Apache Web Server Share Falls Below 50 Percent For First Time Since 2009 303
darthcamaro writes "Apache has always dominated the web server landscape. But in August, its share has slipped below 50 percent for the first time in years. The winner isn't nginx either — it's Microsoft IIS that has picked up share. But don't worry, this isn't likely a repeat of the Netscape/IE battle of the late 90's, Apache is here to stay (right?)"
The dip is mostly the result of GoDaddy switching to IIS from Apache. Which is to say GoDaddy hosts a whole lot of sites.
GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
IIS runs on Microsoft Windows.
GoDaddy administrators do not have the skill to manage Linux boxes.
Removed parked sites (Score:5, Insightful)
In my book, the stats ought to be excluding "parked" sites, ones which don't have any content beyond a parking page. I'd also exclude sites whose only content is boilerplate advertising (eg. the one you get if you're on Cox Cable's internet service and type a nonexistent domain into your browser). I'm more interested in what servers are being used for productive work without the numbers being skewed by the guy who registered 10,000 domains related to the latest fad and is waiting to see which ones he can sell at a profit.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
You basically just admitted that Linux boxes are harder to administer than Windows servers. This makes Linux servers much less appealing for companies when you can find Windows server admins for a dime a dozen, but Linux admins are harder to find and generally cost a lot more.
Re:GoDaddy IIS (Score:3, Insightful)
My WAG is that MS threw a bunch of money at Godaddy, not directly, you understand, but indirectly.
Furthermore, my conjecture is that MS is prepared to throw this money at Godaddy because Microsoft's share of sites was looking rather sad (3rd place for market share of active sites last month).
Re:base it on traffic vs. how many domains host'd (Score:5, Insightful)
Netcraft's report shows the percentages for all domains as well as for active domains [netcraft.com].
This article is a bit sensationalistic - no surprise. As a percentage of all domains, Microsoft is at 23% (Apache's at 47%). Looking at just non-parked domains, they're at 12% (versus 54% for Apache). Not really much of a "Apache vs. IIS" story there...
If there's any news at all, it's that servers other than Apache and IIS have managed to gain significant traction over the past couple of years. I remember when it had really turned into a two horse race, and gains by one exactly mirrored losses by the other. But now it's a bit more of a healthy competition.
Re:1st post. (Score:4, Insightful)
Be that as it may (I hate the IIS administration interface as well), for an enterprise who runs microsoft on the desktop, microsoft SQL, and other microsoft services, IIS integrates far easier into that environment.
And I suspect this is where it is winning share - the web isn't static pages any more.
Sure, Apache can do this, but the environment is totally foreign to your average corporate type.
And as usual, security is probably some way down the priority list.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows servers undoubtedly have the advantage of being able to turn up a service almost on accident, and have it minimally work. Actual administration and maintenance of them, though, is a Kafka-esque nightmare. I feel bad for Exhange admins. I've heard many horror stories of Windows support telling Admins there's no fix, no fallback, and they'll have to reinstall the entire server recreate datastores, and then they take a few months manually importing All user emails.
Linux/Unix servers take more knowledge and effort to get up and running in the first place, but then are much more stable and deterministic, handle higher load, need less babysitting, and are easier and more consistent to keep updated and make changes to, knowing you're never going to have unrelated services break, or mysterious slowdowns and service unavailability.
There's no doubt what comes out ahead in the end... Linux adminsa can mantain many times more servers than Windows admins. Consider that those Windows admins won't be free, and you'll be cash positive by hiring Linux admins in a very short time. I've worked for some of the most penny-pinching tight-wad companies around, and they emphasize Linux heavily (including on the desktops) paying their Linux admins more than even most management, and yet they heavily prefer Linuxx, and wouldn't dream ofusing Windows for anything important.
Re:1st post. (Score:4, Insightful)
IIS is an absolute fucking nightmare when you have to deal with a buggered up config. Actually that applies to most MS point and click services. Apache can be a bastard, but at least I can back up the configs with a quick "cp".
Worst experience I ever had was with IIS and Exchange and something going wonky with IIS's settings, and OMA completely screwing up. In the end I literally had to uninstall IIS. Only MS would build things with such fragility and such insanely dangerous solutions.
Re:1st post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like your gripe should be with the fine PHP people, not the Apache project.
Re:it is getting a LOT better (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't the language, it's the community. Google "php mysql" and the first link teaches you how to create a SQL Injection point. And 'experienced' PHP developers still write code that way. I'm convinced they just don't care.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"Technology changes a lot in 9 years"
Not 9 but 20 years ago I run NFS and CIFS, LDAP, Bind, Postfix... now I run NFS and CIFS, LDAP, Bind, Postfix...
No, technology doesn't change a lot, marketroid guys make it look like so to stay in the business of selling new licenses.
Re:base it on traffic vs. how many domains host'd (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, looking at the raw numbers... it's just shy of 90%! But even for Apache, something like 70% of sites are not "active" by Netcraft's metrics - and it's a similar story with all the others.