Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

202 comments

...and (4, Funny)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878962)

Netcraft confirms it

Re:...and (5, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878997)

I wonder how they count it when you have different names for a single site:

<VirtualHost *>
                ServerName urukpr0n.angband.pl
                ServerAlias urukporn.angband.pl urukp0rn.angband.pl urukpron.angband.pl
[...]
(No, this site [angband.pl] isn't what you think.)

This is especially important if you count the fact that in a lot of cases www.$SITE is a CNAME for $SITE.

Re:...and (2, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879049)

That's what the "active sites" means I think - and that would make 23 millions of real apache servers

http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200007.html#activ e [netcraft.com]

Re:...and (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879209)

Not 23 million actual servers, just 23 million different sites. Probably hosted on just a few hundred thousand physical servers. Netcraft "active sites" calculation is based on an estimate from contacting each server IP address a few times using a selection of the registered names and then comparing them. e.g. if you host 4000 domains which all say "We own this domain $domain, why not offer us money for it?" Netcraft will notice that 4000 names lead to that IP address, connect say 14 times, get a very similar response each time and conclude that there is only one active site.

23 million servers would represent almost 1% of all unicast IPv4 addresses (and AFAIK Netcraft don't look for IPv6-only servers)

Re:...and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879047)

but Apache GREW 0.74 % !!!!

Err.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13878967)

>>Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served.
Now did they try to find how many actually work ;)

Re:Err.... (3, Interesting)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879015)

12,000,000 of them are within microsoft.com domain (spoofed Apache httpd)...

Re:Err.... (2, Funny)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879069)

since they were detected, I assume all of them?

Re:Err.... (1)

ohjethuth (911851) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879195)

Take a crap on IIS = you win *1 Insightful*
Take a crap on Apache = you win *1 Flamebait*

This is great, i've cracked it!

Re:Err.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879322)

>>Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served.
Now did they try to find how many actually work ;)

And how many had goatse on them?

IIS (1)

Fls'Zen (812215) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879515)

Maybe Microsoft will finally give in and make WSUS run on Apache.

I'm impressed (3, Insightful)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878971)

Not just that so many people and companies host websites on Apache, I'm more impressed that there are so many websites?

Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.

Re:I'm impressed (5, Funny)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878996)

True. But once you remove the porn, there's only about 500 or so.

Re:I'm impressed (5, Funny)

drstock (621360) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879311)

"I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be 1 website left, and it would be called Bring Back The Porn."
- Dr Cox from Scrubs.

Re:I'm impressed (2, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878999)

I would be interested to see what OSes those sites are running on, I'd suspect it would kill the "Linux is just as insecure as Microsoft" myth.

BTW, does Netcraft have a version of the DowJones 500 to see what the top 500 sites are running? I can't seem to find anything....

Re:I'm impressed (1, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879082)

It's no myth.

what operating systems are popular with Apache? (5, Interesting)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879168)

I would be interested to see what OSes those sites are running on
Netcraft used to show a summary with that information. I'm not sure why they stopped showing it, since they do still collect it and show it for individual site queries. I suppose if enough people ask them to reinstate it, they might actually reply to one of the messages and explain the rationale. More likely than not it probably made it evident that one of their major advertisers **cough**MS**cough was losing market share to both other http servers and other platforms.

Along the same lines, I saw a recent IDC report that showed (if one looked at the data oneself) that MS was continuing to lose market share in the server room, at least percentage wise. My guess is that they took most of Novell's share around 2000 when they ran the smear campaign against Netware and then have been slowly hemorrhaging marketshare since then.

Re:I'm impressed (1)

alanw (1822) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879231)

I would be interested to see what OSes those sites are running on, I'd suspect it would kill the "Linux is just as insecure as Microsoft" myth.

BTW, does Netcraft have a version of the DowJones 500 to see what the top 500 sites are running? I can't seem to find anything....

There's the What's that site running? [netcraft.com] page, the Longest uptime [netcraft.com] page and the monthly most reliable hosting [netcraft.com] page.

Re:I'm impressed (5, Funny)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879007)

Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.

Here's a list of what the sites are (from most populous): 1: Porn sites
2: Spam sites
3: Spyware sites
4: Scamming sites
5: Warez sites
6: Blogs
7: Message boards
8: Wikipedia duplicates (where they copy and paste Wikipedia entries)
9: Software related sites
10: Other business related sites
11: Education-related websites.

As you can see, most of it is just rubbish.

Re:I'm impressed (2, Funny)

lucas teh geek (714343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879116)

It's a pitty you've been modded funny, i would have modded you insightful

Re:I'm impressed (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879389)

It's a pitty you've been modded funny, i would have modded you insightful

Quote the GP:
"Here's a list of what the sites are (from most populous): 1: Porn sites
(...)
As you can see, most of it is just rubbish."

<slashbot>Pr0n is rubbish? It must be a joke, +1 Funny.</slashbot>

Re:I'm impressed (1)

JamieKitson (757690) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879325)

You missed one:

8a: Wikipedias (where they copy and paste web resources)

Re:I'm impressed (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879499)

I can see your point here but you have to also look at it this way, demand and resources.. Realistcally warez and porn sites are huuuge resource hogs and if you look at the trends of data that comes out of netwatch you can see when apache spike for a month IIS weakens and vice versa. Plus percentile wise the domain to server differential is only about .2%

Re:I'm impressed (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879582)

1: Porn sites
2: Spam sites
3: Spyware sites
4: Scamming sites
5: Warez sites


What are the differences between these five ?

You also forgot ad-serving sites between 5 and 6.
It's not because you have an ad-blocker that they don't exist ;)

Re:I'm impressed (1)

DexterF (862428) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879392)

"Data"? That's a tad euphemistic, isn't it.

Re:I'm impressed (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879457)

For me it's data until I need something, then some of the data becomes information :)

Oh! (2, Funny)

Martz (861209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878975)

Isn't that the number of servers required just to power /.?

I smell a rat!

Re:Oh! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879130)

An unfunny Joke is not flamebait .
This is flamebait :

Some Slashdot moderators have the intelligence of brain damaged slug

So what your saying is: (1)

a.d.trick (894813) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878982)

There are more servers out there, and IIS is growing faster than Apache?

Re:So what your saying is: (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879073)

No, IIS isn't "growing faster than apache", it has grow faster than apache this month. If you look at other web server surveys (or at that graphic) you'll find different numbers

Apache License? (-1, Offtopic)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878992)

Can someone please explain the subtelties of the new Apache license?

Is the license such that MicroSoft could merge it with their stuff, and not give away the source?

Re:Apache License? (4, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879029)


      1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and

      2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

      3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and

      4. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.


The last clause there is what makes it incompatible with the GPL and what made the OpenBSD folks fork it (they folked before the license change to include this clause). In answer to your question, yes, indeed anyone is free to extend and distribute binary forms of the software without having to hand over source code for their extensions (or even for the code they didn't write).

But here's a question for you. If you're required to give "any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License", does that mean that the extended work has to be under this license? Or does it just mean you have to give the license to them, even though it isn't applicable. What stupid wording. Presumably it means you can't change the license on the software.. but you can apply any license you want on your extensions.. which means you can prohibit the software from being distributed, even though "this license" says you are free to distribute it.

Re:Apache License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879121)

If you redistribute a derivative work, you have to include a copy of the license because the original parts are still under that license, obviously. You cannot just change the license of the original parts -- the additions are another story.

Re:Apache License? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879139)

Bah. If you compile a proprietary extension into an Apache licensed program it doesn't matter that you're technically allowed to copy the Apache licensed portions. You can't seperate the two (and even if you could, the seperate parts would be useless) so the entire program is practically under a proprietary license.

Re:Apache License? (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879431)

But here's a question for you. If you're required to give "any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License", does that mean that the extended work has to be under this license?

I think that that clause is intended to ensure that the distributers of the derived work let people know that the system is based upon a system with a more "free" licence, to ensure that those who buy the derivative work know that these parts (which are likely to be substantial, in this case) are included.

I expect it's something which is perfect wording in legalese but looks funny to us Average Joes and Joannes trying to inspect it. I am not a lawyer, etc., though.

Re:Apache License? (1)

dirkx (540136) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879519)



But here's a question for you. If you're required to give "any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License", does that mean that the extended work has to be under this license? Or does it just mean you have to give the license to them, even though it isn't applicable.


It means exactly what it says (see the original [apache.org] ; the above suffers from crcual typo's) - you must pass on the license (which include the important disclaimers) along and as it pertains to the agrement under which you got the apache code under - but that does not mean that it applies in a contaminating sense to your own code, code you have added, nor does it mean you have to provide soure or certain licenses pertaining your own work along as wel further downstream.

This is not the same as making a contribution back to the ASF, which is what most of the license is about; and in that case it gets a bit more complex; and you specifically need to take patents into account as well.

Re:Apache License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879123)

It has always been that way.

The thing is, it isn't the code that's of value, it's the ongoing project. Sure, someone may use the code, but maintaning a fork isn't trivial. People who fear non-GPL open source licenses fail to realize this; the fact that Apache hasn't been displaced by a closed-source fork should be proof enough that open source can work even when the license doesn't force people to keep the source open.

Micosoft salesrep (5, Funny)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878993)

Microsoft salesrep: "You know, Apache's relative share fell by *cough*0.*cough* 67 percent!!!"

Re:Micosoft salesrep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879078)

I'm curious (not just bating the MS fans). Why would anybody run IIS on Windows instead of Apache over some kind of *nix? Most of these machines will be headless, carefully specced for the job, and maintained by experienced computer users. So why on earth run an MS solution when it's so obvious that the free solution is so much more stable? Am I missing something?

Re:Micosoft salesrep (1)

Hydroksyde (910948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879175)

Some of them aren't run by experienced users, they're run by people who have basic IT skills, and can do day to day maintainance on a windows network, outsourcing whenever anything gets over their head. IIS is also arguably faster, as it's running on a single architecture, on an OS designed by the same developer.

Re:Micosoft salesrep (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879566)

IIS is also arguably faster, as it's running on a single architecture, on an OS designed by the same developer.
IIS is not arguably faster than Apache httpd, it is faster. What is arguable is the wisdom of running a server at ring0 (kernel address space). Apache was not designed for raw speed, it was designed to be full-featured, stable and correct. If you want to see IIS trounced by a kernel based httpd, take a look at TUX [redhat.com] and this (typically flawed) benchmark [litespeedtech.com] . The only good thing I have to say about IIS is that version 6 appears to have undergone a security audit and is no longer being rooted by simple HTTP GET requests (a genuine Microsoft innovation) like previous versions.

Re:Micosoft salesrep (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879460)

Well there are the MS Fans out there who believe Microsoft's propaganda, and/or believe that Microsoft is the only serious player out there.

Secondly there are a lot of companies that are strictly a Microsoft shop, and the cost of moving is to high and the staff is use to windows so they stick with windows solutions they already bought.

Third they have a group of .NET developers and it is easy to for them to make a Web App on IIS vs. Getting Mono on Apache working, and working threw any of the glitches.

IIS is arguably easier to use then apache because you don't need to go threw and end a text file and add commands that may not be part of the default configuration.

Fear from ignorance, they are afraid if they don't use IIS then they will not be able to support the IE users, heck whenever they look at a pro-linux site who uses advanced CSS it rarely renders properly for them.

They already have Windows [NT, 2000, 2003] servers and they have IIS on them so they will use it, because they already paid for it.

It has been a long time since I heard of a major security flaws in IIS being affected and much longer for Apache. But you are expecting all the consumers to be logical, that is just crazy.

Notice the similarities (1)

grazzy (56382) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878994)

In the graphs acceleration compared to 2001/2002? :)

Actually... (4, Interesting)

DavidHOzAu (925585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13878995)

It's because of php's increasing popularity, as this page [php.net] shows.

Re:Actually... (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879044)

I wonder how it compares to this graph [venganza.org] .

Re:Actually... (2, Insightful)

hostpure (918706) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879046)

It is most likely because of PHP and a fair collection of PHP Blogging scripts which are available. I mean just look at the sheer number of blogs at the moment and it isn't hard to understand just how many new sites there are now. Must be a dot blog boom (I doubt it will be too long before we see the .blog TLD)

Re:Actually...there wont be a blog domain (1)

mikek3332002 (912228) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879262)

There will never be a .blog TLD because
(1)It will probably contain porn so the chritian extremists would partitions the US to ban it,

(2) The free speech supports would also want it banned because it could allow goverments to ban blogs just like http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/235524 3&from=rss [slashdot.org]

Re:Actually... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879093)

So it's quite funny that PHP developers are still recommending [php.net] not to use apache with a threaded MPM (because of 3rd party libs not php I know). Dual core CPUs are there, the apache + php duo should be able to get top-performance from your systems to keep both on the top...

Re:Actually... (1)

smallguy78 (775828) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879161)

The web, powered by 10-18 year olds downloading free php/mysql/apache photo album/blogging/forum software.

We're so privileged to have such a huge information superhighway at our fingertips.

Not all PHP users are 10-18 year olds using premade scripts of course.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879502)

That's true. Some of the 10-18 year olds sign up on Slashdot to troll comments. Kind of like you.

Let me know when your birthday is coming up, we'll have to take the training wheels off your bike this year.

Re:Actually... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879188)

PHP has nothing to do with Apache. You can run it also inside IIS.

Re:Actually... (1)

imroy (755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879205)

Just out of interest, here's the mod_perl graph [apache.org] (a little out of date though). *sigh*

Also, here's SecuritySpace's Apache module survey [securityspace.com] which covers everything else.

Re:Actually... (2, Interesting)

Adhemar (679794) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879327)

I have the feeling that the reason why Java-based web programming never really took off, and PHP is being widely used so widely, lies in the fact that PHP is freely shipped with the most popular web server.

So, the popularity of PHP (compared to Java) is more due to the popularity of Apache than the other way around.

Odd lines in chart (4, Interesting)

inkswamp (233692) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879000)

The chart marked "Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - October 2005" is interesting. I'm not entirely sure I understand what it means, but July 2001 and June 2004 show an almost mirror image in terms of the blue and red lines (Apache and MS.) When one goes up, the other goes down and vice-versa. Strange. I wonder what exactly was happening during that time period to cause that.

Re:Odd lines in chart (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879040)

I'm not entirely sure I understand what it means, but July 2001 and June 2004 show an almost mirror image in terms of the blue and red lines (Apache and MS.) When one goes up, the other goes down and vice-versa. Strange. I wonder what exactly was happening during that time period to cause that.

Several big hosting providers were trying to switch their hosting between Apache and IIS. Providers that are big enough to actually make those kinds of dents in the graph. As you can see from the final result, most of them figured out Apache was the better solution. I wouldn't use IIS to serve HTML either, only if the content required .NET and you didn't really have a choice.

Kjella

Re:Odd lines in chart (2, Insightful)

inkswamp (233692) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879057)

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

I wouldn't use IIS to serve HTML either,

I've dealt with both Apache and IIS professionally and by far--by far!--I have encountered the most issues with IIS, from little annoyances to full-blown meltdowns. I'm not sure how IIS survives in the market place when its competitor is more robust, functions better and is free. Chalk one up to the marketing people at MS, I guess.

Re:Odd lines in chart (2, Informative)

odie_q (130040) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879162)

Their selling point is integration. I have a client who design, sell and admin content management systems, and they are a pure MS shop. Their products rely heavily on the integration between IIS, Exchange, .Net and Active Directory. From what I have seen they would have a lot less hassle with a system of separate components that actually work and fit with their product instead of shoehorning their stuff into the MS conventions, but they are convinced that the superior integration of Microsoft's offerings give them a significant advantage.

On the other hand, they have pretty good knowledge about how to program for Microsoft products, and no knowledge whatsoever about any competing products, so in their case they are obviously better off using the stuff they know.

Re:Odd lines in chart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879358)

but they are convinced that the superior integration of Microsoft's offerings give them a significant advantage.

Care to give a couple of their URLs so that we can convince them otherwise? Post anonymously if you are afraid that people are going to click on the URLs and be offended by the images that will certainly soon appear there...

Re:Odd lines in chart (4, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879191)

Well. That is because of the contracts running with Microsoft. We have a contract (as hostingprovider) that x-% of the servers has to be Windows based so we recompiled Apache to show up as IIS and the next month Netcraft confirmed it, we moved 15000 sites (URL-forwarding) to IIS.

Re:Odd lines in chart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879349)

we recompiled Apache to show up as IIS

Hehe...

the next month Netcraft confirmed it, we moved 15000 sites (URL-forwarding) to IIS.

But wouldn't it look strange that there are 15000 IIS sites, and not one of them is goatsed?

Re:Odd lines in chart (4, Interesting)

RoLi (141856) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879417)

I'm not sure how IIS survives in the market place

They survive because of customer lock-in (aka "Integration" in salesspeak), "standardization" (with desktop systems) and the delusion (which is interestingly put forward by both pro- and anti Microsoft people) that "sooner or later" Microsoft will dominate every market and so it's better to bet on the winner.

However, with years of IIS being pretty stagnant or slowly losing marketshare, this delusion cannot be sustained forever, more and more people realize that OSS is not just a fad and is here to stay.

Also with each round of forced upgrades on the IIS-side, some jump ship.

It will probably will take a decade or two, but then IIS-fans will find themselves in the very situation they wanted to avoid: Being a tiny minority, fighting with bad 3rd party support and being frowned upon.

In some countries it already happened: In Germany, IIS runs only 5.56% [securityspace.com] of domains (down from over 20% 5 years ago) - cheap German webhosters don't offer Windows anymore at all, some webhosters charge extra for Windows and only few charge the same (however those are usually the most expensive webhosters anyway)

Re:Odd lines in chart (5, Insightful)

larien (5608) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879066)

The big movers are the domain registrars; they'll host several hundred parked domains on a single server. While they're all using the same content (probably the same files, even), they'll show up as hundreds of sites. If they move from Apache to IIS (or vice versa), several hundred (or thousand?) websites appear to switch.

Domain registrars (2, Informative)

miller60 (554835) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879485)

Larien is correct. The changes indicate infrastructure shifts at domain registrars, specifically Network Solutions and Namezero (as alluded to in this Netcraft post [netcraft.com] from 2003 and this one [netcraft.com] from 2001. Both briefly shifted from Solaris to Windows, and then back again.

Re:Odd lines in chart (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879068)

"July 2001 and June 2004 show an almost mirror image in terms of the blue and red lines (Apache and MS.) When one goes up, the other goes down and vice-versa. Strange. I wonder what exactly was happening during that time period to cause that."

I suspect that red "hump" on the Microsoft graph coincides with major version releases of their IIS and Windows Server 2003. People and companies tried it out, then switched back to Apache over time.

Some of the sharper spikes are sometimes due to large ISPs with thousands of hosted domains that migrate to a new platform (either to or from Apache) or get bought by another ISP that uses a different platform. For example, Microsoft's spike in July '02 was due to Register.com moving their domain parking system to an IIS front end, even though practically speaking, the proportion of actual sites hosted on IIS did not increase.

Re:Odd lines in chart (1)

JamieKitson (757690) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879369)

It's percentage. Since it's basically a choice of two, if one goes up the other must come down.

Now can we have the results for Gopher servers! (4, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879010)

Just curious. Also would be nice to see the current amount of WAIS
and Archie servers left! :o)

security trash talk (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879022)

talk security all you want but be fair and give ms high marks here. by far, apache has more viruses and security issues as a percentage of its market share than iis does. it doesn't look like that at first because of the difference in market share but iis is actually more secure when you analyze the numbers. people ignore apache issues because windows issues are more relevant to the vast majority of home users so ms security issues get reported on more frequently, further working to skew the average person's perceptions.

that news to me (0, Offtopic)

h4ckintosh (842712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879030)

I woulda thought Apache had already surpassed this statistic. Anyone else struck by this?

What will LAMP's success mean to M$? (4, Informative)

linumax (910946) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879048)

Well, actually they have their own plans [com.com] .
and part of the plan is giving some for free! See SQL Server 2005 Express Edition's Pricing Policy [microsoft.com] and the same for Visual Studio Express Edition which will be free.
I don't do much open-source programming but I'd like to thank all those guys who do, cuz if it was not for their efforts, M$ would have never given something for free (at least as in beer!!)
Anyway, the point is that some small businesses might be attracted to M$'s side by giving these development tools for free and this might have an effect on Apache and as a whole LAMP's market share.

Re:What will LAMP's success mean to M$? (2, Informative)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879102)

4 GB maximum database size

Looks a bit like MS SQL Desktop Engine. That's been around for a while - originally bundled with Visual Studio, some Office versions and other MS stuff, but downloadable recently-ish from MS for free.

Quality issue (3, Insightful)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879201)

Yes, it's interesting to see that competition forced a reduction in price from MS' side, but you still have the problem of quality.

Qualitywise, MS SQL Server is the IIS of the database world. Only if you somehow got locked into .NET or some other proprietary hook into MS would you need MS SQL over an industry standard like Postgresql [postgresql.org] or MySQL [mysql.com] which are in approximately the same niche. Those two are even starting to nibble at the heels of Oracle in some contexts, unlike MS SQL.

MS has tried give aways before with IIS. People learn their lesson and move on, unless they get locked in. The same goes with SQL databases.

So a purchase price of zero is an advantage, but the main reason people use Apache and the other parts of LAMP is the quality. The price is just gravy.

Re:What will LAMP's success mean to M$? (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879214)

I think this is awesome. Open source is forcing MS to give away software they would normally charge thousands of dollars for. This certainly will not help their bottom line. Every penny MS doesn't make is one less penny going to kill open source or lobbying govt. Whoo Hoo.

Well happy birthday or something (4, Insightful)

Xiph (723935) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879051)

I really can't see this as anything that'll come as a surprise to anyone, nor the fact that apache came first. I also have a feeling that the apache guys see this the same way, as it is nowhere to be found at http://apache.org/foundation/news.html/ [apache.org] . but i guess any round number is worth celebrating, after all free as in drunk, is as important as any other freedom ;)

What would be really interesting... (3, Insightful)

sosume (680416) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879083)

What would be really interesting would be a figure of total pages served (over the entire internet), grouped by server type. Or the average return opn investement, per server type. Number of hostnames really says nothing, I can add a few thousand myself with no trouble at all.

Re:What would be really interesting... (1)

wfWebber (715881) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879289)

And you think it's harder to add a couple of zillion pages?

I'd prefer something like "Commercial servers with over 1K visitors a day".

Re:What would be really interesting... (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879476)

I agree, hostnames alone is pretty worthless. Personally I would like to see statistics based on IP address and not host names.

It's pretty easy for any person to colo a LAMP setup and host the webpage of everyone they know who doesn't want to be on geocities anymore... far easier than plunking down the cash for a Windows 2003 install with IIS6.

Of course, there are always studies like that of Port 80 software who found that 53.7% of corporate web servers were running IIS, vs the 22.7% of Apache.

See http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webse rvers/ [port80software.com] for more details.

Three considerations (5, Interesting)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879133)

#1. Sites vs servers.
Netcraft states they count the sites while they don't mention whether they count 2nd level domains (foo.com), 3rd level domains (www.foo.com, support.foo.com) or what else. They just say they "received responses from 74,409,971 sites" while not defining what a site actually is.

#2. Growth.
There has been a growth of about 3.73% in the number of (so called) web sites. There must be some hidden winner(s). That is, there must be some group of web servers that is getting the great part of the growth all at once! Netcraft is failing to mention who they are!

#3. Webserver (or website) identification.
It's all but trivial to identify web servers. Are they using some special tool like amap [thc.org] and nmap [insecure.org] or just looking at the server response content? How accurate this identification can be?

Re:Three considerations (1)

munehiro (63206) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879182)

With all the "personal interpretations" of statistics out there in favour of microsoft products, who cares?

If apache have a marketing appearence why we should consider to normalize it?
They don't, we don't.

Re:Three considerations (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879215)

Well, techies don't care about statistics, they care about the meat.
Bit managers very often care about statistics and give money to techies and get money from the market accordingly to statistics.
If my considerations are real, that statistics company could cheat!
Apache people seem to be techies.

Re:Three considerations (3, Informative)

rjw57 (532004) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879356)

Follow the links in TFA. They you'll get to http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200007.html [netcraft.com] which says
"The Netcraft Web Server Survey is a survey of Web Server software usage on Internet connected computers. We collect and collate as many hostnames providing an http service as we can find, and systematically poll each one with an HTTP request for the server name."

Re:Three considerations (2, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879469)

They just say they "received responses from 74,409,971 sites" while not defining what a site actually is.

Netcraft is very clear about this [netcraft.com] .

One server running 10,000 virtual hosts is 10,000 "sites".

This is why historically thttpd did very well in Netcraft surveys -- it was good at hosting thousands of sites from one server (and allowed throttling of over-used sites).

Innovation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879135)

Don't want to be a troll, but what are the latest innovations Apache introduced lately to stay on top? I think we don't talk often enough about this software here on Slashdot. No, I'm not new here...

Re:Innovation (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879222)

"I think we don't talk often enough about this software here"

Thats cos webservers are , however you want to look at it, pretty
boring programs from a technical point of view.

15 million servers... (0, Offtopic)

jromz03 (686423) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879145)

still needs to learn its lesson.

Great news, but keep in mind ... (2, Interesting)

oztiks (921504) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879251)

This is really good news for the OS community, it shows a community product being chosen over a commerical application in the industry.

But keep in mind just because the server is not IIS and is Apache doesnt mean they arent running Windows Apache, I find lots of Windows admins leaning to Apache even when they have IIS readily available.

Just need to check (5, Funny)

peterpi (585134) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879292)

I'm just updating my fanboyism and I need to check some figures.
  • IIS' 20% market share is rubbish.
  • Firefox's 10% share is the greatest thing evar.

IIS? Are you sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879313)

I know of at least one ISP who makes their Apache webservers identify themselves as a version of IIS so that they can read the logs and monitor what sorts of requests might be breaking the real IIS servers they share bandwidth with.

Re:IIS? Are you sure? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879480)

even with apache identifying itself as apache you STILL see requests that are targeting IIS security holes. It seems its easier for attackers to just fire at as many hosts as possible rather than checking them first.

"Is that so" (1, Troll)

Rolf Tollerud (555595) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879337)

This Netcraft statistic is comfort drug to the Slashdot's unwashed masses. If you instead count only real servers own by the company (dedicated servers) IIS is 4-5 times more used then Apache. To bundle 500-1000 different IP customers together on one computer distort the statistic. But Slasdot is never known for reason, logic and common sense of course.

"Allow me to laugh"
Rolf Tollerud

Yay! (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879418)

Apache is doing awesome, however now that Microsoft is second, expect to see the commercials on TV:

"Is your host using IIS? No? Is it using ASP? NO?! Are you using OPEN SOURCE! (Evil sounding) opeeeennnn sourrrrceeeee.... If so you need to experience IIS! With its ability to make your developers coffee in the morning, and to block users who use that evil Google software from hacking your system! Call 1800MICROSHAFT today to get your free 12 minute introductory offer to IIS! Thats right TWELVE minutes folks! Microsoft nevers gives away free time on any of their products! During that 12 minutes you could host your own Porn site, or just blog about stupid stuff no one cares about, all using asp .net and a cheesey Access Database. Call today!"

Yay for Apache, but I really do think Microsoft will cause some issues on this and start pushing their stupid server software. While I do think IIS is easier to setup I think Apache is MUCH MUCH more stable. (experience with Tomcat and ::gasps:: JSP!)

Re:Yay! (1)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879546)

Ah yes, just want I wanted... Another American appoximation of irony.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879592)

to block users who use that evil Google software from hacking your system!

Indeed, inurl:asp inurl:article_id is one wicked google query! But what are they gonna do? Block requests that have google in the Referer line? Not a bloody hell efficient, just copy-paste the URL from google into the location bar, and no trace in the Referer

your free 12 minute introductory offer to IIS!

... and during the next 12 minutes, some kind hax0r will introduce your IIS to a new friend: Mr B. Goatse!

During that 12 minutes you could host your own Porn site,

And if you don't do it yourself, some friendly neighborhood hax0r can do it for you...

all using asp .net

Ha!

and a cheesey Access Database.

Actually, believe it or not, Access is less insecure as a database than SqlServer.

SqlServer conveniently allows to concatenate queries, which means that you can pickyback those ' update articles set article_deck = '<script>window.location="http://goatse.ca/"%3B</s cript>' -- requests into almost any URL parameter.

Access on the other hand doesn't allow you to sneak in an update into a select that way, it doesn't allow to read msysobjects so the only way you can get access (no pun intended...) to the web site is to find a login box and login as ' or 1=1 or ''='. Which is much more cumbersome, as most ASP sites don't unfortunately have an obvious administrative URL.

Rumors are however that Access does interesting things if you give it a pair of pipe symbols, but I've never seen this working though...

Apache open recipe (1)

folababa (911913) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879489)

well thats what you from collaboration. It has shown here that Two is better than one. Freedom is better than slavery.

Why use IIS? (1)

vhogemann (797994) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879490)

Now, I'm not trying to be a troll. I just want to understand the reasons that make someone choose IIS over Apache, since (AFAIK) the later is more secure, more capable, and performs better under heavy load.

Can anyone point me some?

Re:Why use IIS? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879583)

Now, I'm not trying to be a troll. I just want to understand the reasons that make someone choose IIS over Apache, since (AFAIK) the later is more secure, more capable, and performs better under heavy load.

Can anyone point me some?


Sure! Microsoft can:

For reasons, see these case studies:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/iis/eva luation/casestudies/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
- better uptime
- better TCO
- easier to maintain
- more secure
- improved leveragement of potential monetizement of business platform migration plan total cost of... (bribes)

To migrate from Linux/Apache to Windows/IIS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windo ws2000serv/technologies/iis/deploy/rollout/lapa2ii s.mspx [microsoft.com]

There!

Re:Why use IIS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879590)

Actually ISS is much more secure than apache. You have it backwards.

Re:Why use IIS? (5, Funny)

ooh456 (122890) | more than 8 years ago | (#13879614)

Here are the top 10 reasons people choose IIS over Apache:

10. Because they don't know what they are doing.
9. Because their customers don't know what they're doing.
8. Because they are partnered with MS.
7. Because they are racist against Native Americans.
6. Because they get some orgasmic thrill from spending money on slower, inferior products and services.
5. Because the same reason they use Hotmail over Gmail.
6. Because they are really using Apache... but configure it to report itself as IIS to confuse attackers.
5. Because they are originally from another dimension where IIS works better than Apache.
4. Because they were playing a practical joke on their users and then died suddenly.
3. Because they are brainwashed from listening to too many Steve Balmer speeches.
2. Because really all those IIS servers out there are just Microsoft's own servers trying to keep MSN.com running.
1. Because they smoke a lot of crack.

mod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879550)

Re:mod Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879633)

goat.cx has a relatively dull picture of a pumpkin. For the real McCoy, use goatse.ca, or just hit a random ASP server near you ;-)

Not Yet Ready for Primetime.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13879555)

I just dont think that Apache is ready for primetime yet.... Happy hour maybe, but definitely not primetime.... :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...