaults are sane, almost everything just takes a few clicks to set up.

Now, if you want to AUTOMATE configuration of your webserver, obviously IIS royally sucks compared to Apache. But for clarity and simplicity of configuration, IIS wins by a mile. It's not even close.

Re:What?! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#20129819)

To get the most out of Apache, you are going to be editing configuration files by hand.


So? The config files are drop-dead easy. Easier than poking your way through a GUI maze, IMHO.

Re:What?! (1)

masdog (794316) | about 7 years ago | (#20129933)

So? The config files are drop-dead easy. Easier than poking your way through a GUI maze, IMHO.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people love config files and text editors, others find GUIs, even the poor ones, easier to use. That all comes down to personal preference.

Re:What?! (1)

certain death (947081) | about 7 years ago | (#20129835)

The defaults are NOT sane. Would you enable 40/128 encryption if it were up to you? I know I would not. Would you setup a default website that any idiot can put on the internet that allows control over the very same webserver via a web interface? Nope, Not me...need I say more, or is that enough?

Re:What?! (1, Troll)

Tuoqui (1091447) | about 7 years ago | (#20129841)

So if the Apache team makes a GUI option for configurations then it would probably start gaining the lost market share back?

Also the only other reason I can imagine a windows machine to be running IIS in comparison to Linux with Apache is if you're a smaller company with only a few windows servers and cant really afford extra dedicated server hardware.

Re:What?! (2, Interesting)

Conor Turton (639827) | about 7 years ago | (#20129983)

So if the Apache team makes a GUI option for configurations then it would probably start gaining the lost market share back?

Only as long as they don't get the same GUI team that The GIMP project uses. People wouldn't just be crawling away from Apache, they'd be running.

Seriously, some FOSS projects need to get more serious about the front ends. Editing config files by hand is so 1990's. Maybe that's why FOSS doesn't get taken as seriously as it should, because it looks like it harps back to DOS days.

Re:What?! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 7 years ago | (#20130015)

You can run Apache on Windows. A (good) Windows configuration tool would probably help deployment on Windows a lot.

Re:What?! (4, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 7 years ago | (#20129987)

Having used both extensively over the past 10 years, IMHO 90% of the config tasks are easier with IIS for a non-expert, but
5% are MUCH harder, and the remaining 5% you just can't do at all. Period. It's that 5% that makes IIS a non-option for me personally. For some of the sites we host, either server would work fine, but in those cases, there is no reason to pay a license fee for IIS.

One of the other benefits of having worked with both apache and IIS is that that 90% of what is normally easier in IIS really isn't if you develop internal tools to do that work for apache. In fact, a single web page with just a few fields on it runs a script that sets up DNS, apache, firewall, database, chroot jail, and optionally even an entire virtual machine, fully configured and running.

It's just "by default" those scripts are not included with Apache like they are with IIS.

Also, once you learn the Apache syntax and understand how things work, it turns out that using an editor isn't any harder than the IIS GUI. In fact, it's usually MUCH easier/faster for anything repetitive.

Re:What?! (1)

quanticle (843097) | about 7 years ago | (#20130061)

The other problem with GUI configuration is debugging. With text-based configuration you can grep or use a text editor to search for the setting you want to change. Searching for a particular setting with a GUI is more difficult unless you have a photographic memory and can remember the exact location of the checkbox/radiobutton/whatever that needs to be changed.

Re:What?! (4, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | about 7 years ago | (#20129907)

Is there any compelling reason _not_ to use apache?! o.O

If you are using Visual Studio dotNet as your development environment you are not going to find Apache works too well.

The netcraft survey is bunk because it measures a quantity that has always been irrelevant. In the past the market share of Apache was artificially inflated because most parked domains would sit on Apache boxes. Now Microsoft has identified that as an issue they are starting to get the advantage.

The quantity of interest is not who supplies the Web server but what the development platform is. As a practical matter any code of interest can run on ISS but rather less can run on Apache and less again on LAMP.

And there is no guarantee that the code engine will be visible in any case. You could easily have an IIS back end written in dotNET being served up through a squid front end.

And the rate of use says nothing as to whether the software is any damn good. There are still plenty of FORTRAN and COBOL coders even though the languages are abysmal.

Re:What?! (2, Informative)

aldousd666 (640240) | about 7 years ago | (#20129941)

At present .NET seems to be gaining ground as a platform. I know that apache supports some version of it, but if companies are looking to take advantage of all of the benefits of .net and the new WCF (like IIS hosted WCF services, which are as easy to set up as a config file,) then they probably go with something they can phone up support and get covered on. Also, with using Microsoft for .net there is no waiting for the Mono to get feature X covered. I think between ASP.NET ajax, and .NET 3.0, a lot of folks are looking at IIS as a viable option. Not that there aren't better things offered by apache, but if I were guessing, and I am, I'd guess this is the reason you'll see an upsurge. Sharepoint 2007 hosting may also have some contribution to this set of numbers as well. I don't think people really know what's good for them most of the time, which is why you see everyone always taking the path that's of least resistance (today,) and at the moment, for asp.net apps, that's IIS.

The important question is (0, Offtopic)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | about 7 years ago | (#20129683)

BSD is still dead?

Re:The important question is (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 7 years ago | (#20129777)

BSD is still dead?


No. Thanks to a few necromancers, BSD is now officially undead. Netcraft confirms it!

My server (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129689)

My apache server response is Microsoft IIS 7.0. So what?

// Artem S. Tashkinov

Sooo.... (2, Funny)

yoprst (944706) | about 7 years ago | (#20129691)

Netcraft confirms it?

Re:Sooo.... (1)

maino82 (851720) | about 7 years ago | (#20130123)

Yes, but unfortunately I have yet to see where Netcraft confirms that Netcraft has confirmed it. So, take this with a grain of salt.

From the person above (5, Interesting)

JeremyGNJ (1102465) | about 7 years ago | (#20129703)

The person above asked if there's any compelling reason not to use apache.

I think the question to ask is if there's any compelling reason not to use IIS. I'm sure people will spew "because it's Microsoft and you dont want your website hacked", but that's not what I'm talking about. IIS has had some problems in the past, but these days it's pretty good.

The question is when an organization already has an investment in Windows, and local domains, management tools etc....is there any reason not to use IIS? Does apache provide anything above and beyond what IIS provides when it comes to general website hosting?

Re:From the person above (2, Interesting)

mwilliamson (672411) | about 7 years ago | (#20129735)

Running PHP/MySQL/PERL/PostgreSQL on windows is a pain in the butt. There is no automatic update mechanism like you get with almost any linux distribution, integration is poor, and support is almost entirely for running PHP/MySQL/PERL/PostgreSQL is for Linux.

Re:From the person above (1)

JeremyGNJ (1102465) | about 7 years ago | (#20129779)

That might be a valid point *IF* you're using php and mysql. I was just talking about Apache vs IIS. If you count entire platform: Apache/PHP/mySQL and compare it to IIS/ASP/SQL (SQL Express), is there any compelling reason to chose one or the other?

Re:From the person above (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 years ago | (#20129823)

So you mean; is there any compelling reason to use Apache when all you are doing is serving static HTML files? I guess not.

Re:From the person above (4, Informative)

mwilliamson (672411) | about 7 years ago | (#20129861)

Yes, I'd say the proper choice would be to match the talent you have on your development team with the tools required to build the desired product. It wouldn't make sense to force a bunch of LAMP developers to switch to IIS/Windows/MSSQL just to become a "pure windows shop". It also would make no sense to force a team of IIS/ASP/DNET developers onto LAMP just to change OSes. At my place of work we have both, and neither is going to take over the other.

Re:From the person above (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#20129863)

If perl/php are your languages of choice, then that's pretty compelling, no?

Re:From the person above (5, Informative)

liquidpele (663430) | about 7 years ago | (#20130089)

Reasons to use Apache:
1. It runs on any OS, so you are not tied down to windows. Don't read that as flamebait, it's a long-term general concern because if the next windows version is not something you want to have to buy, well that's too bad since support will end eventually. All the people running windows NT servers figured that out a few years ago.
2. Apache Modules here [apache.org] .
There is quite a list.
3. Easy to mass-install, easy to backup configuration, easy to clone configuration, etc.
4. Just as easy to upgrade as IIS.

In fact the only reasons I could see you would want to use IIS is the initial configuration is not nearly as easy (which I've never understood why), or if you're a total MS shop (SQL Server and ASP) it makes sense to use IIS since they are designed to work well together.

Just as a rant, I've never met a ASP programmer that actually knew what they were doing, must less that knew any good programming practices. Mostly 2 week training from some consulting agency. gak. PHP is almost as bad, but not quite.

Re:From the person above (0)

mwilliamson (672411) | about 7 years ago | (#20129791)

Please ignore bad grammar I stated from above, as I am still more substantial a dose of caffeine in need.

Re:From the person above (1)

everphilski (877346) | about 7 years ago | (#20129921)

yoda? but I thought you were at one with the Force...

waitaminute...

/. is the Force?!?

Re:From the person above (2, Informative)

Fallingcow (213461) | about 7 years ago | (#20129897)

Add Ruby on Rails, Python, and Tomcat to that list.

The biggest reason to use Apache over IIS is that Apache runs best on *nix systems... and so does most of the rest of the best web-oriented server and dev software.

Plus, there are so many great command-line tools (or GUI tools that have a command line mode with a simple switch) which can be (carefully) integrated into web apps that simply aren't available (or don't work as well) on Windows, and open up all kinds of interesting possibilities. Windows doesn't come close.

Re:From the person above (3, Interesting)

shinma (106792) | about 7 years ago | (#20129785)

There is no integrated mod_rewrite solution on IIS.

That's enough of a dealbreaker for me.

Re:From the person above (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#20129817)

depends on what you consider general website hosting, but mod_rewrite built-in and htaccess are pretty compelling for my usage.

Re:From the person above (1)

vtcodger (957785) | about 7 years ago | (#20129829)

***IIS has had some problems in the past, but these days it's pretty good. ***

All depends on what you think the error discovery/removal rates are. If you believe that IIS has a rather small number of serious defects and they have mostly been found and corrected, then there may be no reason not to use IIS. On the other hand, many products -- Windows for example -- appear to have a near infinite number of problems and no realistic hope of ever resolving them all. If IIS is one of those and if Apache has fewer serious defects, then choosing IIS over Apache may well be a bad idea.

Re:From the person above (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129883)

That may be all find & dandy, but is it worth changing to? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Sound familiar?

It's the standards that matters (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 7 years ago | (#20129713)

As long as the site is designed to support open standards and work cross browser, does it really matter what is running on the server side?

My take is that this is just more indication that MS's FUD campaign about patents is working.

That said, I have about a hundred servers, most running Linux, supporting a large complex web site. I see no reason to change to a MS based site, and due to the technology used, it would take a MASSIVE effort to port anyway.

Re:It's the standards that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129977)

It matters to FOSS geeks.

Lacking mainstream social acceptance, something they caught a fleeting taste of during the dot com era, their surrogate has become software. They desperately hope to see FOSS software adopted by the mainstream. At that point they believe the phrase "I've been running LAMP at home since 1997" will garner them some respect outside LUG meetings and Linux support forums.

The expectation is that in return for their helping the world to cast off its Microsoftian chains society will overlook their inability to function in normal social situations.

Not a surprise (1, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | about 7 years ago | (#20129723)

Actually this is not a surprise seeing the stability, security and performance of the last versions of IIS. I am one of them who has migrated from Apache to IIS7 and I'm not looking back.

Re:Not a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20130111)

You will when you need to do something beyond hosting a cookie cutter site.

Home computers. (1, Interesting)

moshennik (826059) | about 7 years ago | (#20129753)

I am sure the growth of IIS is due to people running IIS on their home computers. They come with Windows/IIS and most of them don't even know that apache is a choice. I can't really understand the reason behind the Apache decline.

Re:Home computers. (3, Insightful)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | about 7 years ago | (#20129875)

Since it's not installed out of the box on XP, Win2k3 or Vista, its then someone installing it because they want to.

Someone installing IIS on their home computer is more than likely aware of Apache and didn't install it for whatever reason.

Maybe the decline in Apache is due to the leaps IIS has taken in both reliablity (4 of the top 10 hosts with the best reliablity are running W2k3), supportability, expandiblity and security. Not to mention OOTB it can do a lot more than Apache does OOTB.

Re:Home computers. (1)

cerelib (903469) | about 7 years ago | (#20129993)

Since most home computers do not have a registered domain name, I do not think home computers fall within the limits of this study.

Re:Home computers. (1)

realthing02 (1084767) | about 7 years ago | (#20130047)

The built in IIS server comes disabled. And do you really think that thousands of home users are going into their admin consoles and setting up IIS and have no idea of what apache is?

They probably don't even know waht notepad is because word is so prevalent, right?

On an aside, i don't think MS really cares what netcraft says, as netcraft can't see the thousands of intranet sites running IIS, the bulk of Microsoft services run behind firewalls.

Re:Home computers. (1)

LordEd (840443) | about 7 years ago | (#20130059)

Windows XP (not pro) does not include IIS. I can't say for sure about vista, but I doubt the home editions include it either.

Oh god, my eyes are bleeding. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129763)

What have we done to offend our new Slashdot overlords so much that they'd inflict such a horrible theme upon us?

Dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20129765)

This not news again?

As the first post all ready told... micro$oft is buying the ranking doing deals with domain parkers. The headers from the pages served still come from apache servers

Apache is being challenged by lightHTTPd (not crappy IIS)

Actually, I think it is something else entirely... (4, Insightful)

CodeShark (17400) | about 7 years ago | (#20129831)

Namely a little bit of boredom in the web world plus the difficulty of trying to find new and interesting sites now that folks have figured out how to manipulate Google rankings.

Plus the fact that you can now run many more LAMP web sites per server than was previously possible. I mean, figure it out -- how many virtual sites can a person run on a modern fully configured Apache server than they could in say, 1999 before the dot com bubble burst. CPUs cores are something like 4-5x more powerful if not more, hard disk arrays bigger and faster, and the configuration setups probably ten times better. So it takes less Apache servers to run more sites, yes?

Re:Actually, I think it is something else entirely (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | about 7 years ago | (#20129953)

We have around 60 LAMP sites on one quad-processor box at my place of employment. (it's an .edu) These sites include our main public-facing website, the public-facing side of multiple campus organizations, and a myriad of in-house tools for local use. LAMP scales very nicely and migrates even easier. LAMP just isn't all wrapped up in that "one-application-per-server" ideology.

On my little-bitty VM from unixshell.com, I have about 8 name-based vhosts going. It's pretty amazing what you can do with such minimally virtualized hardware.

Re:Actually, I think it is something else entirely (4, Insightful)

Dan Ost (415913) | about 7 years ago | (#20130019)

I believe that netcraft is counting sites, not servers. As such, consolidating servers would not explain netcraft's numbers.

It means we've given up on security (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 7 years ago | (#20129867)

In lieu of closed applications compatibility and feature set. AKA glitzy web apps that run like shit and are security nightmares. Which is fine by me as long as I never have to hear some asshole complain about ID theft again.

I'm going to sue Microsoft (0, Troll)

sjonke (457707) | about 7 years ago | (#20129887)

Once my Laser printer cancer is found I'm going to sue the pants off of Microsoft. Their web servers fuel the pages that get printed on the HP Laser printer perhaps only 8 feet from my desk, and the more web sites served by IIS, the more Microsoft sponsored laser printing particles end up inside me. I mean, it's bad enough to be killed by legitimately printed documentation for a project, but to be killed by articles from Vanity Fair is something all together different.

Re:I'm going to sue Microsoft (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | about 7 years ago | (#20130021)

Vanity Fair is such a third-rate piece of yellow journalism, I can't believe people waste their money on it. Its only legitimate use is for toilet paper which, by the way, greatly improves its content.

Re:I'm going to sue Microsoft (1)

vtcodger (957785) | about 7 years ago | (#20130127)

***Once my Laser printer cancer is found I'm going to sue the pants off of Microsoft.***

Best check the EULA that you clicked thorough without reading. Not only is Microsoft not liable, your estate will owe Microsoft a substantial annual payment for the software you would have purchased during the years that you failed to live because of your carelessness and lack of foresight in contracting cancer.

Uptime (5, Informative)

ciryon (218518) | about 7 years ago | (#20129891)

Apache has a vast majority of sites with longest uptime [netcraft.com] .

IIS Already Leads Where Microsoft Cares (5, Interesting)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | about 7 years ago | (#20129893)

IIS already has a pretty dramatic marketshare lead [port80software.com] when it comes to the Fortune 1000.

Re:IIS Already Leads Where Microsoft Cares (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 7 years ago | (#20130009)

Not surprising because we are moving away from "hobbies" to "packages."

By hobbies I mean how many new dot coms are being created? How many people are creating new and nifty content? Some sure, but the vast majority of folks are companies that see the web as a necessity and not a money maker.

The innovative companies need flexibility, power and tunability, which is given by Apache, and the LAMP stack. The corporations that see the web as a necessity just want to put information onto the Internet. They don't care about "social networks." They just care that their catalog can be viewed. And that is the domain of Microsoft, not Apache.

I personally see these statistics as a maturation of the web, not that Apache is loosing market share.

Re:IIS Already Leads Where Microsoft Cares (1)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | about 7 years ago | (#20130091)

The innovative companies need flexibility, power and tunability, which is given by Apache, and the LAMP stack. The corporations that see the web as a necessity just want to put information onto the Internet. They don't care about "social networks." They just care that their catalog can be viewed. And that is the domain of Microsoft, not Apache.
Huh? How is Apache any more flexible, powerful, or tunable than IIS?

Also, last I checked, some pretty big social networking [myspace.com] sites use IIS.

I was looking at netcraft... (2, Insightful)

Gregb05 (754217) | about 7 years ago | (#20129895)

And I was wondering... what the hell happened in March - April '06 that started the trend of Apache decreasing and IIS servers increasing?

.NET? SQL Server? Vista? Something changed in that time frame.

Re:I was looking at netcraft... (1)

wicka (985217) | about 7 years ago | (#20129981)

GoDaddy switched all their parked domains from Apache to IIS in March. But if you think about it, the parked domains were just inflating Apache's market share beforehand, and now it's just inflating IIS (to an extent, I think it looks like their market share is actually growing, just not as much as the numbers).

Re:I was looking at netcraft... (2, Insightful)

benjymouse (756774) | about 7 years ago | (#20130093)

One explanation may be ASP.NET 2.0 which was released in nov. 2005. The 2.0 release was a major upgrade to ASP.NET and saw productivity improvements across the board. If you had project start at that time they would take a few months before finishing.

It is true that godaddy switched parked domains to IIS. Netcraft has noted so in their survey. But that doesn't explain the apparently sustained growth of IIS.

And an XP box with an IIS on it will not make it on the the Netcraft stats, unless it hosts a *site*. On top of that XP does not by default install IIS.

Note also that the same trend is visible when looking at the "active sites".

lower quality admins (0, Troll)

thedrunkensailor (992824) | about 7 years ago | (#20129913)

low quality server administrators dont choose to work on the command line, so IIS is a perfect half-ass fit for their needs. there is no reason not to use apache, and combine this with virtualized networks and windows runs too much overhead to be useful.

Usefull sites ? (1)

Joebert (946227) | about 7 years ago | (#20129925)

I want to know what percentage of the sites queried consist of anything more than Adsense landing pages & directories full of directories.

Sending a spider to one bad directory can give you 30,000 trash domains in very little time.

haha (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20130023)

i love to see you slashidiots squirm your way around this with any possible explanation of why your beloved apache is falling to dust. it feels my heart with glee to see your really stupid excuses. it only proves that you're all morons and need a good dose of common sense.

linux fails it!!!!! open sores fails it!!!!

The ASP Effect? (4, Interesting)

INeededALogin (771371) | about 7 years ago | (#20130037)

In the last 5 years... I went to 2 Universities. One of them was a crappy, private University whose entire program focused on Microsoft. It was one of those afterwork, pay us a lot of money for a degree thing. I left that place and went to a State University(soon to be the largest in the state). I was shocked to find out from the CS majors that they had a large Microsoft Curriculum as well. Apparently, Microsoft gives a lot of money to the Universities to ensure that they are a central part the curriculum. Since a lot of students are learning about ASP, Visual Basic and .NET... is it any surprise that these same students are going into the workplace and using these tools instead of a perl, php, ruby, python inside of Apache.

Article is a smokescreen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20130105)

I know what certain Fortune 1000 company runs. Try 1 IIS server for 'static' front page content; and a hundred Tomcat/Apache servers for other applications.

Microsoft Is Superior (-1, Flamebait)

MicrosoftElitist (1138973) | about 7 years ago | (#20130131)

Well, of course. If you have to run a business people don't have time to be compiling their web server from source etc. IIS is a superior web server in that it is secure and easy to set up and configure. Open source zealots don't get it, which is why they can't even shower.
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>