IIS vs. Apache, again
-
So everyone knows that Apache is the most used web-server on the net. Apache users love to gloat how it runs on more web-servers than IIS. But that is the entire world wide web. Everyone from General Motors and Disney down to a 12 year old in his garage with a one page site. What happens when you get stats for companies that matter? Say, all Fortune 1000 companies? IIS whoops Apache's arse, 54.4% vs. 19.8%. I just felt that was a more telling stat than surveying the entire web. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
To say Apache is better than IIS is like saying I am better than you! And maybe I am in some matter but maybe not in other mater. Apache is cheap, small and difficult to learn, and that suits some companies and some people. Butt IIS is expensive, but easy to use and that suit some people! My opinion is that $$ rules the world and then Apache is the winner but for companies that have $$ IIS is the winner. IMHO jarek What is the opposite of you?
-
Well said Garth and not an intrusion at all. For us our choice of IIS is because we are Windows developers. We do ASP, ASP.NET, SQL Server, C#, VB.NET etc. No PHP, Perl or other *nix languages or environments. Shifting over to a *nix environment would mean throwing out most of my and my team's skills. It would be a huge waste. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
Paul Watson wrote: *nix environment (who said anything about *nix ??) Apache and ActiveState Perl on a crappy windows server (an old AST Manhattan) driving the Wiki prooves that they have come a long way - admittedly, its small bikkies compared to full IIS and ASP, just dont overlook it as a possibility for a smaller deployment - you might get a shock (and, I was completely ANY web server illiterate before I set up the Wiki, it was quite easy) 'G'
-
Paul Watson wrote: *nix environment (who said anything about *nix ??) Apache and ActiveState Perl on a crappy windows server (an old AST Manhattan) driving the Wiki prooves that they have come a long way - admittedly, its small bikkies compared to full IIS and ASP, just dont overlook it as a possibility for a smaller deployment - you might get a shock (and, I was completely ANY web server illiterate before I set up the Wiki, it was quite easy) 'G'
Sure but Apache on a Windows machine negates the low cost of ownership that *nix offers (Windows license etc.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
-
Sure but Apache on a Windows machine negates the low cost of ownership that *nix offers (Windows license etc.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
true, the server (as with a few of them I have) was one of a number of cast-off's that have been upgraded .. I actually dont know if I would have done it if I had to set a *nix server up from scratch, but yes, I take your point 'G'
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Apache on *nix is a superior software than IIS, but IIS is way simpler to setup and configure You can't just say that, you have to justify it... Superior in what way?
Graham Bradshaw wrote: You can't just say that, you have to justify it... I’ll divide in two sections, as I presented two different statements: 1. Apache is superior than ISS a. It’s Open-Source. While I am by no means an OSS zealot, I have to recognize that OSS is more securable than non-OSS. With OSS, you can (and often do, for mission-critical software) compile yourself the code, and inject modifications which will move around buffers in memory. This way, buffer overflows are not exploitable anymore, as a hacker would have no way to determine the precise buffer address to inject. b. You can delegate smaller parts of the configuration to site owners. IIS does not support a model where you can do this. If you’re hosting third party websites on your machine, it’s impossible (AFAIK) on IIS for you to say “this user can configure the options A,B,C and D on his own directory”. With .NET, this scenario is starting to change (web.config), but this is supported under Apache for ages and is more complete. c. IIS is too tied to ASP, ISAPI, COM and (now) ASP.NET. Any solution based on CGI will have poor performance. d. Other problem is that in the traditional ASP (still widely used, e.g., CodeProject) most of the work must be done on COM components, and only page formatting can be done on ASP script. For a web server administrator, once you open it to COM components, there’s no reliable way of securing your server anymore. ASP.NET solved this problem. e. The number of Apache modules (usually named mod_*) available is one order of magnitude bigger than the number of ISAPI filters available. The reason is: it’s easier to develop an Apache module than to develop an ISAPI filter, and once you develop it, there’s a bigger market for it. f. IIS metabase, while vital, was poorly-written, and it was a wise decision basing it on XML on IIS 6.0, mimicking the Apache .conf model. If you get a Windows 2k machine and do iisreset /restart after a configuration, there’s a good chance that you corrupt your metabase and need to reinstall IIS. This is documented on a MS KB as “by design”. g. Duplicate an Apache server (or, more often, part of it) is easy: just copy the .conf files and you’re done. h. Apache cluster model is plain easy. I think Chris can say a lot more about clustering on IIS than me. 2. IIS is easier to configure a. Apache .conf files are a mess: the syntax is inconsistent, a mix of Unix-like configuration files and XML-like fragments: horrendous. And if you start
-
So everyone knows that Apache is the most used web-server on the net. Apache users love to gloat how it runs on more web-servers than IIS. But that is the entire world wide web. Everyone from General Motors and Disney down to a 12 year old in his garage with a one page site. What happens when you get stats for companies that matter? Say, all Fortune 1000 companies? IIS whoops Apache's arse, 54.4% vs. 19.8%. I just felt that was a more telling stat than surveying the entire web. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
I blogged this back in December: More on Netcraft: web server market share[^] Apache, IIS, competition[^] I'm not even sure IIS and Apache directly compete against each other, except in the miniscule market of static content serving. Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Well said Garth and not an intrusion at all. For us our choice of IIS is because we are Windows developers. We do ASP, ASP.NET, SQL Server, C#, VB.NET etc. No PHP, Perl or other *nix languages or environments. Shifting over to a *nix environment would mean throwing out most of my and my team's skills. It would be a huge waste. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
Paul Watson wrote: For us our choice of IIS is because we are Windows developers. We do ASP, ASP.NET, SQL Server, C#, VB.NET etc. Hmmm... Can you point me which of these can't run under Apache? Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
-
Sure but Apache on a Windows machine negates the low cost of ownership that *nix offers (Windows license etc.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
Don't forget that you can run Apache on Windows XP, but IIS on Windows XP has a limit of 10 connections. There's a big reduction on licensing costs. Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
-
Paul Watson wrote: What happens when you get stats for companies that matter? Say, all Fortune 1000 companies? You can use the same reasoning to prove: 1. VB is better than C++ and C#. 2. VBScript is better than VB 3. JavaScript is better than VBScript 4. Windows NT is better than Windows 2003 Apache on *nix is a superior software than IIS, but IIS is way simpler to setup and configure. Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
-
Don't forget that you can run Apache on Windows XP, but IIS on Windows XP has a limit of 10 connections. There's a big reduction on licensing costs. Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
Daniel Turini wrote: ForumThe Lounge Subject:Re: IIS vs. Apache, again Sender:Daniel Turini Date:8:08 5 May '04 Don't forget that you can run Apache on Windows XP, but IIS on Windows XP has a limit of 10 connections There's a crack to fix that. /\ |_ E X E GG
-
You're a geek. I'm a geek, too. :-D Normal people find command-line tools and Apache .conf more complicated than GUI tools. Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
-
So everyone knows that Apache is the most used web-server on the net. Apache users love to gloat how it runs on more web-servers than IIS. But that is the entire world wide web. Everyone from General Motors and Disney down to a 12 year old in his garage with a one page site. What happens when you get stats for companies that matter? Say, all Fortune 1000 companies? IIS whoops Apache's arse, 54.4% vs. 19.8%. I just felt that was a more telling stat than surveying the entire web. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
Paul Watson wrote: I just felt that was a more telling stat than surveying the entire web. I don't. Fortune 1000 companies are one subset of people using the web - large businesses. What about small/medium businesses (I guess google qualifies as that?) Educational institutions? Non-profit organizations? Fortune 1000 companies are hardly the whole story. But you bring up a good point, it would be interesting to stratify the results more. Perhaps IIS is used more for e-commerce sites, Apache is used more for educational institutions, etc., etc. I'm not sure if anyone has this kind of data. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
-
Daniel Turini wrote: ForumThe Lounge Subject:Re: IIS vs. Apache, again Sender:Daniel Turini Date:8:08 5 May '04 Don't forget that you can run Apache on Windows XP, but IIS on Windows XP has a limit of 10 connections There's a crack to fix that. /\ |_ E X E GG
eggie5 wrote: There's a crack to fix that. If I have more than 10 connections at a time on my IIS, I'd never trust a crack to do that. [edit]Not to mention this is piracy! You're running the software in a way the license explicitly disallow! Apache license does not specify any limits[/edit] Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
-
Paul Watson wrote: I just felt that was a more telling stat than surveying the entire web. I don't. Fortune 1000 companies are one subset of people using the web - large businesses. What about small/medium businesses (I guess google qualifies as that?) Educational institutions? Non-profit organizations? Fortune 1000 companies are hardly the whole story. But you bring up a good point, it would be interesting to stratify the results more. Perhaps IIS is used more for e-commerce sites, Apache is used more for educational institutions, etc., etc. I'm not sure if anyone has this kind of data. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
Sounds like a good project for you to do Navin ;) But really, this has got out of control. I just wanted to stick one in the eye of all the Apache zealots. Now it has turned into a useful debate on the merits of each. Really, can't you guys stay on irrational rantings for once? :) Everyone has been most fair I must admit, unusual for a debate of this nature. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
-
eggie5 wrote: There's a crack to fix that. If I have more than 10 connections at a time on my IIS, I'd never trust a crack to do that. [edit]Not to mention this is piracy! You're running the software in a way the license explicitly disallow! Apache license does not specify any limits[/edit] Due to technical difficulties my previous signature, "I see dumb people" will be off until further notice. Too many people were thinking I was talking about them... :sigh:
>If I have more than 10 connections at a time on my IIS, I'd never trust a crack to do that :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Daniel, I am sending you a "IIS, as flawed as ISS" t-shirt. :P regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
-
Sounds like a good project for you to do Navin ;) But really, this has got out of control. I just wanted to stick one in the eye of all the Apache zealots. Now it has turned into a useful debate on the merits of each. Really, can't you guys stay on irrational rantings for once? :) Everyone has been most fair I must admit, unusual for a debate of this nature. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
Paul Watson wrote: But really, this has got out of control. I just wanted to stick one in the eye of all the Apache zealots. Now it has turned into a useful debate on the merits of each. Really, can't you guys stay on irrational rantings for once? Everyone has been most fair I must admit, unusual for a debate of this nature. In that case, you posted in the wrong forum. You need to go here[^]. :-D "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
-
So everyone knows that Apache is the most used web-server on the net. Apache users love to gloat how it runs on more web-servers than IIS. But that is the entire world wide web. Everyone from General Motors and Disney down to a 12 year old in his garage with a one page site. What happens when you get stats for companies that matter? Say, all Fortune 1000 companies? IIS whoops Apache's arse, 54.4% vs. 19.8%. I just felt that was a more telling stat than surveying the entire web. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
The one and only reason that I like apache better and feel more comfortable is there seems to be less vulnerabilites. You can run apache on UNIX or Linux. Were everyone seems to hate microsoft and just attack microsoft products. I never really used IIS but apache works great and is pretty easy to use, so I stick with it. :-D There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I think any rational person will agree that Fortune 1000 companies are a good data subset to analyse in the real world. Obviously if I take a data subset of "People learning to programme" to compare if VB is better than C++ then VB will win. But the data subset is daft and we can see that. And how is Apache superior to IIS? Are you talking purely about performance and security? Then yes, Apache is better. But what about TCO? Setup, configuration and maintenance is a big cost and an import consideration. Also the web-server choice influences the languages and development tools used. It becomes very complex but I still think that the trend of Fortune 1000 companies choosing IIS over Apache is a good indicator. It is a generalisation but the web is 90% the same and so a generalisation is helpful to 90% of activities on the web. If you are doing something specific then ignore the generalisation (e.g. like with Google). regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Christopher Duncan quoted: "...that would require my explaining Einstein's Fear of Relatives" Crikey! ain't life grand? XmlTransformer, my latest CP article.
Paul Watson wrote: "People learning to programme" to compare if VB is better than C++ That's a valid statement, but it still doesn't explain why, of the ads for programmers I see regularly in papers and magazines, most require VB experience. On top of that, all of the programs I've used in business - at least those for which I was able to determine the language used - have been programmed in VB. Point-of-Sale, Accounting, Time and Attendance, among other common functions in business, seem to be predominantly built with VB. I know that the group mind here at CP is of the opinion that VB is not a 'real' language, but in the world of real business operations it seems to be doing quite nicely without us.;P Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
The one and only reason that I like apache better and feel more comfortable is there seems to be less vulnerabilites. You can run apache on UNIX or Linux. Were everyone seems to hate microsoft and just attack microsoft products. I never really used IIS but apache works great and is pretty easy to use, so I stick with it. :-D There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
BrockVnm wrote: There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: nice joke! ------ Why spend 2 minutes doing it by hand when you can spend all night plus most of the following day writing a system to do it for you? - (Chris Maunder)
-
You are not alone. IIS is &&*%^$^#%^&%. :-D Only Absolute Power and Absolutely No power matters. The rest is slavery.