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.
-
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: 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:
-
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:
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: 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:
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?
-
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... But he just said it. :laugh: Best regards, Paul. Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
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: any rational well, since I have never qualified for that, I'll add my 2c worth, although late, sorry for the intrusion Paul Until quite recently, our company would have chosen IIS over Apache irrespective of performance, TCO, Setup & Maint etc - why ?? Most managers seem to have had the thought that OpenSource/'Free' software is harder to support than pay-for software .. to a small extent, I agree with this, even if I dont like paying money into Bill's pocket, if there's a problem with IIS I have recourse ... with Apache .. hmmm Luckily, we are beginning to notice a shift in the trend, that shift may be because some of the team with Apache skills have had small (yet visible) projects running on Apache for a long time with nary a glitch (I have had a Wiki running on the crappiest box, for 2 years, no glitches, free, so you can read their minds - low $$, apparently stable ....) 'G'
-
Paul Watson wrote: any rational well, since I have never qualified for that, I'll add my 2c worth, although late, sorry for the intrusion Paul Until quite recently, our company would have chosen IIS over Apache irrespective of performance, TCO, Setup & Maint etc - why ?? Most managers seem to have had the thought that OpenSource/'Free' software is harder to support than pay-for software .. to a small extent, I agree with this, even if I dont like paying money into Bill's pocket, if there's a problem with IIS I have recourse ... with Apache .. hmmm Luckily, we are beginning to notice a shift in the trend, that shift may be because some of the team with Apache skills have had small (yet visible) projects running on Apache for a long time with nary a glitch (I have had a Wiki running on the crappiest box, for 2 years, no glitches, free, so you can read their minds - low $$, apparently stable ....) 'G'
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.
-
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: