digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apache at 56% - what is wrong?

liquidat.wordpress.com — The newest Netcraft Web server survey shows again a shrinking of Apaches market share. It is now at 56%, followed by Microsoft with more then 30%.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -47/+115Do not be misled. A certain company uses dirty tricks to tweak Netcraft figures.

    Open Source Fights Back

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Question: The OpenSourceParking.com announcement cites a Netcraft
    | report, which found that GoDaddy.com's migration from Linux to Windows
    | caused Apache to lose server share. Was this event the sole impetus
    | for OpenSourceParking.com?
    |
    | Perens: Not the first. It's part of a continuing behavior pattern by
    | Microsoft that I think it's fair to call "dirty fighting." GoDaddy was
    | using Apache (I assume on Linux) because it was a great technical
    | solution. They didn't switch to IIS on Windows Server 2003 for any
    | technical reason. The switch was accompanied by a press release by
    | GoDaddy, containing Microsoft promotional language. Now, I've changed
    | many servers from one thing to another, but I've never made a press
    | release about it. GoDaddy wouldn't be doing that unless Microsoft had
    | offered them something valuable in return. There has been talk in the
    | domain business that Microsoft has been offering the large domain
    | registries a wad of cash to switch their parked sites. There is no
    | other reason to do this than to influence the Netcraft figures.
    `----

    http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=15108
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/12/2007, -32/+133How come you don't mention the fact that Open Source Parking fakes their headers to give inflated Apache numbers?

      http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/04/04/open_source_parking_spoofing_headers_to_benefit_apache.html

      Or do you consider faking headers to be OK, because they aren't Microsoft?
    • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -80/+25Dude, this is digg. Don't make an argument against OpenSource/Apple/360.

      And BTW, ISS and ASP.NET FTW.

      i love being buried :)
    • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -39/+3Oh snap.
    • Huwawa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Maybe that some are using things like lighttpd? Who knows.. I personally found lightttpd really easy to install.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -44/+59@xTRUMANx

      You're getting buried because no-one knows what ISS is. IIS on the other hand is a buggy piece of junk that is loved by managers and despised by techs.
    • spamzor, on 10/12/2007, -56/+62Microsoft .NET web application development is nothing short of the best web development enviroment available... My experience with PHP leaves a lot to be desired however cheap it may be... I love developing in .NET Microsoft really have a winner....

      I would suggest this would be the primary reason for a shrinking Apache useage... If those stats are correct
    • salomejones, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34You're all wrong. The point of the matter is that ever since the first netcraft cheat nearly ten years ago, netcraft statistics have been utterly untrustworthy. Netcraft hasn't been relevant in the memory of 99% of digg users in the first place.
    • mictester, on 10/12/2007, -35/+32It seems every parked site I've seen lately is MS-hosted. It's an obvious scam.

      All the largest websites on the planet (with the exception of MS' own ones) run some Unix variant - even Netcraft shows this if you look at the top 100!

      Game Over, Microsoft
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -43/+24>Microsoft .NET

      You misspelled "cheap hack knock-off copy of Java for dummies"

    • SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -5/+72@GMorgan:

      Everyone knows what ISS is: the International Space Station.

      Duh.
    • dscx, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6International Superstar Soccer, great game! (Predecessor of Pro Evolution/Winning Eleven)
    • javaroast, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@spamzor

      In the interest of fairness and full disclosure your experience with .net is cheap and leaves a lot to be desired as well
    • Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31Its called business guys, something the open source world doesn't seem to understand. Company X offers Company Y a discount or perk on a product that they need to use. Company Z (or rather feelgood grassroots foundation Z) doesn't because they give it away. But there is more demand or some benefit from using Company X's product. Company Z loses out.

      Sorry, I know many of you think this is anti-competitive, but the bottom line this happens in every other industry, except that in every other industry, grassroots open source projects don't exist and so geeks don't care. If you had a choice between a free car, or a GM, and GM heavily discounted their cars for various organizations like the Police or other government agencies, but the free car looks like *ss or a cheap knockoff of some Asian import and has a tendency to not do everything exceptionally well and made from recycled toilette paper tubes and was hard to drive, then you would still get the GM over the free car (except some people would take the free car anyways because they simply hate GM). But GM puts their cars on sale to sell cheaper then Ford so that you want to buy a GM rather then a Ford. Geeze, I guess GM should be sued for anti-competitive behaviour because they don't price their cars the same as Ford and people prefer them over the free car including government agencies.

      If Microsoft gave GoDaddy incentives on using their server products over FREE APACHE server products, and GoDaddy considered it worthy enough of a deal, then Microsoft saw a business opportunity and GoDaddy took advantage of it.

      I mean, honestly, how MORE anti-competitive is FREE? If you can't sell the world on free products, your doing something wrong, period. You can argue all you want about how great Linux or Apache server is, or Open Office, etc, etc, etc. These "foundations" litterally can't give these products away.
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13,----[ Quote ]
      | Question: Why would anyone use this gay tag quoting system consistently?
      |
      | Answer: Because Shestowitz is the gay
      `----
    • mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39
      The problem is with Netcraft. Parked domains shouldn't be counted as being on *any* web server, but should be counted as "parked".
    • thomasprebble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@spamzor
      Nobody is doubting that its a great platform to develop on. In my mind however they will never be a "winner" as you put it because of practices the first post highlights.
    • wolferz, on 10/12/2007, -18/+38to summarize: instead of actually trying to compete were gona whine and bitch about how it's not fair. ::sob::

      Many people in the open source community see Microsoft as an "evil corporation bent on world domination." You know how Microsoft views the members of the open source community? COMPETITION. Much more down to earth don't you think? It's because Microsoft doesn't have it's head in the clouds as it stands on its soup box and preaches about the evils of open source that they are ahead of open source every step of the way where it really matters. They aren't acting like hippies running around saying make love not war and generally looking like they are out of touch with reality. They are here to make money and open source is hurting the bottom line. They have responded the way any company in any industry would.

      Mean while open source has made a lot of noise and has garnered a lot of interest. That is the political methodology and can not compete with a business methodology. While open source advocates are getting on their blogs and news aggregation sites to bemoan the evils of Microsoft, Microsoft is walking into the offices of companies that use open source and selling them close sourced products. While open source rants about the rights of users and freedom, Microsoft is gaining market share.

      Stop trying to be political and start being competitive.

      btw Topher06 is dead on right except one place (see below). The members of the open source community has no concept of how to function in the business world, which is why it is stagnating and actually beginning to lose ground. Hes right about this might be anti-competitive but that in fact is moot as it is Standard Operating Procedure and as such whining about it wont change that Microsoft is kicking open source's ass with it.

      That said I don't think Apache will ever qualify as a cheep knock off compared to anything else on the market right now. It is a total pain in the ass to set up till you get good with it but it is definitely one of the best offerings in the web daemon world currently. It's just backed by a bunch of hippies instead of some one with business sense.
    • wolferz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@thomasprebble

      No. It is EXACTLY because of practices like the one the poster indicates that it WILL be the winner.

      NOTE: sorry about multi-post. I took too long proof reading my previous post and didn't notice thomasprebble's post till I could no longer edit.
    • donatj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Well at my company at least it seems some clients don't have faith at all in open source, as I got the impression in a conference call where a guy basicly called us morons for using php rather than Cold Fusion.
    • goalieca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Could it potentially be that virtualization confuses the numbers. In such a case the machine has one IP address yet could be running several apache servers for several different websites.I believe microsoft has a restrictive licence against such practicing or charges extra or something (i dunno cuz i would never use it!)
    • BrainiakZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@GMorgan.

      That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Don’t get but hurt because you cant do both. IIS has came a long way, and its not despised. I can see IIS 5 and below where people would not like it, but IIS6 has major benefits, and IIS7 will take it to the next level. I run a major hosting company, and most of our systems are Linux, but we have windows systems and they are more dependable then the Linux systems. Its all about the admins that set the up.. Amateurs are what make anything look bad, including apache, Linux, windows, fast and furious ricers, etc. Comments like yours just make you look like an it10t.
    • babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1
      Wow. People still use Sun's iPlanet Web Server? You gotta be ***** me? ROTFLMAO!
    • dengzhi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is there an equivalent to phpMyAdmin for IIS? What program do you guys use for managing a MySQL DB on a windows server?
    • profmike2002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its a very simple fact that you open source bigots will never admit. Microsoft's IIS is simply a superior product and has finally met and exceeded the capabilities and security of Apache.
  • tony.pitale, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Woohoo single metrics!
  • Arkitus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27... more THAN 30%.
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4No, he means that they had more, THEN they had 30%
    • jsully, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"These have a market share of 2.3%, leveling the real loss of Apache to “only” 0.56%."
      I think that one's worse.
  • TiKoZ, on 10/12/2007, -22/+11Maybe nothing is wrong, maybe it's just that *some* of my microsoft's application ain't THAT bad?
    • EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6MS does have some great apps...

      But IIS is not (or was not since I last tried it) one of them.
  • SDyer, on 10/12/2007, -32/+83IIS has come a long long way. Admitedly it used to be laughable... but nowadays its a fairly decent product.
    Added, the .NET framework is gaining huge followings, and theres definet ease-of-use factors. Not everything microsoft makes is crap.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -31/+63Indeed.

      IIS7 + ASP.NET is a beautiful platform to develop for.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -43/+34Still not as good as alternatives though which happen to be a fair bit cheaper. LAMP pisses on IIS from a great height.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Why bury him? While I prefer Apache myself (with mod_mono if required), there is nothing wrong with IIS. It has no unpatched known issues.

      IIS 6 - http://secunia.com/product/1438/?task=advisories
      Apache 2.2 - http://secunia.com/product/9633/?task=advisories

      Why has IIS market share increased?

      1. You can't accurately measure it.
      2. It is safe to run where IIS 5 was not playing in the same field. Some people who used to install Apache on their Windows 2000 web server don't bother anymore when IIS6 is with the OS.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12Yes but long term those Windows servers are being replaced by Linux ones in any case.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -14/+39I personally find the weak link in LAMP to be PHP. I much prefer ASP.NET

      LAMM? Linux, Apache, MySQL, mod_mono, maybe?
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17 * Linux, (referring to the operating system);
      * Apache, the Web server;
      * MySQL, the database management system (or database server);
      * PHP (Sometimes Perl or Python), the programming language.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29
    • senfo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+48@GMorgan,

      Could you expand on, "LAMP pisses on IIS from a great height"? I've done a lot of PHP development in my days. It's a somewhat clean language that somewhat resembles C. It's generally pretty fast and I can use it to design web applications in a hurry.

      Having programmed in PHP for a while, I was reluctant to give ASP.NET a try, despite the fact that I had been writing .NET Windows applications for some time. When job demands forced me into learning ASP.NET, I found myself with little choice, other than to look for a new job. Rather than be out of a job, I opted to learn ASP.NET, and what I found about IIS and ASP.NET was extremely surprising, to me. With an event-driven design, Microsoft had managed to add a level of control to ASP.NET that very closely resembled the programming style I was accustomed to while writing Windows applications. It was amazing, to say the least. IIS was infinitely easier to configure than Apache and, as others have mentioned, it has had fewer vulnerabilities than Apache. It was a win/win situation. ASP.NET had enabled me to design web applications that would have taken me months longer to develop in PHP and sitting on top of a web server that was every bit as reliable as Apache, my web applications were incredibly fast and secure.

      PHP was good, in its time, but I truly believe ASP.NET meets or exceeds in every category I have tested.
    • SamKellett, on 10/12/2007, -16/+33@SDyer: Dugg for "Not everything Microsoft makes is crap."

      It needs to be said again; not everything Microsoft makes is crap.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6@senfo

      I used LAMP as a general term sort of how AJAX is used without JS these days. You can replace the P with any number of technologies. Right now there are a metric ton of technology that can be used there.

      Also there is no way IIS has fewer vulnerabilities than Apache. In fact it is the standard argument against the 'popularity is the only metric' argument when it comes to vulnerabilities.
    • glide256, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18I think what most people forget about Microsoft is that they cater towards developers. They support developer communities because Microsoft, at its heart, is a large software corporation. They know what tools developers want and they tend to produce those kinds of tools.

      That being said, ASP.NET is a technical achievement. They created a programming environment for the web that takes care of a lot of things for you. I sometimes don't like the "magic tier" that it creates, but for the most part, it makes web development incredibly easy. My biggest concern about ASP.NET is that it sometimes does too much to abstract away the web.

      So to reiterate: Not everything that Microsoft makes sucks.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19"Also there is no way IIS has fewer vulnerabilities than Apache"

      Why not? Microsoft has come a long way in security. Look at SQL Server 2005 and Vista. Both have had remarkably few vulnerabilities.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9"IIS was infinitely easier to configure than Apache and, as others have mentioned, it has had fewer vulnerabilities than Apache."

      Is this really true? I've found Apache far, far easier to configure in my experiences. IIS has far more prerequisite dependencies to install, and I find the menu structure to be rather convoluted. I really love that if I'm not sure where a certain setting is in httpd.conf I can just run a simple search rather than hunting through menu after menu. I also found stuff like virtual hosts and ip filtering easier in Apache as well.

      And does Apache really have more vulnerabilities than IIS? I haven't messed around with web servers for a few years but when I did my Apache server was bombarded (unsuccessfully of course) by IIS viruses and attempted buffer overruns with extra long crafted URLs.

      In my admittedly limited experience Apache was a rock. It worked great for me for 5 years.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I've actually administered an IIS server before (failingly) but Apache just seems easier to setup initially and lower TCO over all.

      It isn't the fact that one is more vulnerable than the other, but IIS on a Windows server costs an arm and a leg and seeing that Apace admins are plentiful as it is... No real need for a more expensive platform to keep under budget.
    • OutOfMyBase16, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1i don't care how good any MS product might be, it's disingenuous. They're not in anything unless it's to take complete control. the fact that you need IIS to run ASP.NET says it all.

    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Then why is the vendor of our .Net based application making us replace EVERY COMPUTER WE HAVE due to the fact that .Net is such a bloated pig it CAN'T RUN ON A CELERON!

      Someone missed the idea of what web-based applications are about.

      Maybe if programmers had talent instead of frameworks which give them a crutch, eh?


    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@mikelieman

      We code in .Net at work using nothing better than 1.6Ghz P4's...

    • EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9ASP.NET now sounds interesting (I actually have been looking down on it every time I hear it...).

      I myself have been programming in PHP for about a year and a half (in my spare time, mostly making modifications for phpBB2 and phpBB3). And I would like to continue to be a web developer, so I may just need to look into ASP.NET...

    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5> Also there is no way IIS has fewer vulnerabilities than Apache.

      GMorgan, you are now showing your true colours. We both know that there is no way of counting total vulnerabilities. We can only look at reported vulnerabilities, how many remain unpatched and the criticalness of those unpatched. On those metrics, IIS 6 is currently AHEAD of Apache. See my prior post for the secunia links (or look it up yourself).

      Furthermore, IIS has enough market share to attract interest, about 1 in 3 webservers are running it. It was only 1 in 5 when Code Red was released in July 2001 ( http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200107.html ). That is a 15% increase in market share with less known vulnerabilities and none unpatched. Furthermore, the handling services run as the Network Services user instead of System, which means that even if a vulnerability is found, it will have a much harder time doing anything.

      Your argument simply does not stack up. That said, I am running Apache 2.2.3 on my laptop here, but that is a preference, nothing more.

      > Also there is no way IIS has fewer vulnerabilities than Apache. In fact it is the standard argument against the 'popularity is the only metric' argument when
      > it comes to vulnerabilities.

      No, that illustration today can only be used to show that high market share does not necessarily equal security flaws every second day. 6 years ago, yes IIS had more bugs and a significantly smaller install base. But that is simply not true today. Even Apache which currently has the worst record is not looking too bad.
    • srg13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK, you've convinced me to install mod_mono and learn some asp.net
    • babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
      Well, I'm a LAMP / Unix / Oracle guy in general, but our system that uses IIS and .Net hitting an Oracle db runs flawlessly. The other system running Weblogic & Oracle is the biggest piece of ***** known to mankind.

      I'm starting to see a pattern between complete ***** applications using Weblogic & J2EE. You know it as soon as you hit a website that's running J2EE...let the slowness begin. I've seen this at various Fortune 500 companies. Not sure if it's J2EE, Weblogic, or the lame ass developers they hire, but there's definitely a pattern.

      Only problem with the IIS and .net boxes is that we have to patch them all the time.



    • RandaII, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0still ***** sucks.
  • gibler, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Is there a Internet work doing the rounds that does driveby IIS installs?
  • generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22It seems like more websites are switching from Apache to lighttpd as well, for dynamic content (youtube serves videos with it, mininova)
    • cfelde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I thought they were using lighttpd for static content. Youtube videos are static content, not dynamic content..
    • opitica, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the page you call to view the video is dynamic
  • hadi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11parked domain caused it
    • benjaoming, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4It would be reasonable to think that they create their statistics per IP-address?
    • mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8
      It would be reasonable to think that, but apparently Netcraft creates their statistics by domain. If you have thousands of (parked) domains mapped to the same IP address, they will all be counted as having the same web server, so the statistics can be greatly manipulated by simply changing the web server in use on the system with that one IP address.
  • tekrat, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28I think the switch is happening because .NET is starting to get some traction, OSS is starting to stagnate, and alternative servers are starting to be used. .NET and new technologies like Silverlight are coming available. The .NET platform has finally matured with 3.0 out and 4.0 coming soon. OSS is the same now as it was a couple of year.

    PHP 5, Apache 2 are two biggies and they been out for years. PHP 6 is suppose to be here any day now, but I haven't seen it. Plus I'm still trying to find a reputable hosting service that has Apache 2, PHP5 and SQLite 3 support. *Most* places are Apache 1, PHP4, and MySQL 4 houses.

    I also know of a lot of friends who role their own servers using solutions like lighttpd or Abyss Web Server because of the ease of management and the speed.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6You aren't taken in by the big number changes are you, .Net 3.0 is no different architecturally to .Net 2.0. Just adds a few new libraries on top of the same core. 4.0 will be no different, all we are seeing is MS expand .Net gut without adding anything new to it. All that has been done could be achieved via third party libraries.

      The big .Net revs are smaller steps than the old .x revs of Java. At least each of them altered the underlying technology,

      Call me when .Net has lazy bytecode verification. Hell call me when MS even manage something like Hotspot.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Developer hat on, I think any increase* IS most likely due to ASP .Net which has been getting traction for years.

      I don't think it's the best product out there, I think the same pages can be served better elsewhere, and I think Microsoft will have to pull something pretty special out of the hat to get IIS to the majority of web servers.



      *I've never cited netcraft when they favour what I'm saying because they lack credibility by the way, I feel comfortable pointing that out now.
  • clnydk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18There is a strong MS current flowing in my small group. I see that that is not simply because they are choosing IIS/ASP/MS/NET as a technology, but because developers simply don't have time/capability/inclination/admins and/or don't want to fool with all the admin, integration, unix headaches (just want it now, want it to just run, want to do it myself), and because the heavy lifting seems to be already done for them. I mean, simple codeglue from library and cut and paste to stitch it all together is a powerful force. Maybe it is that way for Apache, not sure(Geronimo went in without a headache tho).

    Funny, but they never complained (sigh) when they had to completely downgrade, then later upgrade Studio because the mobile platform on part of their platform forced it, midstream of development breaking things.
    • mrsteveman1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Competent IT managers (or developers) who know what they are doing, don't choose a services platform because of how much they don't have to know to use it.......that makes them arrogant morons who don't deserve the job they have. It is unacceptable for anyone to setup a critical system in a fashion that they don't need to understand it to use it.

      Critical services platforms REQUIRE a fundamental understanding of the system from top to bottom, if you can't do that you aren't qualified to manage such systems, at all.
    • Mountaineer1024, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19@mrsteveman1
      FAST, CHEAP, GOOD
      Pick 2.
      My employers (and myself) are all HTML, Perl, Python, PHP developers from wayback.
      But our clients don't give a toss about those technologies. They want their product RIGHT NOW and they want it for as low a price as we can provide it.
      I'm not going to attempt to argue the merits of visual studio as an IDE over whatever your favourite technology is, but for me it's been the way to go.
      So for the last 2 years I've done nothing outside of visual studio, first VS2003 and now VS2005.
      You make a judgement regarding my supposed lack of competence and then assert that my ilk apparently "don't deserve the job they have" and then have the gall to say I am one of the "arrogant morons"?
      ***** YOU.
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12mrsteveman1,
      you are becoming a dinosaur if you do not recognize and move with the industry. on the up side we can use you as oil in a few million years.
    • sirhomer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2.NET doesn't even have a Tokenizer class
    • kenstone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Uh. Ya it does. It's called String.Split( Char[] ) .
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7".NET doesn't even have a Tokenizer class"

      Someone's never used a System.String object....
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Perhaps you are in the IT department where I work. If you are, please stop using IIS. I'm asking you as a client. I hate the fact that your Web servers are down more than they are up because the machines need a reboot. This includes our stupid-assed voicemail system. Don't even get me started on how they're so clueless over there that they couldn't register a fracking domain name and instead they just made one up and figured it was easier to manually enter it into all 4,000 people's hosts file one by one across the whole building.
  • oojamaflip2006, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36I have to agree with some of the comments on here about how nice asp.net development is compared with LAMP. Now I know Microsoft is always doing really really evil anti-competitive things and I can neither excuse or condone them for this because lets face it it sucks *****. However, I've been a PHP developer for a lot longer than I've been a C# developer and I just have to say asp.net has a really impressive development environment. Would it be better if it was open-source? Of course! But this is Microsoft you're talking about so dont expect it anytime soon. You can of course digg up or bury this but don't bury for saying asp.net is great to develop for.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Coming from php, anything is nice. I come from the assembly, C++, JEE, hibernate world. I am happy. I have the ability to reinvent the wheel but I don't since I have hibernate and struts. If microsoft ports .NET completely over to linux, I will give it a whirl. Right now, I just change the schema, click, and my objects are updated and I just code in Java, it's extremely painless, scalable and open source, if anything goes wrong, I know where to look. I need that when doing development for my clients. I'm self-employeed and if something doesn't work I want to rely on the fewest people as possible. For those who say open source doesn't pay off, try being an expert on many open source products. It pays off. Take for example myspace. Their trials and terbulations make me pull my hair out and I don't even work there. They rely on Microsoft and it bites them in the butt, all these little gotchas here and there in the closed source product make it so they have outages they can do nothing about until microsoft, who hand holds them, fixes the problem. That is a terrible spot to be in as a corporation - completely dependent on someone else for uptime. My customers are the happiest customers in the world, no down time and lots of happiness and good feelings.

  • Mantice, on 10/12/2007, -28/+20ASP.NET makes me sick along with IIS, Digg me down if you want to but I find that Apache is more stable than IIS will be dependent on the windows OS.
    • Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12Then ya doing something wrong.
    • Dankoozy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3MS marketing department is digging this one like hell. thats every comment remotely appearing to support Apache has been dugg down to about -10 at least
  • yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22How can Microsoft have a monopoly on web servers if they have less market share than Apache?
    • Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Microsoft never had a monopoly in ANYTHING. It has never been in a market without competitors in its entire existence. Most people who say otherwise got their information from competitors that are losing to Microsoft in a fair market due to economics of scale and better service.
  • plingboot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27(when did it become ok to start using then for than, it's driving me nuts)
    • Vision2098, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Argh no kidding. I hate that.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5than why don't you go somewhere else?
    • comradeTJH, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Isn't "they're" also replaced by "their" all the time here?
  • break99, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12One reason: IIS kick ass!

    One of my favorite products ever!
  • benjaoming, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17It seems that IIS has increased market share since after the release of Windows Server 2003. Microsoft has fought a dirty battle against Linux for many years... so full of lies (TOS etc), that I cannot applaud them at all.

    The statistics do not say anything about Apache servers switching, though. And I think it would be fair to conclude from the last table on http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/05/01/may_2007_web_server_survey.html that IIS gains more new-coming servers than Apache. Maybe because Windows admins are so happy about buying new hardware all the time.

    In other news Linux has a much better uptime and response time than Windows:

    http://blog.mon.itor.us//?p=286
  • xtragedy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Apache VS IIS - Albeit from the I think I'm good even if it's not true point of view...

    Administrator side :
    For the new admin: They don't care, they don't use most of their features anyway.
    For the middle-experienced admin: IIS, because of the interface.
    For the very-experienced admin: Apache, because of the POWER! Ahahah!

    Developer side:
    For the new dev: IIS, because of ASP...
    For the exp dev: They don't care, they develop on anything...
    For the advanced dev: Apache, because of the POWER! Duh!
    • xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Hate to disagree. I couldnt care less about the "power". As a development manager, my job is to get it done -quickly- and in budget. Companies don't care how L33T you are. They want the ***** done. Anyone who talks like you about "the power", doesn't work for me. Egos like that end up being a liability because they slow the project down and come up with hairbrained ideas that only they themselves understand and no one else can maintain. But hey, its uber cool, huh?
    • tuzziel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Do not use any of them. You can script you app in a few days with Apache&PHP or IIS&VB. But if you run a serious site that is actually exposed then you will feel the this sort of things soon. Am I in control ? Do I know what is happening right now? My server might be hacked just now, but do I really know? These sorta things..
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"For the advanced dev: Apache, because of the POWER! Duh! "

      I disagree. ASP.NET can be very, very, very powerful. Apache/IIS, the server itself, is often hidden from the developer. The only thing they care about is what it supports (What version of asp.net, what version of php?), so basically it boils down to PHP versus ASP.NET

      ASP.NET has spectacular databinding, a good event structure, access to the full CLR (Easy image manipulation & XML work), master pages, user controls, etc. The 'novice' developer likes asp.net because of its ease of use (Visual Studio Web Developer, drag and drop, some code), and 'advanced' developer likes it because of the ability to roll your own membership/role/etc. providers, override nearly anything by writing your own class that derives from System.Web.Page, etc.
  • Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16crikey the astroturfers are out in force today eh,
    • magus_melchior, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Precisely. There's a lot of insubstantial posts gushing about how great ASP.NET on IIS is, that also fail to make the connection to the apparent loss of market share for Apache.
    • Dankoozy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3indeed they are. i thought i was the only one who noticed
  • generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6How does using Apache with webmin stack up to IIS's GUI? Is it just a matter of using that by default in distros so more people know about it, or is IIS (or in that case, OS X Server) miles ahead in that department?
    • tomz17, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6You have to use the text-based configuration to do anything meaningful in apache. (I've seen a few GUI's, but they are all complete crap)

    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The OP named the damn GUI configuration tool for Apache. Webmin, it's a very nice tool that works via a web browser over the network. It is a better solution since you don't need a GUI to run a server. You can configure it over a network.
  • anmol2k4, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1There is Ballmer Monkey, and Bill Gates , Managers, Lawyers.
    Rest are developers.
  • ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12The reason is simple: GoDaddy. They switched from Apache to IIS for their ad servers. These are millions of sites that serve ads that are running IIS.
    • Darcy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3OH, so thats the reason!


    • githoc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12And yet Apache was happy to include those numbers when it was in their favour.
    • nfxmedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They switched because Microsoft gave it away. There was no technical advantage - it was just cheaper.
      http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=15108
    • ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@githoc

      I'm not commenting on whether we should or shouldn't include GoDaddy's ad servers in the count, simply that no one should be confused about why there was a drastic shift in the statistics. GoDaddy serves a ridiculous amount of parked domains.
  • xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Ive used both as a web developer, and I can say that I actually prefer IIS and the .NET platform. Complain as you will about Microsoft, but few people actually ever give them credit when it is due. These products are _good_. They perform well, they make development a much quicker process, and maintenance is much easier. For once, I really wish the community would separate the "Microsoft wants to rule the world" bashing from the actual software that they develop. These are very skilled professionals who write these server and development applications, not kids tinkering with some C code. The Visual Studio IDE is unbeatable by any account for all that it does. I like Apache, but given the choice, it would be a no.
  • DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'd say if anything else one reason for the decline in LAMP might just be because the Microsoft solution is easier to setup, easier to administer and (arguably) just as secure. That's not to say that a Linux box can't match an MS box in nearly every way but ease of use seems to go against the grain when it comes to Linux.

    As a great example I used a Windows dedicated server for just about 2 years. One thing I really appreciated was being able to RDP into my box and remote control the server. Now this is perfectly doable on Linux using the same exact protocols but if you ask for help setting it up Linux admins will roll their eyes. "Why do you need to do that?" "It's a performance issue", "It's a security issue". Excuses, really because they don't agree with what you want to do. That mindset hurts the platform. It's like the Linux admins take some pride in the complexity of what they do. But eventually the Linux community is going to have to face the facts. Not everyone likes things to be complicated. We don't all love the CLI. Not everyone likes editing text files in order to configure things. For now I still feel LAMP is the better choice but that gaps is closing VERY quickly.
    • xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I agree, donCarcharo. Especially regarding the configuration. It still seems odd to me that we are still using 60's text-based technology to administer today's technology. Why even use the web, if text is so great? Why does XML exist if plain text is so great? The world has moved beyond, but these Linux systems still hang on to these things. Linux is at conflict with itself these days. They want nice flashy point and click desktops like KDE and Gnome, but under the hood they still want confusing "for no apparent reason" file system structures, text files, and cryptic file names. Its simply putting a nice pretty dress on an old hag.
    • Ssullivan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Editing config files is infinitely easier than pointing and clicking through a million GUI windows. Once you have a config file edited just how you want it you can easily duplicate your configuration just by inserting your old config file into a new server.

      On the other hand for a windows server you can have fun pointing and clicking setting things up all over again on each new server.
    • DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@Ssullivan

      I completely respect your point of view however your opinion is the classic example of why Linux is losing marketshare. Most people prefer clicking shiny buttons over editing text files and the people behind Linux just don't get that. Moreover if it was truly about choice why not have those one million GUI windows write to the text files? That way we're happy and you're happy.
  • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Its called ASP.net and you have to run ISS.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The international space station?
    • mirunit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1IIS* IIS on the ISS would be great though.
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"""
    Or do you consider faking headers to be OK, because they aren't Microsoft?
    """
    Faking headers is often done for security reasons alone. A little security through obscurity, while minimal in the protection it gives, can often throw script kiddies and silly surveys like this off the trail and make them move on to something else.
    • githoc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2But not in this case. They set out to change them on purpose to counter IIS.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I would agree that may be done, it doesn't make sense to tell everyone you are a webserver with more unpatched vulnerabilities. That is likely to attract you more attention.

      Lighttpd looks ok at the moment: http://secunia.com/product/4661/?task=advisories
  • offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6For those of you who just want to trash IIS and praise Apache, you really do not have direct experience with these two server applications. I personally maintain both Apache and IIS servers for my personal use. With IIS 6 things got a lot better and now IIS 7 is out as Beta 1 with many improvements which are similar to Apache with an array of extensions you can optionally enable as you choose. The difference is that it is much easier to manage. In contrast Apache is largely still a text-based configuration system with an array of extensions which are not always documented well and may not always work well together. I run a Subversion server and setting up the access control was extremely difficult because the module (mod_auth_sspi) is not really developed by the original developer anymore and it never had very good documentation. In IIS 7 the configuration details can now be self-contained with each website in the Web.config file so that when you deploy a new website it automatically has everything it needs. And can also manage it with helpful visual tools, remotely even. I know MySQL has a decent visual tool and over the years there was some work done for Apache in this regard but it never seemed to become a priority. Perhaps now is the time to make it a priority.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4IIS7 is out of beta.

      You'll find it in Vista. Longhorn Server will have IIS7 as well, albeit probably with performance/security improvements.
  • offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@mirunit

    You can run ASP.NET with Apache. You just have to route the request to be managed by the .NET runtime. (See link below) I think this example requires Windows still. Otherwise on the Mac or Linux you can use Mono. But if you were to consider this you would conclude the extra work to maintain this for what you get is not really worth it. What I have done previously is run Apache with a reverse proxy to IIS so that I could enable some of the Apache extensions I want to use while still leveraging what IIS can do. It worked very well.

    http://weblogs.asp.net/israelio/archive/2005/09/11/424852.aspx
  • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Windows and IIS has gotten a lot better since IIS 4 and 5. It's easier to get setup and to configure for most purposes. Everyone used to use Apache because it was a "real" web server in comparison to Microsoft's "toy" web server.

    The primary problem with Apache is that it's pretty much the same now as it was six years ago. Sure, 2.0 added new MPMs, but most people still use prefork for better PHP compatibility.

    The Apache Foundation needs to address its configurability. They need to have an official remote admin utility (web interface or otherwise) that is powerful enough to configure everything with ease. Enabling PHP, for example, should be as easy as selecting the PHP module and then editing that module's settings if you want to change the filetypes used for PHP code. Virtual hosts should be as simple as clicking "Add virtual host" and then filling in values. Administrators shouldn't have to wade through the online manual looking for a directive for what they need... there should be dialogs for all that stuff.

    I love Apache and I do configuration by hand all the time. The level of control is great, but when you get right down to it I would rather make that part of my life easier and maybe even let a subordinate do it.

    There is so much that Apache should do, but they haven't been innovative in nearly a decade. That's why they're losing market share.
  • ForbesBingley, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Parked domains, the only thing IIS is fit for...
    • Cablito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9don't assume you know how business works. Your vast experience in blogs, wordpress and webmail don't count.
  • DanaK, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4IIS 6.x has come a long way from a few versions prior. Add an ease of use to manage for multi-tasking developers in small environments with shrinking budgets for man power and you have a winner. I love apache but the reality is in secure environments where you are following other guidelines and checklists, 9 times out of 10 their more tailored to windows configurations with IIS. At least in my experience.
  • sulaco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3All anybody can do on here is complain. Use whatever suits your needs/environment/users, and keep your opinion about everything else to yourself.
  • inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Maybe lighthttpd is gaining some ground :)
  • Narrator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I looked at the vanilla apache 2 SSL config and they still have keepalive turned off for MSIE! I figured this one out years ago.

    That will totally slow things down. All one needs to do is set the keepalivetimeout to 120 seconds and it will fix the SSL unclean shutdown bugs for IE 6. Do they just not care about SSL performance? I know that Microsoft kicks their buts on SSL server market share.
  • handler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Lighthttpd is good for customization, it can be run side by side with apache and have one server up the 443 traffic and 80 on the other. Works well.
  • thecheatah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I have always seen microsoft to do things for show. IE is a and the .net developing environment is a good example of this.

    let me say this in a way where everyone can understand: in IE, 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. I don't mean the math operator literately does this, but some of the other operators do. (passing the window object as an attribute to a function when 'this' already equals window, causes it act dumb)

    I also had the pleasure of working with the asp framework, and it has problems with parsing quotes. (thats like saying a car has trouble shifting gears).

    To a developer these tools are useless, but yes they do look impressive and fun to use.

    Personally iv been developing php apps using nothing but some sort of a text editor and Firefox development extensions.

    Web development isnt that complicated (yes i use ajax, css, and all of the fancy stuff, in EVERY case).
    http://SikhShabads.com (personal site)
    http://alfalfa.rutgers.edu/ezsched/schedule_builder.php (school project semester schedule builder)

    Whatever the reason that apache is loosing market share, it probably does not have anything to do with Microsoft's tools being better for developers.

    What doesnt make sense to me is that they say that other software has not moved much, but apache has been loosing ground. So who is it loosing ground too? May be another version of apache?

  • chall2001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why would you include parked pages? It makes these statistics useless and easily exploited.
    Wow!!! We host a billion pages that say "coming soon"!!!
  • hadak, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8it may surprise you to know that microsoft's web servers are run on linux, and their databases are oracle.

    microsoft knows their products can't handle huge amounts of traffic.
    • EdgarVerona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Which ones? www.microsoft.com looks like it's running IIS... unless they're using Apache with Mono or something like that, but I think that's a stretch.

      Are portions of the site running on Linux? Someone should make a story about that on Digg if that's the case, because I think that would be hillarious... and I don't doubt it, I just can't find anything they're running that's hosted on Linux at the moment. Perhaps more investigation will be in order later today.
    • mrhahn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Not from where I'm sitting...

      raptor$ curl -i http://www.microsoft.com
      HTTP/1.1 302 Found
      Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 16:17:15 GMT
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
      X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
      X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727
    • Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4you're thinking of the akamai caching services they use(d?) at one point. They had linux servers
  • markdav, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@tekrat

    Open Source stagnating? Go tell that to the guys behind Zimbra, Rails, Prototype, Alfresco, ServiceMix, Spring, Asterisk, AspectJ, etc. There's still plenty of innovation. Large closed source companies have the big R&D budgets but are often found to be catching up with Open Source efforts. I accept that Microsoft and their closed source competitors are putting out some great products now (and some crap ones as well) but Open Source is still as relevant as it ever has been. Making sweeping statements on the basis of web server statistics does your argument no favours. Open Source != Apache Httpd.
  • kaniz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12.NET 2.0 is a fantastic platform to develop with. So much of the 'tedious' aspects of doing web-programming are taken care behind the scenes for you, but at the same time still allowing developers the power and flexibility to still access the 'nitty gritty' details to tweak them to fit their needs if they need to.

    .NET 1.1 was "OK" - took awhile to win me over, but still left allot to be desired, but the past year I got off my ass and started using 2.0 and fell in love with it.

    As much as I dislike Microsoft, VS.NET + ASP.NET 2.0 = a great combo, and well - gotta admit, I love the new Office 2007. Some of the new features in Office 2007 made doing my reports / essays and case studies this year for school SO much easier than previous versions of Office, let alone using something like Open Office to do it.

    Now, if MS would realize that their strengths are in products like this and *NOT* in the OS that they run on, and started to port them to other platforms, I'd be a far happier person.
    • Cablito, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Yeah, what people don't realize is that you can't base your beliefs on Windows because your old 486 with windows 95 used to lock up all the time.

      Windows 2003 + IIS + ASP.Net is something one can't just apply the "Microsoft is Crap" tag to.

      Besides, kernel http caching, and the amazing performance of asp.net make most php stuff look like Java.

      Yes, you can go opt-code php or whatever, install a bunch of caching and precompiling stuff on php, but out of the box, you can't seriously compare with asp.net, unless you start pulling the fanboy talk, which would render the discussion useless.
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7There is no "problem". IIS 6 is an awesome web server.
  • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The incredible part of this story is that a wordpress blog was able to survive a Digging...
  • lupicite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Although Apache does have its strengths and weaknesses, there are some advantages to the default installation of other web servers (including IIS). There is the ability to turn off individual sites or groups of sites (IIS, Zeus, and others support this) and a convenient administration interface. I used Zeus for years between various companies (Interliant and Interland). Some of those servers ran the same old version of Zeus for years (v 3.3.7 I believe) and were never hacked or had any major holes. This isn't to say that apache can't be secured, but out of the box there are a fair amount of things that need to be known and taken into consideration prior to running apache with a lot of the modules. If anything, apache needs a cleaner way to administrate the http service and the virtual hosts (yes, I know you can spread things out to various config files). Anyone who has used Zeus, IIS, or the old Netscape Secure Commerce Server knows how simple it can be to work with, especially when it is handled by an experienced sysadmin (not just a point-and-click admin). Zeus made it easy to change settings for the various subgroups of sites (want Frontpage turned on for these customers and php turned on for these others, and throttle bandwidth to these others... simple, clean, quick. Zeus also made it easy to run a large load balanced platform because of the way it pushed out configs to the other servers within a cluster. I'm not pushing for commercial software here. I just wish Apache had more features to help simplify these operations "out-of-the-box" without having to find 3rd party software or write your own modules to mimic what these others already do. At the end of the day, I still use apache for most all of my uses, but I can still look at others' products and respect or even envy some of their capabilities.
  • gexen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think the problem that a lot of people are having is that their view of Microsoft has been soured by years and years of anticompetitive practices and really crappy software. During the Windows 95/98/ME years the aggravation alone caused me to get into Linux. Now that Microsoft's enterprise applications are starting to become absolutely spectacular, it's hard for some people to get rid of their old anti-MS mentality. I had absolutely no idea IIS 6 was so good until I started working for a MS-centric web hosting company. I was a little wary of IIS in general, IIS 5 had been an absolute disaster. Hardly any isolation of processes and most importantly, security holes up the wazoo. What I found (and still find), is that IIS 6 is actually much more secure than Apache 2.2 is. There has not been a single IIS specific critical security hole since the product launched. Check it out yourself, I'm not kidding at all. That's INCREDIBLY impressive, even more-so when you consider Microsoft's history in the security arena. IIS 6 also made huge headway with the creation of "application pools" to allow for web site process isolation, so if one web site has problems, all the other sites on the box won't go down. That is what happened with IIS 5.

    Having administered both IIS 6 and Apache, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that IIS 6 is easier to configure once you know how the settings are laid out. Luckily enough, there's not a billion settings so even if you don't know where something is, it's not too hard to find and you certainly don't need to consult a manual to figure out what lines to enter into a configuration file to do X task.

    As far as the numbers, GoDaddy makes a huge difference since they switched to IIS. The fact that they even switched to IIS for something as big as their domain parking infrastructure (it generates millions and millions of dollars) should speak highly of IIS as well. However, it's not just GoDaddy. IIS is growing for 2 reasons:

    1) ASP.NET is gaining a lot of momentum in the Enterprise and is starting to limp along with crutches in the hobbyist market.
    2) Unlike previous iterations, Windows 2003 Server is a stable platform and performs and scales very well.

    With the release of IIS 7, it's going to start gaining even more ground. IIS 7 is implementing features that make it easier for developer's to control their web environment without the system admin's getting involved. This is done in Apache through the .htaccess file, and will be handled in IIS 7 through the web.config file.

    That being said, I hope Apache finds a way to keep doing the great job they've been doing. As long as there is a solid competitor like Apache, Microsoft will continue to keep striving to do better and attempt to gain more marketshare, which is better for everybody because it provides an actual choice.
  • etnu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2People who know better won't use IIS. Who gives a *****? The Yahoos and Googles of the world aren't going to be firing up IIS anytime soon. If banks and ***** sites like myspace want to use IIS, more power to them. It just makes it that much easier to compete for people who actually know what they're doing.
  • saxjazman9, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3heh, none of you obviously have ever written in perl.


    it's not that the "apache market is shrinking", it's that MS has made it so incredibly easy to put up an IIS server that any rtard with a computer and some newbie skills can pull it off. Doesn't mean their site is any good OR they have a clue what they are doing. The only reason IIS (or any MS server for that matter) has ANY marketshare what-so-ever is because all the IT wannabies out there can now do an easy click click install when they have no clue as to how the system really work.

    Security, it's a good thing.

    Perl+MySQL+Apache+gentoo FTW!
    • gexen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Please give one example of a critical security issue with IIS 6. Just one.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There haven't been any 'critical' vulnerabilities in IIS6. According to Secunia, there were 3 total, 2 of which were 'moderate', and the other is trivial. Keep in mind that IIS6 is about 4 years old, so that's pretty damned good.

      The newest security vulnerability is a year old. The other two are from like 2005.
    • BrainiakZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Saxjazman9

      Its cool if you want to spend 5 times the amount of time it takes a windows admin to create an IIS website. Linux guys are always so into their stuff they forget about productivity, and when ever possible, they put others down. Sounds like you are at the end of your knowledge base.
  • handler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Maybe this gexen?
    Microsoft IIS ASP Stack Overflow Exploit(MS06-034)
    • githoc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This was classed as Important and not Critical by Microsoft. IIS in its default config is unaffected and the ability to place an asp file on the server is also required.
  • rchtr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Been a while since I've seen so many grammatical errors in only four paragraphs. Sheesh.
  • PureForm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't really see this as a bad thing for Apache, I see it as the opposite. Competition always makes for better products. There is an obvious reason that IIS has been gaining on Apache for a while now; some people see it as being a better product. Yet, when ever a product looses market share, the company who produces it will respond with newer and better features, improving the product so more people will use it.

    Competition is always a good thing for the end user.
  • bmwboy2844, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2On the topic of .NET: Until Microsoft releases it for Linux, I won't bother with it.
  • Dankoozy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wow, this thread is full of paid microsoft astroturfers
    • offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Yeah, go ahead and discount the people who know enough to realize that Apache has not come up with an innovated release in a long time. One example, they are still not using XML for their configuration files which would be extremely useful. Once they have it running with XML it will be much easier to build a GUI to manage the configuration. Heck, a Firefox extension which hacks XML could be used to remotely manage an Apache web service if they finally took the jump. On the other hand, IIS 7 is now allowing you to configure a website completely with the Web.config which is all XML.
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you know how to program, it really doesn't matter what format the configuration files are in as long it the syntax and rules are predictable. So what if your app has to parse "SSLEngine On" as opposed to "<SSLEngine>On</SSLEngine>"? I don't understand what's difficult. That's why there are already graphical config editors for Apache config files.

      I have always personally hated graphical config editors because there are somethings that you can possibly make a GUI for. For instance, tell me how you would write a GUI that knew which config options were necessary for a non-standard module.
    • kfilip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@offwhite
      "Yeah, go ahead and discount the people who know enough to realize that Apache has not come up with an innovated release in a long time."

      Like threading method for accepting connections in 2.0?

      "One example, they are still not using XML for their configuration files which would be extremely useful. "

      Heh, that made my day! I presume you're joking but otherwise, if all you can give as an advantage of IIS is XML syntax over plain text used now (jerbaker gave a nice example), it's hilarious.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.