Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

MS Drops Licensing Restrictions from Web Server 2008

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the retrograde-innovation dept.

Windows 226

Channel Guy writes "According to a report from CRN, Microsoft plans to allow users of the Web Server SKU in Windows Server 2008 to 'run any type of database software with no limit on the number of users, provided they deploy it as an Internet-facing front-end server.' The previous limit was 50 users. Microsoft's partners expect the changes to go a long way toward making Windows Web Server 2008 more competitive with the LAMP stack, against which Microsoft has been making headway in recent months."

cancel ×

226 comments

so what (-1, Offtopic)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905540)

Frist opst

Re:so what (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21905620)

What is a opst?

Re:so what (-1, Offtopic)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905698)

It says "post", Mr. Dyslexic.

Re:so what (-1, Offtopic)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905728)

Read your FP again.

Re:so what (3, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906608)

It says "post", Mr. Dyslexic.

That's Mr. Lysdexic to you, buddy.

Re:so what (1, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906708)

No, as a mebmer of the ASD (Ameracin Lysdexic Soceity) I haev to cerroct yuor garmmar: It si 'an opst', not 'a opst'.

Still have to pay for the OS (5, Insightful)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905542)

With Windows Web Server 2008 you'll still have to pay for the OS. With LAMP it's free.

Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

In any case, this shows that Microsoft is getting desperate, and even with this I don't think they'll get any market share from LAMP.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (3, Interesting)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905566)

Still, organizations that shy away from Windows Server because of the sheer number of licenses they would have to buy on limited funding (think: schools) will now be more open to it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (2, Informative)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905580)

This is silly though. Web services only need one "user" -- the user that connect to the database on behalf of the server.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905752)

If you're a hosting service, or if you're serving up databases for multiple web clients, then it's quite possible that you might have dozens of different users. I don't know about you, but when I've got multiple databases on a server for different people, I don't tend to want to give everyone access to the entire show.

Still, LAMP is free, so unless they're going to start giving away Server 2008, they can keep it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (4, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906100)

Even if they're going to give it away they can keep it. There are far more benefits to open source than sticker price alone.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (3, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906814)

Still, LAMP is free, so unless they're going to start giving away Server 2008, they can keep it.

I have to take issue with this statement.

Let us assume a LAMP stack which comes via a support subscription (eg. RHEL). And lets assume variables such as customer support and pricing are equal, I would still go with the LAMP stack. I have experience with both, and I find LAMP to be easier to use yet much more versatile. A Microsoft web stack can definitely get the job done... but I find things easier to accomplish with LAMP -- I definitely don't work with Microsoft stacks without getting paid for it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

Rytr23 (704409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906010)

As far as MS is concerned, if SQL server is your back end, then the fact that its a single ID being used by your web service is irrelevant.. every user who hits your through your site requires either a CAL or you need to buy a per processor license.. I wasn't aware they charged any sort of connection license for connecting to IIS other than the OS cost..

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (4, Insightful)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905626)

And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees...either through licensing of connections or functionality. I must confess that I find this pretty amusing. I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (3, Interesting)

Percy_Blakeney (542178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906558)

And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees

I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...

I think you've alluded to the most interesting part of this story: Microsoft is being forced to lower their prices (or even eliminate them) in order to compete with free software. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course -- they haven't been able to charge for IIS or IE, for example, due to competition from free software -- but it seems that it is happening frequently.

If I had stock in MSFT, I would start selling it once they announce that they've made any significant reduction in the cost of MS Office; it's one of the biggest cash cows for the company, and any sign of weakness in that space is their worst nightmare.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (2, Informative)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905988)

Actually licensing for public schools is dirt cheap when compared to private business licensing.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21905664)

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (5, Funny)

a-zarkon! (1030790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905688)

"Will install Apache and MySQL for beer and nachos" -Me

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905748)

Even if that's true, it's still far cheaper than Windows, and getting cheaper all the time. The better Debian and Ubuntu get, the cheaper it becomes.

Still, I'd rather OS X. But happily I use Kubuntu at work.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (4, Informative)

unoengborg (209251) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905954)

OS-X is very nice for the desktop, but I would stay away from it on the server side, not because there is all that much technically wrong with it, but because Apple don't seam to get the server market.

By hard earned experience with Apple server products I have learned that you can't trust them to support their products over long times. The all of a sudden discontinues products without any resonable migraton paths to the successr, if there even is a successor. E.g. they dicontiued A/UX and replaced with an Apple version of AIX that they then dropped totally in just a couple of years.

When they distribute updates they have more than once totally destroyed, customized settings, and the open source software that comes with the server version of MacOS-X is often incomplete or lacking in functionality compared to the same software on Linux or Solaris.

Chosing between Windows and Mac, I would choose Mac any day. MacOS-X is at least simple to use.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (5, Funny)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906050)

Apple don't seam to get the server market

I hear they've got the sewing market all stitched up, though.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (2, Funny)

Stamen (745223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905782)

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski
"Windows? Not in this dress!" - Jamie Farr

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905810)

Well, if you don't have any experience with *nix, that's true, but as a guy that has been using various flavors since about 1990, the above is just nasty flamebait. The really neat part is that I can go to my managers and say "Yeah, it will probably take a bit longer to get that Samba domain controller rolled out for accounting, but guess what, your licensing fees forever is $0.00."

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905852)

And how long do you think jwz has been using *nix?

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (2, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906550)

"Yeah, it will probably take a bit longer to get that Samba domain controller rolled out for accounting, but guess what, your licensing fees forever is $0.00."
Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea. As is if it takes more than ten hours extra to configure it, over the lifetime of the domain controller. (The Auditor's laptop takes an extra hour of your time to work with Samba? you need to spend a week to train your replacement when you leave?)

After initial purchase, the typical company pays "licensing fees forever" of $0.00. Anyone who doesn't is just throwing away money.

Now, there are LOTS of good reasons to use Linux over windows. But cost isn't one of them for any company not in the business of producing Linux-based widgets, or providing a service in a Linux/Unix-based industry. This is an inherent factor of the bazaar; if time is money, and you're not a native of the town, it's simply more expensive to go through the bazaar and find exactly what you need instead of just stopping by the cathedral and picking up what the priest is handing out.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (3, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906612)

Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea
Sorry, but I have to nitpick. The $500 domain controller will still need some time to configure. Maybe Samba starts being a waste of time at 55 hours?

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906624)

Oops, I meant 15 hours.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (5, Insightful)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905934)

"Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski

Agreed, but Windows costs more than the double of what Linux costs:

  • Windows requires as much or more administration than Linux.
  • Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.
  • If you have a problem with Windows, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold your hand and fix it for you quickly. Most times I needed technical support for a commercial product, I realised I would fix the problems myself quicker and better, if I could do it (if I had the source).
  • If you have problems with bugs in Windows, you have to wait for Microsoft to fix it, if they decide to fix it.
  • With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU [wikipedia.org] and NIMDA [wikipedia.org] in Linux.
  • With Windows you have to spend with server licenses, client licenses, extra CALs if your clients are not Windows. If that was not enough, you still have to pay for an antivirus. With LAMP you don't need any licenses. Not to mention that you have to manage all the licenses. And don't lose any media, it's not like you can easily download it from their site!

So, while Linux is not gratis, it's still much cheaper than Windows. Especially for Web systems such as LAMP, most distributions allow you to install it as easily as one command (or even a graphical installer), and you can even download a virtual machine [vmware.com] that you can use as a development or testing environment without even having to install anything.

If there is one thing that still can be cheaper in Windows, is that you can hire a Windows administrator for cheap, while a Linux administrator would probably require a higher pay. But this is changing with the popularization of Linux, there are more Linux admins in the market today. Another point is that you get what you pay for, the cheap Windows administrator probably won't do that good a job, and if you want quality you'll probably have to pay as much as you would pay to a good Linux administrator anyway.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (4, Informative)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905958)

You don't think jwz was advocating for Windows, do you?

http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html [jwz.org]

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906192)

You don't think jwz was advocating for Windows, do you?

Of course not! But, in my opinion, his quote was used in a context to suggest just that.

That or my sarcasm sensor is broken... :-D

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906114)

Linux
Apache
MySQL
Perl/PHP

MySQL is unacceptable for many applications and I dislike both PHP and ASP. We can do better especially in the domain of db driven front ends.

The windows platform can run all of the above on XP/Vista which makes windows virtually free. SQL Express is quite a bit better than MySQL and you can distribute it freely with your applications without weird license restrictions.

For bulk hosting your platform is dicated by your customers. If people want windows you host windows, if people want linux you host linux. If you expect to retain customers you have no say in the matter.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

bucketoftruth (583696) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906428)

You said it so incredibly well. The baseline costs are going to be about equal. But, you hit the wall so fast when trying to get anything done in a windows environment due to licensing restrictions and the excess time spent crawling through the interface to do the simplest task. Until you've seen someone drop a preconfigured kick-start system onto a rackload of servers and have the entire thing running in an hour you haven't seen the power of linux.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906604)

You said it so incredibly well. The baseline costs are going to be about equal. But, you hit the wall so fast when trying to get anything done in a windows environment due to licensing restrictions and the excess time spent crawling through the interface to do the simplest task. Until you've seen someone drop a preconfigured kick-start system onto a rackload of servers and have the entire thing running in an hour you haven't seen the power of linux.
Uh, you can script all Windows configuration. There's plenty of ways to fast roll-out Windows servers.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906696)

Actually you could probably take any average Windows Admin and switch him to Xandros Server [xandros.com] quite easily. I just started using the trial (after becoming hooked on the rock solid Business Pro) and man is this thing easy to run! I just love the xMC, it is just too easy to manage.


I know some hate Xandros for the Microsoft deal (which I believe that, unlike Novell, they actually paid Microsoft for access to the documents for the API's they wanted to ensure compatibility with) but they really do make a rock solid, easy to use product. And the ease of use has allowed me to convert folks that I thought would NEVER touch anything but Windows. And I know that with the familiar xMC layout I won't have a hard time explaining to PHB's what it does. And they have a free trial if you want to load it into a spare box or a VM and give it a go.


I think as more and more Linux distros become easier to setup and manage that we'll be seeing a lot more "deals" like this.Microsoft has no problem losing a little money on a product if they can use it to kill competition. But server 2008 had better be a quantum leap better than Vista or IMHO all the deals in the world won't help.

Windows would still suck even if free. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906720)

Besides, as someone that has administrated web servers of all sizes and platforms for many years, Windows sucks. It's harder to use after the first hour and stays harder to use, you have more issues, it costs more and has a lot more hidden fees (it's not just $400), and in general is just a pain in the ass. It especially is a pain if you want to go beyond static pages on a single web server.

Linux admins aren't expensive. I can pretty easily find someone that's reasonably experienced and willing to work for less than $15/hr. My experience is that Linux admins are more experienced than Windows admins at the same price and usually know Windows in addition to Linux while Windows admins don't know Linux.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906152)

His Polish surname should hint to anyone that his opinions are not meant to be taken seriously.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (2, Interesting)

Osty (16825) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905706)

Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista. By that same rationale, Windows Server 2003 was "just" the server version of Windows XP. However Windows Server 2003 had different SKUs than XP with different licensing models, and you can expect that Windows Server 2008 will be the same. Windows Server 2008 SKUs [microsoft.com] are much more inline with what is available for 2003 (though the total number is higher due to the duplication of editions for "without Hyper-V" versions). For the Server product, differentiation is more about licensing than features (the only feature difference [microsoft.com] between Standard, Enterprise, and Data Center is the lack of clustering in Standard).

SKU? (1)

tkiesel (891354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906326)

Many, many people seem to like misusing the term SKU [wikipedia.org] . At least, I think they're misusing the term. After all, I wouldn't tell my wife "Wow, these new Doritos bar codes are mighty tasty! Pass me a bar code of that lemonade."

So what gives?

My theory is that the people talking this way about SKUs are not misusing the term at all. There are just a lot of people out there geeky enough to be inventory management nominalists. It truly is a thing of beauty to behold.

Re:SKU? (2, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906552)

Many, many people seem to like misusing the term SKU. At least, I think they're misusing the term. After all, I wouldn't tell my wife "Wow, these new Doritos bar codes are mighty tasty! Pass me a bar code of that lemonade."

For what it's worth, I agree with you. On the other hand, that's what Microsoft uses to refer to the various versions of a product (they seem to alternate between "SKU" and "Edition" with no rhyme or reason why one word is used over the other), so that's what I used to refer to them. I don't like it, but at least it's not as horribly misused as phrases like "begs the question" (at least "SKU" in this context could potentially be referring to a real Stock Keeping Unit).

Also, your examples aren't quite right. You're referring to instances of a bag of chips or a glass of lemonade, while the Windows Server SKU references are to types of items that can be sold. A better example might be, "I prefer the yellow lemonade SKU over the pink lemonade." Still just as silly, but at least now it's correct :).

For most of those hosting, the cost is negligable (5, Interesting)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905950)

The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400. However, the bulk of small-time outfits with an on-line presence (most of the the 90%) use a hosting service. They buy some frontpage-template-cookie-cutter "e-commerce kit" and run with it. They do not control or administer the server and most probably don't even care that they might be hosting their site on a Microsoft system, or Linux or BSD for that matter.

There was notable uptake in MSFT market share with the original release of Web Edition--just after the last time MSFT flirted with 1/3 market share they started losing it rapidly again, and its release temporarily kept them in the 30% range before it dropped back down to the low 20s for a long time. Win2k3 Web Server was found to be well suited to "parking pages" and "basic hosting services" for big-time web hosting companies--for those sites that are static and have little to no e-commerce and content-management requirements.

MSFT ran into a wall however because Web Edition has a lot of sometimes-severe limitations. Notably there are restrictions on number of database users and other back-end and connectivity issues that required CALs or other VERY EXPENSIVE ($5000 and up) licensing. For example, you are limited to workgroup security only, with only 10 SMB connections (something like XP Home Edition's capabilities in terms of Windows networking) so if Windows Networking is used to maintain the files on a host of a large number of little sites you can hit a snag there. Web Edition also is not permitted to work with SharePoint services, or use Rights Management services either. So, it looks attractive to start with, but when you want to do anything more useful than host a bunch of "electronic brochures" or domain parking then MSFT wants to rape your wallet.

As for your query, despite the common codebase with Vista, the Server product line is not likely to bear any resemblance to the Vista product line. the Server OSes maintain the "model year" designation they've had since 2000. There will be no "basic/premium/business/ultimate"; it will merely evolve from the product line since 2000: standard/enterprise/datacentre/SBS/Web, with "File server" and "Medium business" targeted editions thrown in as new choices. The "File Server" edition will be a purpose-built, reduced-cost version targeted at Linux/BSD with Samba installs no doubt. Just as always, I expect the web server will be available on the same editions as in 2003, but will only be "unlimited" if you buy the cheap web edition or spend thousands on "external connector licenses" or CALs.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (2, Funny)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905998)

Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400

Last time I checked, Slashdot [slashdot.org] was still using Linux.

So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (2, Interesting)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906122)

or as another example, try Google
I'd love to see someone do something on the scale of google and *NOT* use Linux.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (1)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906204)

Um, sure. Lots of large Solaris-powered web sites out there. Most of the big Java app sites still run Solaris. Not to mention BSD.

Linux is not the only Unix.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906222)

tens or even hundreds of thousands of servers acting for a single common project or commercial entity ?

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906714)

Another minicity infraction. This must be reported. Please forward all minicity complaints to:

Jacques Mattheij
j@ww.com --NOTE-- I run a whitelist, add 'stjoes' to the body
My Mini City Infraction Dept
Kromme Spieringweg 457
Vijfhuizen
Noord Holland
2141 AH
NL (Netherlands)
Phone: +31.630366241

Point seems have been missed here (3, Interesting)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906240)

So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D

---->point

    (you)
----------

Actually, yes it was both when it started. Slashdot started as "Chips and Dips", Malda's personal website in 1997. Soon after he and a few buddies started writing a bit of Perl code to allow for discussion and moderation around the articles they posted. It was, in that brief early time exactly that: a small-time hobbyist outfit.

Of course now it is the mother of all sites and corporately owned. And in fact, Sourceforge Incorporated probably does indeed consider $400 to be chump change. The savings in licensing costs very long ago ceased to be relevant in the choice to use Linux and Apache for Slashdot. Consider these observations:

1) Slashdot STARTED as a "small time hobby outfit" which made the initial choice of Linux, Apache and Perl the only real choice when cost WAS a factor. Linux or FreeBSD were the only vialble and affordable OS options as well, at a time when expensive Solaris was closed-server-OS king.

2) Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting on a couple of boxes whereas Windows NT would have to reboot daily and would require a full height rack packed with server gear to do the same.

3) if it aint broke don't fix it--there is a lot of time and effort put into the perl code and MySQL database that is used in slashcode. When they needed to handle the load they deployed it over mod_perl. To move to Windows would require a lot of work to completely rewrite the app, or else tons of frustration dealing with putting Apache and nod_perl onto Windows.

4) Politics. Slashdot is news for NERDS. Windows is pointy-haired-boss/MCSE-dweeb stuff. Linux and BSD and Apache and other Free software is "elite". Slashdot is also all about Free software as The Right Thing to Do. WHy would an advocate of open source put any effort into deploying its premiere site using closed tools, even if it were cheaper or had technical advantages? It'd be like Microsoft migrating servers to Linux.

Re:Point seems have been missed here (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906576)

The point got missed because you were making what (on the surface) appeared to be a pro-Microsoft post. I doubt they read much further than that.

Funny thing about that kind of logic... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906658)

The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400.
It sounds believable until your company decides to scale. Licensing like this can limit growth, especially at the earlier stages when it really counts.

Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906850)

Jesus or I could just use LAMP.  You made my head hurt with your explanation.  What a nightmare.  Why would anybody want that?

Re:Still have to pay for the OS (1)

Allador (537449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906288)

Although they both share a line of kernels, its not accurate or useful to say that Server 2008 is the server version of Vista.

That's like saying that Server 2003 is the server version of XP.

In addition, the article is about the licensing model of the web-server version of server 2008. No cals, just a flat fee, etc.

There's no concept of an 'ultimate version' on the web-server version of the server 2008.

The web-edition is what version it is.

Apache responds (5, Funny)

Stamen (745223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905546)

In response to today's Microsoft announcement the Apache Software Foundation announces that they will cut their price by 100% and increase the allowed number of users to googolplex + 1.

Re:Apache responds (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905574)

increase the allowed number of users to googolplex + 1
That would constitute a decrease *and* be less than the Microsoft offering. You clearly meant infinity*2.

Seriously, to what extent was Netcraft's status gamed by microsoft ala that situation where Microsoft got their platform as the return for ungodly numbers of parked domains vs. how much of reflects an actual legitimate uptake of their platform in the face of Apache? I haven't seen any technical/logistic reason for them to be suddenly gaining ground (maybe this move would have some impact), so I was wondering if it is really happening and if so why.

Re:Apache responds (2, Interesting)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905674)

I haven't seen any technical/logistic reason for them to be suddenly gaining ground (maybe this move would have some impact), so I was wondering if it is really happening and if so why.

I guess it couldn't possibly be because IIS6 is freakin' fast and memory-efficient? It also couldn't have anything to do with the great .net application stack that corporations are adopting in droves. Or that Windows Server 2003 sets up balanced clustering with failover with very little brain activity needed on part of the administrator? (Oh wait, this is Slashdot... I forgot making things user-friendly is evil.)

Seriously. IIS is gaining ground because it's a pretty damned good product. That's all there is to it, no trickery involved.

Re:Apache responds (1)

Stamen (745223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905718)

You almost had me there. We done sir, well done... classic sarcasm at its best.

Excuse me? (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906632)

I'm guessing you haven't used IIS6 in production. It's neither.

Re:Excuse me? (1)

jerw134 (409531) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906784)

I run many IIS6 servers, in both production and development environments. It is definitely fast and memory efficient. I think you missed the memo to get off the IIS bashing train when 6 came out. It's actually a damn good web server, and more secure than Apache 2 to boot!

Re:Apache responds (2, Interesting)

netik (141046) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906838)

I have to wonder if it's because of increased security efforts by people using Apache to turn off ServerTokens so that the system no longer advertises what version of software is running in production?

Most of the servers that we run in production do not announce they run apache, but I don't know of any way of turning this off in IIS.

It's not like 2005 came around and suddenly people stopped using Apache. There must be an explanation for the massive decline in Netcraft's charts

welcome to slashdong! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21905548)

Suck it long and suck it hard.

oh boy you're so funny (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906596)

Micro$oft sucks long and hard. Thanks for posting by the way!

You should get an account to use for trolling my dear.

Re:oh boy you're so funny (1)

secretwhistle (1116881) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906726)

"Trolling M'Dear" was Banjo Paterson's less successful follow-up to his informal Australian national anthem.

Say it with me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21905556)

I will not misuse the acronym SKU, I will not misuse the acronym SKU, I will not misuse the acronym SKU...

Re:Say it with me... (-1, Offtopic)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905616)

SKU you.
;-)

Netcraft? (0, Flamebait)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905586)

Is this the same Netcraft that said BSDs were dying?

Re:Netcraft? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21905776)

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavor you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimize doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving FreeBSD. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones (e.g. BSD) in software development.

BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL. To that Linux owes much of its success.

Re:Netcraft? (2, Funny)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906434)

So I'm leaving FreeBSD.


Thank you for telling us without using profanity, or threatening to beat anybody up ;^)

The downside... (4, Funny)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905598)

Since 2008 will be based on the Vista core, you'll need a dedicated person to sit at the console to address the "Someone is trying to access your website, cancel or alaw?" dialogs.

Re:The downside... (5, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905646)

yes, but now you could have more than 50 dedicated persons answering Allow or Cancel...

Re:The downside... (3, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906028)

Didn't you read the article! The primary focus is not "to increase market share" against MySQL and Apache as the Netcraft fud would have you believe. The real reason is this is a surreptitious physical-user based fix to sending out too many cancel allow dialogs. Microsoft completely misjudged the boxes functionality and popularity, which resulted in masses of dialog boxes being excessively consumed. Microsoft was getting so many bug reports about exhausted screen space from all the boxes that they had to something. This is just another case of MS providing relief to customers who are unable to responsibly control their MS lust, in this case for cancel allow dialogs.

I swear it was in the article. Why are you all looking at me? What?!

Google (5, Interesting)

pweitz (646666) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905630)

Netcraft reports that Google has 7.39% of all active web servers in their survey. Does that really mean that 7.39% of all web servers on the web are run by Google? Thats as interesting to me as the Apache vs. MS numbers.

I wonder what percent of the netcraft's MS number is MS machines.

Re:Google (5, Informative)

micheas (231635) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905816)

If you read netcrafts definition of a website you will find some sort of strange things. almost all the google sites are blogger sites, over half the IIS sites are myspace profiles and live.com blogs.

The recent decline in IIS and gain by apache is almost entirely myspace to facebook migration.

The other big factors are godaddy parking is IIS, most other parking domains are apache, and then there is the relatively small number of sites which are all the sites that generate all the content that you would actually want to connect to the internet for.

Netcraft is has a bit of a problem with figuring out what is a website. Is a myspace profile a website? No, but what if someone is running a music site off of their myspace profile and have it branded and put real effort into and is its own destination?

Do geocities accounts count as websites? most of them did get counted and when geocities popularity waned so did BSDs market share.

What if you wild card a domain name and have a script generate unique content for almost every possible hostname, and submitted tens of thousands of the hostnames of that server to netcraft? How many websites would that be? Some creative spamming by Microsoft or their enemies would make netcraft statistics pretty meaningless. Also Netcraft only reports on the front facing server which grossly understates zope and tomcats presence.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts.

Re:Google (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905956)

The recent decline in IIS and gain by Apache is almost entirely myspace to facebook migration
?????
That second graph shows no decline in IIS, and no rise in Apache (at least in the end of the year).

Re:Google (1)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906684)

You might want to check out the latest Netcraft survey results, not the old one referenced in the intro...

Re:Google (1)

asuffield (111848) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906430)

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts.


And that's before we consider factors like "what do these numbers mean anyway?".

Consider this: for a given large number of websites, running on a hosting provider, then the total number of Windows servers required to host those sites is considerably larger than the total number of Linux-based servers required to host those same sites (all running on identical hardware), because Linux is simply more hardware-efficient. So we would naturally expect the number of Linux-based servers to be lower, all else being equal.

So what is it that you really want to count anyway? I don't see a good answer.

Re:Google (1)

ChronosWS (706209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906750)

This is Slashdot. The bar for Windows success is vastly higher than the bar for Linux success, whether it deserves to be or not. Don't like the statistics? Change the definition of the statistics so that they are painted in the light you prefer. After all, that's what Microsoft would do, right?

You seem to dislike their definition of a website. But what the survey is really telling you is which web server is being used to serve unique content on the web. Whether one server serves a million pages or a million servers serve one page apiece is irrelevant. What matters, for the purposes of the survey, is which server is doing the serving. That is a perfectly valid metric, just like unique web servers is a perfectly valid metric. However they are not the same.

So there are lies, damn lies, statistics and then people who don't know how to use the information in front of them, or worse, know how to use it but purposely use it incorrectly.

For reference, here is the Netcraft methodology [netcraft.com] .

Re:Google (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906594)

Does that really mean that 7.39% of all web servers on the web are run by Google?

No, just 7.39% of the servers that anyone cares about.

Eight different versions of Windows Server (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905670)

There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008: [pcworld.com] , depending on what features are crippled:

  1. Windows Server 2008 Standard, $999 (with five Client Access Licenses, or CALs);
  2. Standard without Hyper-V, $971 (with five CALs);
  3. Enterprise, $3,999 (with 25 CALs);
  4. Enterprise without Hyper-V, $3,971 (with 25 CALs);
  5. Datacenter, $2,999 (per processor);
  6. Datacenter without Hyper-V, $2,971 (per processor);
  7. Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems, $2,999 (per processor); and
  8. Windows Web Server 2008, $469.

This change only affects the crippling level on #8.

Re: Eight different versions of Windows Server (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905972)

There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008:, depending on what features are crippled:
This from the company who used to posture as a refuge from the confusion of all the different Linux distros.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906232)

Seems strange they'd actually bother to sell separate "Hyper-V" and "non Hyper-V" products, given how little they intend to charge for it and that they intend to sell it separately anyway.

Microsoft, however, also plans to sell Hyper-V directly to corporate users who could wipe a server clean and install Hyper-V Server, which is priced at $28 and allows an unlimited number of virtual machines on a single box.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111207-microsoft-virtualization-server.html [networkworld.com]

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server (2, Insightful)

Allador (537449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906340)

Everything I've seen ... they felt they were forced to do that for anti-competitive purposes.

They wanted to make it free, but feared to run afoul of the monopoly issues, by undercutting/bundling the product that competes with vmware, etc.

This way, its nearly free, but not really free.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server (1)

1310nm (687270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906266)

Figuring out an implementation based on Windows is friggin INSANE. 1) Figure out which of the (now 8?) different versions fit your needs. 2) Feed money into a random number generating claw machine, grab some licenses. There's no telling which ones will "keep you legal" while giving you the fabled "Genuine Advantage". 3) Install and try to figure out the reasoning behind such strange and oftentimes obscure configuration methods. Curse Microsoft for not really understanding what you really need, and then find out there's a new version of the software you're using with the functionality you need - it's just a $1k+ license away. 4) Find out that not only is the legality of your deployment in question, but the stability as well. 5) Unleash people on the server, ignoring the "At least one service failed to start" pop-up at the CTRL-ALT-DEL screen. Ahh...that was refreshing.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906284)

Obligatory [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server (2, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906650)

Only 8? At least they have been consistent with server OS versions.

Windows XP: 2 versions
Windows 2003 Server: 8 versions
Windows Vista: 6 versions
Windows 2008 Server: 8 versions

If the pattern holds up, it will be like this:
Windows 7: 18 versions

Suspicious. (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905690)

What is with the sudden jump around May 2008? Conspiracy theorists commence:
...
...
OK, I suck at conspiracy theories. Maybe that's when most IT departments got their new budgets?

Re: Suspicious. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905992)

What is with the sudden jump around May 2008? Conspiracy theorists commence:
My theory is that a time traveller is involved.

Re:Suspicious. (3, Informative)

wuputah (1068216) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906004)

Most large changes relate to registrars (e.g. GoDaddy) changing their infrastructure on servers serving pages for parked domains (as parked domains make up a rather alarming percentage of domain names).

Only unrestricted until .. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21905764)

.. you connect a http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/03/2339248 [slashdot.org] new monitor to the server?

Mmm... (1)

Pasajero (164368) | more than 6 years ago | (#21905962)

Doeas that means if I put my windows server behind a firewall or a load share setup thus not "directly" facing the net, I'm not allowed to have > 50 users?

I think I'm staying with LAMP for a bit more...

Re:Mmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906146)

No, it doesn't. Stop being silly.

Where have I seen this before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906182)

Another company has a better product now. MS announces that it has plans for something better than that just a bit in the future. Oh and btw they have made recent advances in that field so you'll investors should just wait for MS.

Microsoft's act of desperation. (1)

listen_to_blogs (1210278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906338)

I ddoubt if this is really going to get them significant market share in the server market. They have to come up with something utterly compelling or partner with the likes of yahoo to use their platform. listen_to_slashdot [blogbard.com]

Suck it, LAMP weenies (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906342)

I work for Microsoft, I'm one of the people building kick-ass products. We don't give a shit about all of your whining, all of your hatred, your arrogance and bias.

Not all of our products kick ass. But some do, and Windows Server & IIS are two of them. Oh, we're taking market share from your precious LAMP stack? Oh, customers would rather PAY US MONEY than use your free crap? Oh, you poor babies.

For once, sit down, shut up, and tell me what humble pie tastes like.

I especially love the guy who said that this represents Microsoft's "desperation". Read the graph, idiot -- we're taking market share, LAMP is losing market share. We're making giant piles of money, and living like kings. You're living in your parents' basement with a stuffed penguin for a girlfriend. Who's desperate??

Re:Suck it, LAMP weenies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906386)

What a suck-fuck

Re:Suck it, LAMP weenies (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21906416)

Jesus was an extraterrestrial.

Why Netcraft? (2, Informative)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906440)

The previous limit was 50 users. Microsoft's partners expect the changes to go a long way toward making Windows Web Server 2008 more competitive with the LAMP stack, against which Microsoft has been making headway in recent months. Emphasis mine.

Why do they continue to quote Netcraft when http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200712/index.html [securityspace.com] has always put Apache ahead of windows? Is it that Netcraft is more of an authority than Security Space.

Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache.

Re:Why Netcraft? (1)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906448)

Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache.
True, but this really messes with their claim of being the "Continuing industry leader."

Them, them, eff them (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906554)

Screw Microsoft. If I were to start up my very own server farm, I'd use LAMP.

hmmmm (0, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906556)

But Redhat is free and has basically no restrictions on anything and isn't some greed centered craphole OS. Ooooh burn, what are they gonna do now?

How nice of them, so thoughtful... (0, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906620)

one could almost imagine that they are thinking about what their customers really want. Some people may actually want a useful web server with a MySQL, Oracle or BerkeleyDB database instead of MS Jet. This is so nice, I can almost recommend them to my clients.

Microsoft and the Command Line ... (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906680)

One aspect to modern computing that was largely unforeseen by Microsoft is the server farm. Well, Microsoft was completely blindsided by the Internet in general, but a command-line OS was something that Microsoft had, threw away, and then denied ever existed.

Suppose Gates had had a little more vision, realized that the CLI still had a place in the world, and thrown a billion or two into DOS development? Suppose Microsoft had turned DOS into a real contender for the server room, maybe tacking a CLI and some utilities on top of the NT Kernel? They could have called it MS-DOS/NT. Sure, it wouldn't be DOS as we all knew and loved it (hah) but then they wouldn't have been caught flat-footed when people started assembling hundreds and thousands of computers into racks and connecting them to the Internet.

Re:Microsoft and the Command Line ... (0, Troll)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21906844)

All Americans suck because they hate my freedom.

When can I expect my +5 Insightful?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...