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.
note to self.. (Score:5, Funny)
..another reason not to host on godaddy.
Re: (Score:3)
GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Informative)
Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
...which were previously served using Apache. None of these stats will ever be able to convey the usefulness of site content based upon web server software.
Re: (Score:3)
You could look at what the share is among the top N domains, for N=1000 or N=10,000 or whatever, at least as a sanity check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
Honest question: Why did they switch? I have never understood why anyone would use IIS, and always assumed ISS users were clueless newbies. So why would GoDaddy go to the time and expense of switching? What do they gain?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really no reason to move customer domains. As a customer I'd immediately leave a provider, which moved my domains to a new platform without asking me first. Customers that want asp.net should have to choose so on their own. The only way you could suddenly move a lot of sites from one platform to another without breaking something would be if they didn't need any server side scripting in the first place.
It could be done with parked domains. But why would you want to do that (except as a mark
Re: (Score:3)
Simple reason really. Microsoft serves static pages faster than Apache and scales better under this scenario. It allows Go Daddy to park more sites on the same host, which then saves them money.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, I have no graphs I can share with you due to confidentiality reasons. You can get Apache to outperform Nginx by configuring Apache to use prefork, then increasing Linux's file descriptors to a much larger setting than default to coincide with the forked processes and the connection limits you wish to handle.
Using processes to serve individual requests seems like a massive waste of resources, and I have a hard time believing this will run faster than a standard threaded worker. Do you have any theory behind why Apache would process requests faster with preform as opposed to worker?
I have searched for optimization guidelines for Apache and I cannot find anyone recommending this setup, except for when compatibility is required.
I suppose that if Apache is used to serve non-static content using a foreign/3rd party
Prefork is the worse MPM for performance (Score:4, Interesting)
Prefork plus increased file descriptors? You're kidding right? While you can get Apache to match NGinx, it's definitely nowhere that simple. As optimized as Unix fork() is, processes are going to use more resources than threads in this scenario every time. Prefork is the worse MPM you can use when you need performance. Even the Apache manual spells this out.
You'd have *begin* with worker or event MPM, use Apache 2.4 at least, and finely tune for your Application and specific load.
The benefit of NGinx is that you get a highly optimized web server right out of the box. You don't have to mess with the configs and you're almost there.
Technically the Apache team can do the same if they get rid of Prefork and a whole bunch of decades old legacy configuration options. Remove code processing modules from the webserver application space, i.e. get rid of mod_php for php_fpm, etc. All this can be configured now and you'll get that speed and stability, but it's just not done out of the box.
With NGinx it is. The only way to do things is the 'fast' or optimized way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:GoDaddy IIS (Score:4)
Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.
Sounds like a great accomplishment and major win for Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
Your half-assed crap code. Our passion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you can say this when the primary language for dynamic sites run by Apache is PHP, which is mountains of shit worse than C#.
Re: (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).
Microsoft was paying large hosts to switch $10 sit (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if that program is still active.
Re:Microsoft was paying large hosts to switch $10 (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, GoDaddy switched to IIS for these parked domains and a dip in Apache usage appeared, then reversed itself a year or so later... now its repeating.
Seems more like a money-making initiative fromGoDaddy, or a money-losing initiative from MS yet again. What's the chances history will repeat itself once the contract runs out...
Re: (Score:2)
Honest answer: Because IIS serves static pages faster than Apache does so they can park more domains on the same hardware. With the amount of domains they park, it's not an insignificant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a huge M$ marketing stunt at the time. Why the switch because it was profitable to do so. Now the real question is about market share. Should the Go Daddy site plus all the web sites it servers be considered one site in terms of choice of server to in reality more effectively measure choice by people who actually administer web sites. It seems at the very least two sets of statistics should be presented to more accurately show choices made.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the netcraft graph going back several years, you will often see significant bumps in share either for or against IIS. Several of these are down to MS paying large hosting providers to put their parked sites on IIS for promotional reasons.
Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
The statistical effect of millions of empty, neglected GoDaddy hosted sites will not ultimately mean a great deal. It does raise a question for me, however; what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS? My last contact with IIS was about 9 years ago. At that time it was fragile, insecure and plagued with mysterious "metabase" corruption problems. The thought of using such a thing for large scale hosting seems absurd and I've ignored it ever since.
Has it since improved enough to entice really large operations?
Re: (Score:3)
No doubt it has improved, but it's still a PITA to work with. I have to work with it now and really miss Apache.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
IIS runs on Microsoft Windows.
GoDaddy administrators do not have the skill to manage Linux boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Apache runs on Windows as well, so this is no reason to choose IIS.
Re: (Score:2)
Apache runs like dogshit on Windows and has worse security problems then IIS on Windows.
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: (Score:2)
"Not having the skills" just means they lack a breadth of training.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're a serious power-user administrator, Linux and Unixes in general has been easier to administer than Windows Server for a very long time. You have more interoperable shell tools at your disposal. The Server GUI is better for an admin novice, but terminal tools are quicker for a power user than toggling through programs and hunting through menus. Microsoft is catching up with PowerShell, but even if the technology is extremely flexible and mature (and it may well be), they took the odd step of inventing a new syntax different enough to be confusing to people comfortable with bash or cmd.exe - me among them. Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile. It probably is, but I don't look forward to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile.
It's worthwhile.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
My experience with Powershell is sufficient to state that Windows users can keep it. Bash is a far far more mature shell with a helluva more lineage and experience behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. And if you want OO or real programming, just use Perl or Python.
And for God's sake, the whole signing scripts business with Powershell is a tragedy. I can understand the value of being a little bit more tight with scripts that can do harmful things, but it should only matter for scripts that need to run as admin or do system management tasks. I shouldn't need to cryptographically sign a script to extract tags from music files, for example. The process to do the signing is itself unnecessarily complex.
Re: (Score:3)
And for God's sake, the whole signing scripts business with Powershell is a tragedy. I can understand the value of being a little bit more tight with scripts that can do harmful things, but it should only matter for scripts that need to run as admin or do system management tasks. I shouldn't need to cryptographically sign a script to extract tags from music files, for example. The process to do the signing is itself unnecessarily complex.
Just set the execution policy for the scope that you want. Type man set-executionpolicy -para scope. You will notice that scope can be set for the process, the current user account or for the local machine. So if you want to then simple set a less restrictive execution policy (like RemoteSigned) for your current user. That will still prevent scripts downloaded through a browser or received through a mail to be executed.
There are a lot of legitimate uses for script signing. For instance, for a tightly manage
Re: (Score:3)
I'll grant you bash is more mature and intuitive, sure - but you can do things in powershell that just either aren't possible with bash without writing helper applications in a non-scripting language or are exceedingly convoluted.
The big difference is the object pipeline which takes a little to get your head around, but enables you to do far more processing on data than text manipulation with sed, grep, awk and friends.
I'd suggest opening your mind a little and giving it a shot. If you don't administe
Re: (Score:2)
" but you can do things in powershell that just either aren't possible with bash without writing helper applications in a non-scripting language or are exceedingly convoluted"
I'll take you mean in Windows. No doubt doing things on windows is exceedingly convoluted. Now, there's a ton of things you can do with Bash if you take the time to learn it -and it surely pays out: unix-like environments have a tradition of not mangling too much with things that work, so what you learn now will be of value ten or ev
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
There are *a lot* of little things in PowerShell that makes you go "aw, that's a good idea". Things you will not find in other shells and neither in Pytho, Ruby or Perl.
Off the top of my head:
* Consistent common parameters for "impact management": You can pass a parameter called -WhatIf to every built-in command that may change persistent state. The -WhatIf parameter runs the command in simulated mode, only echoing on the console what it *would have* done. Similarly a common -Confirm parameter which asks *before* changing persistent state. It even works for scripts and functions: If you declare that your script (in a .ps1 file) "supports shouldprocess" you can pass the -WhatIf parameter to your script and PowerShell will set the whatif preference for the duration of the entire script - as if each command of the script had been passed a -whatif parameter as well.
* Commands, functions, script blocks and script files declare parameters with (optional) static types. This information is used by PowerShell to coerce values to the correct types before invocation. But the declarations can also contain declarative validation attributes, allowing the *shell* to validate parameters before invocation. Declarative validation can validate required parameters, string lengths, number/date ranges, regular expressions, value sets. The kicker here is that the script author does not need to *implement* validations, merely declare them, the information is available to the shell which can use it to both validate parameters before invocation, but *also* to report the validations through the help system. That's right, when you set up validation, help text that describes the acceptable values is automatically generated from this meta information.
And yes, even the tab completion (or intellisense in the integrated scripting environment) will pick up on the parameter type and validation. If you restrict a parameter to a certain value set, tab completion will cycle through those values when the shell determines that you request tab completion for the parameter.
* The PowerShell help system allow for in-script help text through special code comments. No need to author external help files. You can write the documentation right there in the script (using special "dot" comments), and when you do man myscript.ps1, the help system will report the documentation.
* PowerShell workflows allow scripts to suspend and resume at a later time. No, this is not the process suspend of sh shells. PowerShell actually saves the state of script execution to persistent storage and you can resume execution later, even after system restart - or on another computer. This is incredibly useful for the type of scripts that manages farms of servers and that may be running for a long time. If the script is somehow interrupted (power failure, hardware failure) it can later automatically pick up its execution from the latest savepoint. I.e. you can restart it and have it run to completion.
PowerShell is not simply a programming language. It has many features which are directly aimed at being used in a scripting setting and which are not found in general purpose language like Python or Ruby.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude... Powershell is already coming up 7 years old, and the core concepts are still the same, there are just more cmdlets available. If you're even comparing to Ruby, Bash or Python you clearly have no idea how powershell operates or what it can do and have not spent any real time playing with it.
And as you have not spent any time playing with it, your opinion is entirely uninformed, and you're just shitting on it because it is written by Microsoft.
Maintaining the status quo because this is how we've
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to be blunt. I have yet to meet a text replacement/massaging problem that couldn't be solved with ask. Years ago I wrote an ask script to translate a gawdawful mainframe export of a stationary supplier's catalog. W're talking tens of thousands of records, all space delimited with variable field sizes for different kinds of inventory records and some records that were even multi line.
I wrote the script on my Linux machine at home, grabbed the script and a compile of gawk for DOS and took it to the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do kind of like the object oriented nature and not needing to use sed and awk to get useful info out of structured command output. Otherwise it seems like so much of it is different for the sake of being different and I can't stand to use it. When I need to I find it easier to figure out the commands I need to run, then use a Unix shell to generate them.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typically Linux gets more patches because the person has a lot of software installed. If you've got a pretty barebones setup and only pulled in exactly what you need (Apache + PHP + PostgreSQL), I imagine the patch rate isn't too different from something like IIS + PHP + PostgreSQL or IIS +
"admitted" 3rd graders can reboot Windows $4 hosti (Score:3)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Er, no. Windows makes the easy things easy (pick what you want from the list rather than, horror of horrors, type something) but still hasn't succeeded in making the difficult easy. This lulls people who think they know what they're doing into jumping into the deep end and finding out they can't swim. Lots of things when setting up a server (web or otherwise) that require an understanding of the underlying networking. The Windows admins who don't know this are the ones who are "a dime a dozen." The ones that do can create a secure, functional site with Windows but wish they had Linux since it's easier and more secure and faster and more flexible and....
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
I'll meet you half-way and suggest that in Windows, it's easier to get something going initially, but in Linux it's easier to make detailed and significant changes later on.
As for Windows admins wishing they had Linux, I've met a few Win admins and they generally consider interest in Linux to be something of a "phase", one which you grow out once you gain enough experience at what actually happens in corporate setup and why Exchange is so widely used (h
Re: (Score:2)
I'll meet you half-way and suggest that in Windows, it's easier to get something going initially, but in Linux it's easier to make detailed and significant changes later on.
As for Windows admins wishing they had Linux, I've met a few Win admins and they generally consider interest in Linux to be something of a "phase", one which you grow out once you gain enough experience at what actually happens in corporate setup and why Exchange is so widely used (hint: it's fucking awesome how much capability it provides compared to a scattering of similar tools and services in Linux).
My experience is that it seems like Windows admins who worked with Linux (or proprietary Unix) still prefer it but "put up with" IIS when they have to use it due to corporate policy. The admins who grew up on Windows and dabbled with Linux end up back on Windows. The main thing for me is that Linux is easier to troubleshoot since I don't have to go digging for some obscure registry entry that some program messed with and ended up breaking something else. Whoever came up with the registry should be taken
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head with many (but not all) MS products. I've had the (dis)pleasure of working with SSIS, SSAS and SSRS. SQL Server itself is a pretty decent DB, certainly better than MySQL, but the tools for extending it are just awful. Sure, SSIS is graphical and you can throw together a pretty flowchart that will make managers and bean counters happy at the demo. Then you actually have to do something real with it and find that you can't, for example, deploy a complex package hierarchy to the SQ
Re: (Score:2)
The SQL BI stack is in line with others in term of "usuability". Its not as powerful as, let say, Informatica, but the deployment of packages and all that fun stuff is in line. There's reasons for these woes, but overall it works fine once you understand the best practices. The excel issue is because of how the excel drivers work. Not so much an issue with SSIS as it is with the drivers (you'll have that issue with virtually anything that interface with excel unless it isn't using the default driver). So th
Re: (Score:2)
Other way around: you get what you pay for.
I know of Windows admins who were perplexed by filenames with mixed upper and lower case characters when they had to briefly deal with a Linux system.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really true. I've seen Linux boxes administered by muppets, and back in the day when I was 20, I was one of those muppets in charge of looking after a fleet of Linux boxes. Just because someone can use google and click their way through a redhat installer, doesn't mean they have a clue.
Platform choice is pretty irrelevant as far as judging competency goes actually, IMHO being a competent administrator/architect is more about change management (i.e., how do we get from A to B without fucking everyon
Re: (Score:2)
You realize all you've really said was "I understand Linux and not Windows Server, and I like what I already know"? Basically, everything you believe about Windows is wrong, but like anything else it does take skill and knowledge to do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
I was forced to use it during school. I can't say much for the fragility or insecurity (I only had to run some rudimentary static websites on it to pass the class), but the administration was much easier for the learn-by-rote students (which my school seemed to love the most).
From the perspective of a guy who often doesn't even start X on his *nix boxes, it seemed a bit inflexible. But perhaps they have some weird .NET crap that works better for what they need.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology changes a lot in 9 years. 9 years ago I honestly though Linux was superior to Windows on a technical level, at least for desktop purposes. Now, I'm quite convinced of the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Perceptions change a lot in 9 years. 9 years ago I honestly thought Windows was superior to Linux on a technical level, at least for desktop purposes. Now, I'm quite convinced of the opposite.
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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS?
It's a lot cheaper for Micro$oft to pump up IIS by paying off godaddy than spending tons of money on devs, and you know, testing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's improved significantly. There is no "metabase" anymore. Everything is stored in .config files that you can edit with a text editor if you want. It has some really nice features, and is really easy to manage via GUI if you prefer too. Or powershell if that's your thing.
Re: (Score:2)
MS has done a pretty good job of keeping up on stability and security for all of their products since about 2006. I personally still host with nginx, due to the cost of MS products, but I administer enough to say that they are pretty straight forward and secure. It's easy for people to assume that Apache = secure or whatever, but the truth is, there are a shit ton of Apache deployments that are broken and exposed, usually as a result of people blindly apt-get installing whatever random package some outdat
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.
Actually, they are losing share to nginx (Score:2)
I've dealth with both (Score:2)
What about... (Score:2)
Apache? (Score:2)
In many respects, it is the most successful and widely deployed open-source technology today.
Not even close. OpenSSH owns Apache here and that's not even considering things like BSD sockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the first time either (Score:4, Informative)
Dupe! [slashdot.org] ...and the knock-on. [slashdot.org]
I'm beginning to wonder if GoDaddy's web server policy follows the solar cycle... :)
From the look of Netcraft's graph, prior to the GoDaddy move it looked like most of the marketshare lost from apache went straight into nginx (itself also frequently used as a caching proxy/frontend to another web server on the backend) so I'm not quite sure what the summary/TFA are trying to imply.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/04/02/april-2013-web-server-survey.html [netcraft.com]
Wow (Score:2)
Rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
it's Microsoft IIS that has picked up share.
No. Microsoft picked up a bunch of parked domains and its long term trend is still down, even for parked domains. In terms of active sites, Microsoft's trend is steadily down, now around 12% and sinking. And it is indeed nginx that is mainly picking up share from Apache, though Google is hanging in there pretty well too. This puff piece glosses over the one fact that can't be denied: Linux servers rule the web by a large and increasing margin.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/08/09/august-2013-web-server-survey.html#more-12060 [netcraft.com]
Uh, didn't godaddy switched over years ago? (Score:4, Interesting)
why is it that everytime I read about a dip in apache stats, it's because of godaddy switching over? Bloody hell, they've been switching over for years, just how many effing sites do they have?
Paying Go Daddy again? (Score:2)
This is not the first time this has happened. From 2007:
But Microsoft's recent gains have been so fast that furious open source proponents such as Bruce Perens claimed last year that Microsoft was paying large domain name resellers such as Go Daddy to "park" unused domain names in IIS rather than Apache. [infoworld.com]
So probably a slashdot story about that first time as well.
fork() vs epoll() (Score:5, Informative)
All that I can say is that all new installations over the past I'd say about 5 years, I've been doing using Nginx only because Apache just can't scale well with their fork() implementation compared to Nginx. I'd say this has something to do with people leaving Apache, at least all the people I know.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you still using prefork? You have at least two good alternative MPMs, one of which can use epoll().
Re:1st post. (Score:4, Informative)
apache 4 life!
No kidding. I hate IIS right now. It's so much more time consuming to sort out configuration issues with than Apache.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:1st post. (Score:5, Funny)
There hasn't been any serious security holes in IIS for years now. So the government ordered MS to add PHP support.
Re: (Score:2)
They're gonna tear Microsoft a new one.
it is getting a LOT better (Score:3)
Now if only people would read the giant warning at the top of the SuExec documentation: "SuExec can result in severe security risks. Do not consider using SuExec unless you are knowledgeable about
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Hrm, is it odd that I meant that metaphor one way and it fits a few others?
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was mostly due to microsoft cutting a check to godaddy to not show apache traffic server in the headers.
Godaddy runs IIS on linux. Well, they run IIS behind apache traffic server so which webserver to count as the webserver is a bit of an academic question. The moral here is that godaddy hosts a lot (hundreds of thousands, if not millions) of inactive sites that they collect 9.95 or so a year for hosting.
Re:1st post. (Score:4, Informative)
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:5, Interesting)
You can backup IIS's config just the same. It's just an XML file (and a surprisingly easy to read/understand one at that).
You can also do your config by editing it as well, although typically you'll use something like AppCmd or more modernly PowerShell.
It's frankly easier to reliably automate/script IIS configuration changes than Apache. Apache's configuration system is incredibly powerful and at times that's needed, but that power also means it's effectively impossible for a random admin script to make sense of it enough to modify. Such a tool must intrinsically know not just Apache's config system...but your specific implementation with it. AppCmd and PowerShell can pretty reliably walk into nearly any IIS setup, no matter how convoluted, and safely make additions, tweaks, etc.
Frankly I'm first and foremost an Apache fan, have been since it was literally A Patchy Server. And I still deploy it more often than not, often in front of IIS to get some clever hack done that just isn't practical in IIS.
But that said...I'm warming up to IIS, especially as C#/.Net gains major traction in the wake of Oracle's kiss of death to Java.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like your gripe should be with the fine PHP people, not the Apache project.
back-end security doesn't matter to you? (Score:2)
You could care less if the back end that has your credit card numbers or medical info' has less-effective security, either because of the built-in Windows back doors or the MS-certified script followers called admins operating the site?
I've cancelled credit cards because they could not convince me that they even understood the question regarding the boundary between the web access for those that want it and the actual database of account information.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably did. From time to time Ballmer issues an order to ramp up the web share for IIS, so a couple M$ salesmen drop by to bribe the usual suspects at godaddy. Of course all they get is parked domains, and only for a while.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Netcraft graphs show "Google" as a platform, last I read (a couple years ago granted) that google ran a customized version of apache. Does google now offer a honest-to-goodness webserver of its own? Or can googles #'s be added into the apache category? And what about Tomcat sites? Are they already included in the apache #'s?
Thanks for the link.
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.
Re:Citation needed - When/why did GoDaddy switch? (Score:5, Informative)
The originally-linked Yahoo finance page is expired, but here's the /. discussion from 2006:
http://slashdot.org/story/06/03/23/008229/godaddycom-dumps-linux-for-microsoft [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No Apache anymore.
Unless you need complex rewrite rules or the need for user-accessible
Re: (Score:2)
Good find, and
citation very much needed.