Netcraft Survey Updated 208
The latest survey is out and ready for reading from Netcraft. There's some interesting commentary in regards to Code Red, and its effects on web usage. One of the things that I found most interesting was the data showing that while the number of sites hosted by Apache continues to grow, the number of physical webservers running some variety of Windows is about half of the total. Worth checking out.
Gartner Group Effect will be interesting (Score:1, Interesting)
It will be hard to tell. (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I would see it positive, if it would change some IIS servers to linux. For the growth of linux on the pie has been taken from the other *nixes.
Are there any good ways do advocate such behaviour?
No CodeSlashdot affecting Netcraft then (Score:4, Funny)
Wonder how long they'd have stayed up if they used IIS.
P.S Is it one of those urban myths or does IIS really stand for Internet Infection System ?
Re:No CodeSlashdot affecting Netcraft then (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No CodeSlashdot affecting Netcraft then (Score:1)
Re:No CodeSlashdot affecting Netcraft then (Score:1)
Re:No CodeSlashdot affecting Netcraft then (Score:1)
USA WORLD (Score:2, Informative)
considering even the usa has at least 3 time zones (I'm sure Hawaii probably counts for a 4th) I'm nearly at the point to call you plain stupid.
No wonder your foreign policy is up the creek.
Re:USA WORLD (Score:1)
Note to USA: there are other lands, out over the sea...
Re:USA WORLD (Score:1)
Yes Hawaii and Alaska have their own timezones. Actually I think Alaska has 4 natural timezones, but they only use 2.
How will Netcraft handle Mac OS X? (Score:1)
Re:How will Netcraft handle Mac OS X? (Score:2, Interesting)
Code Red -isms (Score:2)
BTW, did you notice the rather large proportion of Linux pc's (not servers) hooked up to the web? Sure, it's not as much as Windows, but still quite a lot
Re:Code Red -isms (Score:1)
Another Linux Advocacy Resource (Score:1)
Or maybe not, holes are bound to be found in Apache, and the same Admins who didn't install the IIS fix and have since moved to Linux will probably fail to install the update for Apache.
Lets hope that apt-get becomes standard on more distros.
Re:Another Linux Advocacy Resource (Score:2)
But then, look at the number of IIS exploits and the ones on Apache, even though Apache has more then double the market share of IIS.
Add to that, that most exploits on Apache where due to vulnerable CGI scripts.
Apache actually has quite a good track record, regarding security and admins installing Apache are more likely that they know what they do
Now, what bugs me about Microsofts WDI (worms deployment engine) is that a lot of NT/W2K user don't even know that they have a web server running. It installed by default, with all its glorious vulnerabilities...
Quit spreading FUD or clarify your comments (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting also is that i86 is WAY ahead... (Score:1)
Wich also brings an interesting point...
What if next time the virus is a nifty I86 Assembly worm ?
Wouldn't it be event more deadly than a simple IIS targeted one ?
Re:Interesting also is that i86 is WAY ahead... (Score:2, Informative)
buffer overflows only works on the platform they are written for..
Re:Interesting also is that i86 is WAY ahead... (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing a worm in x86 assembly does not mean that you have an OS-independent worm.
Every worm needs a method to infect other hosts, and the only way is to exploit known vulnerabilities in legit services - ie, you are using applications' (IIS, Apache, bind, sendmail) and operating system's (Windows, Linux, Solaris) services to infect the host. The reason is that, on a network, you are not talking directly to the processor like you do with a local process. You are talking with software layers that manage your connection.
After you have unscrewed the software protections, you make your payload execute on the target host, using a nifty x86 assembly snipped designed to gain privileges. But this is still dependent on the OS.
In fact, many old-fashioned viruses (infected disks,
Re:Interesting also is that i86 is WAY ahead... (Score:3, Informative)
No, because you can't arbitrarily execute x86 machine code on my x86-based server. You have to exploit a hole first, then get your code to execute. Since I run Apache instead of IIS, it's much harder for you to get into my system, and since I run Linux (properly configured) instead of Windows (misconfigured by a PHB who thinks the pretty dialog boxes make him a sysadmin), it's harder for you to do significant damage if you do get your code to run (because Apache setuids itself to a non-root user).
S'right (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you do, even MS use the x86 protection mechanism and run most code in ring 3. Since the account Apache runs in would not have the priviledge to install & run arbitrary ring 0 code (as would be the case with IIS [running as Local System] installing device drivers) there are limits on what can be done.
Maybe there's an argument for an OS which has two modes which are mutually exclusive. You can use the machine (run applications etc.) or you can administer the machine (install drivers etc.). You cannot do both from the same account. Many Windows users run their day to day work under accounts with admin priviledges - or worse still, domain admin privildges. Why? Do people really need to switch from document writing to driver installation so quickly that they need be done without an additional login? Does anyone really need god-like priviledges from a regular account?
Of course, I may be talking rubbish.
Switching privilege levels (Score:3, Informative)
There actually is a "good" reason that even people that know better often do this on NT(aka 2k). If you're sitting there word processing, logged in as a non-admin, and someone calls you and needs, let's say, a new account made for the new hire - you must close out of your program, log out of windows, log back in, then make the account. It's a pain. Whereas on a *nix box it's as it should be, you just open an xterm, su, and make the account. It's very handy to be able to change the user in a controlled way like that in an existing session, without affecting the other stuff you are doing.
Another reason that this is done a lot is that there are a lot of NT admins out there that just don't know what they are doing. You tell them you need two accounts and they think you're trying to scam them. These people are just jokes, but if they happen to be over you in the local hierarchy there isn't often a lot you can do about them. So you do it their way, and just hope you don't get hit when it hits the fan.
Re:Switching privilege levels (Score:2)
On the last point, however, if you've been following the Windows PowerToys development at Microsoft (they were the crew that brought you TweakUI and anti-aliased fonts for Windows 95 without the Plus! pack), they're developing a myriad of new utilities for XP, including a virtual desktop manager allowing you to switch the current desktops and all the open programs you have open, just like most *ix WMs. It's pretty slow right now, but it's still in beta.
I want privileges! (Score:2)
I have been a MacOS user all the live long day, and I damn well know that I want to be able to install printer drivers without any of this logging in and out authentication nonsense. Of course, if I were running a server, I'd want more stringent security. However, viewed objectively it is nonsense to make a single-user, or even multi-user, system force me to log out just to install drivers. This is poor interface design and nothing else, if you aren't running a server. (hence OS X)
Home use vs Business use (Score:2, Informative)
WRONG
For home use, your assumption is (at best) debatable - separating regular use accounts from system admin accounts is a good way to prevent viruses and trojans, and to make sure that you can't screw up the machine accidentally (rm
For corporate use, it is a neccessity. Even though our salesmen are still stuck in windows land, I praised the day we switched them from Win98 to NT/2000 - yes, we get calls from them saying that "I can't install this program", but it's a small price to pay to prevent them from installing non-work related software, or trashing the machine.
MS Trickery (Score:4, Insightful)
If it takes 2 MS machines to replace every Apache machine MS will be sitting pretty. All they need is a few pointy haired bosses who are naive enough to spend more money for more machines. Then they can say they have the most marketshare. Combined with some FUD this makes a great way gain new clients. Eventually Apache will dwindle, and the corporate world will shun you unless you use MS.
Re:MS Trickery (Score:3, Flamebait)
Jump forward to 6months from now;
MS "Look how many machines run NT and IIS compared to other systems!"
SysAdmin "But we can run 20 IIS sites on one Apache ser..."
MS "SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP! LOOK AT THE STATS!"
One particuler cheery comment;
"Linux leads Windows in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Austria and Finland - Linus Torvalds' home country"
7 countries and counting...
Re:MS Trickery (Score:1)
Re:MS Trickery (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not exactly a new idea for Microsoft: it was one of their key tactics in the battle against Novell. Top brass would be sold on how much less expensive NT was than Netware. When all was said and done, 1 Netware sever with two support techs would be replaced by 15 NT servers and 10 support techs. But it happened over a period of time and no one understood what was really going on.
Of course, those 10 new techs then became evangalists for pushing more Microsoft stuff, and the rest is history...
sPh
Re:MS Trickery (Score:2)
To this point, Novell sold per server "connection licences" which encouraged people have less servers because of the great expense involved. It also was/is far more efficient than Windows because it's a far simplier OS that was basically designed to serve files and only serve files.
On the other hand Microsoft sells "seat licences". Once those are purchased, the marginal cost of adding a server is very low, which makes it easier to add services to the network. Fit perfectly with the bureaucracy's worldview (and you could argue that the networks did more/could do more than their Novell counterparts too, which is perfect for political power plays.)
Per Host is more accurate than Per Computer (Score:3, Interesting)
Annecdotally, I can say that about a dozen machine linux servers I know are each running 3 or more separate hosts.
Re:Per Host is more accurate than Per Computer (Score:2)
Re:MS Trickery (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been consistently impressed by how much raw abuse a UNIX server can take. A while ago, I wrote a test program that consumed all virtual memory and CPU and kept asking for more, and the machine got slow but kept on trucking. Where I work, the admin runs multiple web services on a single-CPU UltraSPARC box, and it never complains--not even a "hiccup."
The truth is that it takes one UNIX machine to replace N Windows machines, where N is a large positive integer. Do you want quality or quantity?
Right on point (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how you win market share...
Re:MS Trickery (Score:1)
The correct interpretation... (Score:1)
would be that your can make more efficient use of hardware with Apache, yes?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:2)
Apache has nothing to do with the OS. Many W2K machines out there run PHP and Apache to serve up sites, use Exchange for their email and W2K file services for their file sharing.
Also, Linux/Apache servers are also doubling as mail servers in *most* cases that I know off. The ISP's and hosting companies rarely ever seperate the mail functions from the webserver.
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:2)
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:1)
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:2)
That's an awfully big assumption.
"Also, one final note, compare all of that to how people use the different servers: Apache is very heavily used by ISPs, IIS is heavily used by do-it-yourself admins who dont know all that much. "
That's another awfully wrong assumption.
IIS is much more heavily used by corporations because it is much more efficient to develop dynamic content web sites than is Apache.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:2)
Last I checked, Apache could run on big Sun, HP and IBM boxes. And last I checked, IIS could run only in x86 and Alpha. Obviously the big boxes can run more sites than the x86 ones.
Also, Apache is deployed more on mass virtual hosting than IIS, which tends to be used more in corporates and single site setups (like
The majority of IIS sites typically run ASP applications, whereas the majority of virtual hosted Apache sites are static.
Without more data, you cannot possibly say that Apache uses the hardware more efficiently.
Re:The correct interpretation... (Score:2)
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Code Red / Nimda (Score:5, Interesting)
We live in a block of office units with shared network access. Our landlord is about as non tech as they come, the whole company, and outsource the LAN provision.
The phones and LAN went down twice due to Nimda, although our machines were unaffected - being patched!
The operator has given our landlord the following advice "Cut them off unless they have Norton". So we get a visit from a suit asking if we have Norton on our computers. We don't we have McAfee. His response?
"Get Norton by Friday or your being disconnected"
People just don't understand this stuff. We have fully patched machines, which run good virus software, but our PHB landlord denies us access to the network that WE PAY FOR beause we chose a different software solution.
Re:Code Red / Nimda (Score:1)
Re:Code Red / Nimda (Score:1)
Feel free to mod me into oblivion.
Re:Code Red / Nimda (Score:1)
It's a character from the Dilbert cartoon series by Steve Adams. Dilbert FAQ [unitedmedia.com]
Re:Code Red / Nimda (Score:1)
Re:Code Red / Nimda (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not surprising (Score:1)
A unqualified admin, has worse work under win2k, since u need to admin it 24*7.
With *nix and apache, admin is an unknown word, other than to maintenance and set up.
Re:Not surprising (Score:1)
With Apache it would be, "That server just sits there and runs by itself. What did we hire that admin guy to do anyway? Sit around and drink coffee?"
Re:Not surprising (Score:3)
This logic is actually put forth by netcraft in their survey.
This logic is probably not the best description for what is happening.
Everyone, including netcraft seems to either not know or ignore the fact that Apache can run on Windows. I thought at first it was reader misinterpretation, but netcraft themselves states things like:
"Although Apache runs more sites than Windows.."Which implies a mutual exclusion that is completely inaccurate. For many users who cannot or will not move to a *nix system, Apache is both cheaper than IIS and not as prone to worms as IIS in their current incarnations. Windows users use Apache more than IIS, and that is what causes the results that seem contradictory to people who think "Windows=IIS, *nix=apache"..
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. It is still possible from the statement that there is overlap, but that Apache has a total number more sites than Windows. I agree, though that there is nothing that explicitly talks about apache on windows. After poking around for a bit, I couldn't find a server/by operating system breakdown.
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
This is slightly flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
This DOES NOT account for the number of Web servers running a particular package to do something, it accounts for the number of servers _installed_ whether intentionally or not.
Further, it doesn't account for website overloading whereby a number of sites reside on the same IP address. Does Geocities count as one site, as it [may] only be registered to one IP?
Hmmm, could be a bunch of folks realized that IIS server on their SQL server was unnecessary. Again, they may have 'disappeared', but it doesn't mean they were used in the first place.
I mention the above as it's how were functioning in OUR case. (3 or 4 machines that never used IIS have it turned off now, and we've got several large sites all sharing the same IP and servers)
Re:This is slightly flawed (Score:1, Insightful)
What happens if we all get together and politely ask Netcraft to start *checking* to see which sites are in use?
I'm not sure quite how easy this would be given netcraft's methodology (i thought i once found a page on netcraft's site explaining what their methodology was-- now i can't find it. did i imagine this?) but i would think it would be quite interesting if next time they ran the survey, they would load index.html for every site surveyed, quickly check to see if it matches the default page for any known version of either apache or windows nt, and then give us a little graph showing how many Apache servers are running without the awareness of the admin vs. how many IIS servers are running without the awareness of the admin..
Would that be feasible? Would they do it if enough of us got together and asked politely? I think that would be fascinating.
(Of course, i guess you could say some Apache servers are out there where the default / page has not yet been replaced but yet ~user pages exist.. i'd say the number of sites that fit that description would be absolutely negligible, though.)
- nobody
What part of the netcraft OS survey does mac os x register in?
netcraft isn't stupid.... (Score:5, Informative)
Number of IIS exploitable servers going back UP? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's with that? The end of month figures for vulnerable IIS systems show an increase in cross site scripting, accessible admin pages and viewable script source. Any guesses?
Is it just that they're more visible? Or is it a whole bunch of sysadmins formatting, re-installing, then selectively patching for the last three exploits that they can remember? Wierd.
My guess: (Score:1)
While they did surf by windowsupdate in the aftermath of the Code Red craze, they probably have now gone back to their old habits, and leave both new installed systems as well as reformatted ones in their unpatched state. Since Windows has to be re-installed about every 6 months, the number of vulnerable machines will quite probably be back to the old numbers by february 2002...
Re:Number of IIS exploitable servers going back UP (Score:2)
I thought so, but some of the rises are (proportionately) sharp, and they're not universal. It doesn't quite match a flurry of new, nekkid machines. Still, with IIS, who knows? ;)
Switching takes time (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually it is quite simple to migrate between Unices and Linux, but its quite a challenge to switch from a Microsoft platform to some *nix/Apache platform, if the server serves more than simple static pages.
I believe, the process to migrate from WinXXXX/IIS to *nix/Apache will take a few months, not weeks, for management decision (big corporations are not able to produce decisions in a few hours, but will take weeks - till the next "meeting" or so), reprogramming, data-migration, testing etc.
That's the reason, why Netcraft itself stated:
So give us time, and lets analyse the stats again in a few months.ms ms
Re:Switching takes time (Score:2)
As you point out, a switch from IIS to Apache is significantly more complex. My feeling is that it will take YEARS and not MONTHS or weeks. Why? Because most of these companies blew their load building these web sites over the last few years, and now for the most part they are _done_. Furthermore, we're in a recession, which means that the IT budget might have a few bucks for a consultant to check the patch status of the NT boxex, but there's certainly not free cash to pull in the sorta talent required to rebuild last decade's projects.
I suspect we need to wait 3-5 years until the industry is transfixed with the 'paradigm-shifting' hype surrounding some other new technology. Or the existing web apps just get dated and broken. Then a new generation of IT types will go forth and implement that stuff, and it might involve switching the HTTP server around.
But at this point, the web server market is kinda like -umm- the desktop operating system market. It's mature, everyone's made their decision, and there's no overwhelming reason to switch at this point.
Why more physical servers? (Score:1, Flamebait)
And yes, IIS really does mean Internet Infection Service (QED), and Microsoft also got the two syllables of their mailer backwards, and left some of the extra Es out of their web browser's name.
But there is an answer:
Re:Why more physical servers? (Score:2)
Most dump Windows when dumping IIS (Score:2)
The ex-IIS sites I've seen or created have all decided that since they're going to the trouble of dumping IIS, they may as well dump Windows too. Also, many of them dump IIS because they're dumping Windows, at least for that server. This is only my own experience, the global stats may side with your point.
Port Scans Aren't Bad (Score:1, Interesting)
David
Methodologies are important (Score:5, Interesting)
For starters, maybe research should be done to determine which servers and platforms serve the most actual pages on the web. It is very reasonable to state the very same hardware will serve twice the volume with Apache Unix than IIS-win. The type of Unix may matter too. Large sites tend to use Linux, very large sites tend to use BSD. Moderate sites use Solaris (and only the smallest use IIS) in general. If security is of any concern, Windoze is a joke. Apache makes a Windoze version, but warns it should never be used in a production setting - just for a quick prototype. (to show management)
More interesting is which system serves the most data overall? The people that work on the 'big iron' say it is Linux by far, then a toss-up between Solaris and BSD. With a paltry 5%, comes the combined power of all Microsoft PC's.
The point is clear and we have all heard it: "You can prove or dis-prove anything by how you manipulate statistics". So M$ is the best from their prospective, and so is Linux from theirs and the same for Sun, BSD and all the others. BSD does make a good point that they can serve 100x the data for the same cost as Microsoft, and that assumes you *pirated the Microsoft software* and does not include 'down time' so many Microsoft users can relate to, nevermind all the email worms and Trojans either!
Re:Methodologies are important (Score:3, Interesting)
--Bob
Re:Methodologies are important (Score:2)
I'd really like to see a Netcraft/Google link-up. "Which servers host the most _important_ pages?" That would be exceptionally cool, and the databases are already there, somebody just needs to mine the data.
Re:Methodologies are important (Score:4, Informative)
Executive summary:
Apache 41%
Unknown 18%
IIS 13%
Netscape Enterprise 12%
Assumptions *ARE* important... (Score:2)
No, that's not at all reasonable to assume that. In fact, IIS5 outperforms Apache by quite a bit.
You may be thinking of Tux, which has outperformed IIS in benchmarks, but isn't in high use.
As far as the $1k server versus $1M server. The Netcraft survey also doesn't account for machines behind a load balancer, which is the typical configuration of $1k servers running Linux/Apache or Windows/IIS.
More information` (Score:4, Funny)
now this is a packman! (Score:2)
Does Intel's 90% dominance disturb anyone else? It's a good thing that there is competition within that 90%. Oh well, this user will probably continue to buy cheap AMD mobos.
Re:now this is a packman! (Score:1)
probably even more Windows than we think (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately the number of Windows boxen out there is probably higher than the survey would indicate.
Remember that Netcraft's OS detection only detects the OS of the machine that is directly connected to the Internet. See their own faq
at http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html
If you put your company's NT server behind a Unix-based firewall or proxy, it will be detected by Netcraft as Unix. This is probably a pretty common setup at many companies hosting their own web sites.
In many cases, it will be a Windows firewall... (Score:2)
If you think I'm kidding or trolling, I'm not- they actually THINK that way in business. And there's little wrong with it, in and of itself. It's just the choice of OS they settled on that's the problem.
Systematic over counting of Microsoft servers? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of implies to me that at least 78,000 of the machines Netcraft have been counting as IIS Web servers were in fact just machines on which IIS had been loaded by default, and were never serving any real content anyway. If that's true of 78,000, how many more is it true of? In other words, are Netcraft systematically overcounting IIS by counting all machines with IIS running whether they are in fact serving any real content or not? Likewise, how many of the 'Apache' servers counted are in fact just 'out of the box' Linux installs with no real content?
Re:Systematic over counting of Microsoft servers? (Score:2)
ostiguy
Re:Systematic over counting of Microsoft servers? (Score:2)
My web server has a default apache page, and it's been this way for many years, but it's not because I have an unattended Apache install. I just don't have anything I want to put on a front page. I've had plenty of pages below this root level, including a tomcat server, php pages, some image galleries, online ordering systems, demonstration sites, etc.
My point: finding a default page isn't necessarily proof that the website isn't being used.
Re:Systematic over counting of Microsoft servers? (Score:2)
Only the naive would place a server directly on the internet and not be conscious of what services they are providing and what their vulnerabilities are. Hell, services are out there to tell you what your vulnerabilities are (and how to secure them) if you don't know how to do it yourself.
Placing unprotected Windows boxes on the internet is, as time has proven again and again, a very bad thing. Same thing can be said about any unprotected machine (including Linux)...but Windows seems to be the preferred target at this time.
Without due diligence and proactive network management, most systems will fall prey at some point.
RD
Re:Systematic over counting of Microsoft servers? (Score:2)
Re:Systematic over counting of Microsoft servers? (Score:2)
The public numbers that Netcraft reports are basically useless because they count "Sites" and not servers. As far as I can tell, a "site" is a domain name. This obviously doesn't account for virtual hosting at all.
For example, if PornSpamSquat, Inc. had purchased 10,000 domains and were using a single Pentium-133 web server box to show the "Under Construction", or "Buy this Domain" page, or do redirects to real servers, Netcraft counts that box 10,000 times in their survey. When the box breaks or is attacked by a worm, the admins just turn it off, and 10,000 'sites' disappear from the survey. Which greatly overemphasizes the importance of that little P-133.
windows != apache ? (Score:2)
under microsoft windows...
the survey site seems to assume that anything
windows must not be anything but an MS webserver.
i'll just sit back and assume the microsoft
server numbers
are even lower than presented
woohoo!
Re:windows != apache ? (Score:2)
Probably their figures are the most accurate out of anything you'll find.
The P word (Score:1)
Intel had no comment at press time.
People seem to be forgetting... (Score:2, Insightful)
OS detection still needs work, anyway (Score:1)
Military websites (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who have had sites that were shutdown now have to get approval (from several echelons up) before that can put their sites back up. I'm not going to say what the new web servers will be running, but it WILL NOT be Miscrosoft's IIS. The websites that are still running IIS are actively scanned for vulnerabilities (by someone other then several thousand script kiddies).
I will not be surprised if ALL of the webservers run by the military will be moved over to something else.
IIS half the physical? Why is that? (Score:2)
I'd be willing to guess (but not to wager) that a majority of sites running on IIS are on single-site servers.
Those in the know know that there are other webservers which are more stable than IIS for multi-site hosting. (OK, there are some that are less stable, believe it or not, but they are few and far between.) Having your webserver running on your corporate server is a Bad Thing (tm). Having Exchange on your corporate server and open to the internet is a Bad Thing (tm). Having postfix running on a firewall, forwarding to Exchange is a Better Thing.
P.S. -- the OS irrelevant here, well, except that IIS only runs on M$......
say again...? (Score:2)
Is that a euphemism for nmap ive never heard...?
The press left out CC fraud issues (Score:2)
their databases on the same machine or how accessable a database would be onced IIS was hacked and admin priv's were gained, but they, the press, never mention how vulnerable the customers data is on a Microsoft system. My CC has already been stolen and I'm darn sure it was because one site used IIS. Actually both mine and my wifes CC numbers were stolen and used for similar purposes.
Other similarities pointed to a ASP based server we used for a service we bought online.
The press is still leaving Microsoft alone as far as I'm concerned. They need to be called for what they are.
Bad for ebusiness, bad for corporate profits, and not to be trusted with customer data.
FEAR
IMHO.
LoB
Microsoft's stats.zone.com runs on Linux... (Score:2, Informative)
Love it!
Linux has come quite a ways... (Score:2)
The thing that interested me about this one was that the focus was clearly on Linux and Microsoft. The tone was that Linux was something that was just an ordinary part of life.
For example this quote: "One significant site to switch away from Microsoft recently is infoseek, though it is not known whether this is related to security concerns."
The article didn't say what operating system infoseek had switched to. But everyone reading the article would just assume (correctly) that they had switched to Linux. A year ago, a website this large switching to Linux would have been big news but now it's something that is just taken for granted.
As always however, it is frightening to see how many people use apache. Apache is a great web server but the worst security problem facing the internet today is not poor software but mono culture.
Please support alternative open source web servers.
From Netcraft (Score:1)
Re:The real reason 80,000 IIS Servers disappeared (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing how many of the code red servers were displaying the sample page.
Re:The real reason 80,000 IIS Servers disappeared (Score:1, Interesting)
We did not switch to Apache or anything else, though, just clean it up patch and back to operation.