Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Apache down, IIS up 282

Posted by timothy
from the falling-sky-repair-dirt-cheap dept.
Doctor Memory writes "Netcraft's June 2006 web server survey is out, and it shows IIS taking a dramatic upturn, at the expense of Apache. One of the biggest reasons cited is domain registrar Go Daddy switching to IIS for the domains it "parks". The report does go on to note that IIS is also making solid gains in active sites (including some large blog hosts), and further notes that it appears that large hosting companies are dropping Linux." Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's market share is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache down, IIS up

Comments Filter:
  • Just a thought, but Microsoft is probably as primed as ever to move aggressively on the Web Server market. Why not sooner? For one thing they've been busy locking down or trying to lock down everything else and manage the legal and foreign consortium attacks.

    And, the first few generations of IIS weren't hardened. While Microsoft can (and has) dominated markets with non-superior products (not trolling, not saying "inferior", just not the best of breed), Apache got the classical head start on Microsoft, not necessarily (if ever) assurance of ultimate victory.

    I've read articles, heard people talk -- it's hard to sort fact from fiction -- but I've heard stories of Microsoft coming in with big dollars and technical help to convert high profile and LARGE targets (Go Daddy, perhaps?) to their Web Server technology.

    How do you resist that? If I had a large company and had ANY issues with Apache (who doesn't have any issues with any technology?, there's always something), I'd find it tempting to accept overtures from Microsoft.... "We'll come in and convert you to IIS, AND we'll help you do it, AND we'll give you money. All you have to do is brag on it in return."

    I cringe just a little when I hear reassurances like (from the slashdot summary): "but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment..." I remember using that as reason to be confident about the browser market... there was a time when Microsoft IE's share was less than 5%. We all know how that bad boy ended.

    If this is what Microsoft is doing (and IMO I suspect it is) this smells of once again abusing their monopoly in OS to extend their control of new markets at the expense of fair competition.

    Doesn't seem to matter much if it's true, the current administration (in general) has shown little interest or appetite in reining Microsoft in.

    • by Azarael (896715) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:46AM (#15494989) Homepage
      Thankfully, MS can only make so many gains this way. It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over. At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.
      • by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:54AM (#15495054)


        I'm afraid I have to disagree.

        It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over.

        What makes you think they can't? They certainly have the scratch, and as they've shown in the past, they're not at all averse to taking large financial hits to ruin a competitor.

        At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.

        Sure, until your PHB strolls in and declares that "we're switching to Microsoft!". Remember, Microsoft doesn't have to buy^H^H^Hconvince you, they just have to convince the guy who holds the purse strings.

        • by WebCowboy (196209) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:56PM (#15496019)
          > It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over.

          What makes you think they can't?


          Little things like...oh...the Sherman Antitrust Act, anti-dumping provisions in the WTO, and likely future court rulings and legislation that might result from that sort of behaviour (especially from the EU and Asian countries that are slowly growing more hostile to Microsoft).

          It is one thing to offer your your software for free as has been done with IE since the start. Even when Microsoft moved IE from the "Plus! Pack" onto the Windows install CD when they supplanted Win95 with Win95A there was not much to complain about. MS' practices became questionable by the time Win98 came out, when IE became a required part of the OS install and applications started coming out with IE dependencies as this put competitors at a disadvantage. I say questionable because even after a decade it is still a point of debate if such practices should be regulated.

          With Windows Server, IIS is right on the OS install CD and is increasingly integrated with the OS and other server software (SQL reporting services, sharepoint, team foundation server, etc). This is reaching the point of being questionable behaviour, however I think the competition has accepted that MS has decided such things as web browsers and HTTP servers are "components" of desktop and server OSes respectively--and it is a bit difficult to complain about it when Linux distributions almost universally bundle such applications with their OS installs too.

          as they've shown in the past, they're not at all averse to taking large financial hits to ruin a competitor

          Absolutely. However, selling at a loss or giving software away for free (as in beer) is one thing. Bribing your competitor's customers to switch, especially when your competitor is non-commercial, is not only ethically and morally unacceptable to most people--it is almost always illegal too. The most definite line that would be crossed is going from discounts, to give-aways, to actually offering money or gifts to potential customers. At my place of employment, it is made very clear to everyone that exchanging anything but the most nominal gift with potential customers--even if it doesn't involve luring them from a competitor--is an offence punishable by immediate dismissal even on the first offence.

          Sure, until your PHB strolls in and declares that "we're switching to Microsoft!".

          I feel fortunate that the economic climate where I'm at right now is a job-hunter's market and a person can be selective. Even if it weren't, however, if *my* PHB were to just stroll in and pronounce that we were making major, disruptive IT infrastructure changes without previous consultation with others just because some salesbot from MS offered him some swag then I'd immedately set about updating my resume and finding work elsewhere. Not only do I not like at a job where the opinions and concerns of employees are not considered--it has also been my experience that organisations with managers that "stroll in and declare" such things are destined to fail if they do not change. This goes both ways, by the way--I think that it would be equally as bad if the PHB at an all-MS shop were to stroll in and declare "we are switching to Linux" without any apparent good reason.
          • > Little things like...oh...the Sherman Antitrust Act, anti-dumping provisions in the WTO, and likely future court rulings and legislation that might result from that sort of behaviour

            OK, so let me just get this straight. You're actually serious here...

            You think, that what's gonna stop MICROSOFT from doing something grossly unethical would be...

            THE LAW?! LMAO!

            Mod me down if you want for pointing it out, but the law has about as much effect on Microsoft as I do. They've PROVEN that they're above the law
            • Although msft was convicted, msft didn't even get a slap on the wrist. Even with msft's faked videotape testomony.

              Lately the DoJ has gotten really tough, because msft has not complied with any DoJ ruling. The DoJ had decided they would continue to watch msft. Oh boy, *that* will teach msft!
      • by kfg (145172) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:03PM (#15495131)
        At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.

        Build a better mouse trap . . .and the world will ignore you.

        Market an inferior mouse trap and get rich.

        Ever notice that car companies tout the fact that their product is the number one seller in something or other? Why do they do that when what someone else buys doesn't actually have anything to do with my taste and needs?

        Because it works. The great masses are herd animals. They instinctively incline to doing what they see others doing. This is an overall positive virtue in a tribe seeking tribal survival. It is also extremely easy to exploit.

        Back in the day sysadmins were taken largely from the highly educated, highly cynical, highly independent portion of the population, motivated by their own drummer, the computers themselves. Nowadays most of them are just typical examples of herd members who got into computers because that's what they saw everyone else doing; and, of course, that's "where the money was."

        They can be led. And if they can't be led, they can be ordered.

        KFG
    • by truthsearch (249536) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:50AM (#15495020) Homepage Journal
      If this is what Microsoft is doing (and IMO I suspect it is) this smells of once again abusing their monopoly in OS to extend their control of new markets at the expense of fair competition.

      Going into a business and offering to help convert to IIS isn't abusing its OS monopoly. They don't have anywhere near a monopoly on server OSs anyway. But of course I agree Microsoft is using its financial power and businesses shouldn't be quick to oblige.

      Doesn't seem to matter much if it's true, the current administration (in general) has shown little interest or appetite in reining Microsoft in.

      In fact one of the very first things Bush did when he entered the White House was remove all of the DOJ lawyers on the Microsoft monopoly case who had any legal experience with monopolies. Young lawyers replaced those already working on the case. And the expert independant counsil was fired without any explanation. Bush intentionally sabotaged the case against Microsoft.
    • "We'll come in and convert you to IIS, AND we'll help you do it, AND we'll give you money. All you have to do is brag on it in return."

      Catch 22 [imdb.com]

      Lt. Col. Korn, XO: All you have to do is be our pal.

      Colonel Cathcart: Say nice things about us.

      Lt. Col. Korn, XO: Tell the folks at home what a good job we're doing. Take our offer...

      Colonel Cathcart: Either that or a court-martial for desertion.

    • by Thaddeus (14369) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:00PM (#15495107)
      Microsoft's share was closer to Apache's in March of 2002 than it is now. There's no reason to believe it won't plateau or drop off again. There's not even a trend yet (like there was back then) that can lend itself to predictions.
    • I cringe just a little when I hear reassurances like (from the slashdot summary): "but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment..."

      Personally, I cringe when I see editors making comments like that up there on the summary, rather than down here with the rest of us.

      Apart from that, I agree with you; if one is serious about trying to keep IIS out of the web server business (for whatever reason), then the time to be complacent is when it no longer exists.
    • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:09PM (#15495173)
      For the most part, the general Internet hosting market is pretty much the worthless segement of the market. Yes, this is an area where Apache/LAMP dominates, but mainly only because it's cheap for ISPs to offer the services and there's a ton of pre-cooked forum/ecomm/blog packages out there.

      When you get into custom developed sites, there's a few things to note -- (A) A large percentage run behind firewalls and will never be counted by Netcraft. (B) People tend to use Java or .NET much more often than Perl or PHP. (C) IIS is very very common on the Intranet, even for Java stuff.

      The truth is nobody cares what GoDaddy uses to park domains. Maybe it's a technical test of IIS in some fashion, but is it really worth it for Microsoft to convert sites that aren't doing anything? Windows/IIS will never compete in the $20/month free PHP package market, so it's not really worth bothering about.
      • by tetranz (446973) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:55PM (#15495537)
        Windows/IIS will never compete in the $20/month free PHP package market, so it's not really worth bothering about.

        That might have been true a few years ago but not now. Have a look at the Windows (and Linux) offerings, including SQL Server, at JodoHost [jodohost.com]. I'm not connected with them other than as a happy customer. There are plenty of bad Windows hosting companies out there but there are also good ones with prices pretty much the same as LAMP.

        I've done a few spare time projects for non-profits. Previously my only realistic choice for these was PHP / MySQL mostly because of hosting and tool costs but my latest project uses .NET / C# / SQL Server. With low cost IIS hosting, versions of Visual Studio and SQL Server that are either free or low cost, the features of ASP.NET 2 and DotNetNuke [dotnetnuke.com], I probably won't be returning to LAMP any time soon.
    • by Ryan Amos (16972) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:12PM (#15495193)
      Apache is easy to use. There are a billion and one admins who know how to configure it. It's fast, extensible, and runs on Windows to boot. Why the hell would you want to run IIS if you're already running Apache? I have worked extensively in the hosting industry, and let me say that customers on IIS + ASP have many, many more problems than those running on an Apache + PHP/Perl based system.

      In a web server environment, Windows costs more than Linux, period. Administration is more complex, downtime is more frequent (Windows requires you to reboot for a large number of security fixes,) site intrusions more destructive and harder to remove, and Windows Server 2003 gets very expensive in a server farm. Web hosting is a bottom dollar business; companies are trying to reduce IT costs, not raise them.

      Windows is well suited for many environments. Web hosting is not one of them.
      • And do you know what I've noticed? I may be totally wrong here, but I don't think IIS even has a mod_rewrite-ish function! I don't know about you, but I rely extensively on mod_rewrite every day – almost all my sites are running a custom PHP/MySQL/mod_rewrite-based setup, and without it the entire thing would fall apart.
    • by mikecouk (556182) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:25PM (#15495285) Homepage
      Where I've worked in the past, it seems that the Web Server of choice follows the Application Server of choice.
      If management find a great application that cheaper to run, and maybe has a great support contract at a low price, they buy into the idea, and don't really bother about the fact that they have to move the front end web server technology from say IIS to Apache.
      I've been in a situation when a brilliant Apache / Java / Broadvision combination, was replaced by an IIS / .Net solution, just because of what seemed "a good deal" at the time.
      However in my particular situation, us "Sys Admins" loved apache so much, we decided to leave it in at the front end, to serve media, protect the front end and internal-proxy the IIS data, and then have IIS as the middle layer just doing the .Net integration part and processing data.
      So at the end of the day, Netcraft reports apache, but the real grunt of the work is being done by IIS.

      Mike
    • Perhaps the growing demand/use of asp based web apps has something to do with the marketshare growth as well.

      I know that personally, i'd host my asp apps on a Linux box if chillisoft was more common, but it's tricky to find a host with decent support, and all the features needed to run an asp or asp.net.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      the story after this one slashdotted an IIS server. Did it run out of bandwidth? Nope...it ran out of memory. lol IIS sucks ass!!!

      http://www.twingalaxies.com/ [twingalaxies.com]
      Error message below:
      Server Error in '/' Application.
      Configuration Error
      Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file required to service this request. Please review the specific error details below and modify your configuration file appropriately.

      Parser Error Message: The XML file c:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.
    • by digidave (259925) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:10PM (#15495667)
      At the last place I worked at IBM did the same thing. They wanted us off LAMP and offered to give us 1-year Websphere and DB2 licenses (something like $10,000 per year afterwards!) and they would even re-write all of our web applications at no charge.

      So as I'm in the meeting with these guys all I hear them talk about is their technology. Java this and Java that, scalability, DB2, XML addons, etc. It was all very impressive until I asked them a question for which they had no answer.

      What business problem does our current technology fail to solve that your new technology can?

      The fact is they had no idea. They didn't care at all about our business, only their technology. Our LAMP system already did what we wanted and I communicated to IBM that our business success had nothing to do with technology, but everything to do with the business model behind it. I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft isn't solving any business problems by converting anyone to IIS.
  • Fishy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:43AM (#15494964)

    Stumbled across this tidbit from a NewsForge article [newsforge.com] on the Go Daddy move:
    The approximately 4.5 million domains that moved are, after all, inactive parked domains -- meaning few people are pointing their browsers at them. As for domains that actually do get Web traffic, plenty of those still remain on Linux at GoDaddy.com, something Microsoft failed to mention in its press release [microsoft.com] last month touting the domain transfer.

    So, it appears that IIS is the webserver of choice for websites that don't actually need to be viewed. Hmm...

    Also from the NewsForge article:
    The obvious question is, did Microsoft pay Go Daddy or offer any incentive to move its parked domains to Windows? Adelman declined to clear up that issue one way or the other. "We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships."

    That sounds an awful lot like a 'yes' to me...sure, I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.

    So, basically, it looks like Microsoft paid Go Daddy to switch to IIS for their domains, the vast majority of which were parked anyway, in a rather transparent attempt to massage the numbers. Quelle suprise.
    • Re:Fishy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:02PM (#15495118) Homepage Journal
      Yes it is interesting. Why would you pay for a system that just parks domains? These are static pages that don't carry much traffic. I have to wonder just how many copies of IIS are running to serve those parked domains? Five maybe?
      As everybody with a brain will say, so what? For Microsoft to win this one big they need to get everyone to move to .net and asp. With Ruby on Rails, PHP, and Python being so popular that one may be hard sell.
    • Re:Fishy... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by egomaniac (105476)
      That sounds an awful lot like a 'yes' to me...sure, I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.

      I disagree. The standard response "We can't comment on rumors or speculation" (of which this is a variation) is given regardless of whether the rumor is true or not. Think about it: if a company said "We can't comment on rumors or speculation" when the rumor was true, but clearly said "No" when the rumor was false, they'd
    • Re:Fishy... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by supabeast! (84658)
      "So, basically, it looks like Microsoft paid Go Daddy to switch to IIS for their domains, the vast majority of which were parked anyway, in a rather transparent attempt to massage the numbers. Quelle suprise."

      Or maybe Godaddy just wants to experiment with IIS and is starting with non-critical systems. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than this all being a crazy conspiracy.
  • by tnk1 (899206) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:44AM (#15494966)
    Yes, Netcraft has confirmed that Apache is now dead. Thank you.
  • google (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    well, after the apache person got hired by google to write GoogleOnLineCalculator and GoogleOnLineMinesweeper, what'd you expect?
  • GO SOFTWARE! Woo! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sexyrexy (793497) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:46AM (#15494986)
    Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.

    Thank God. Why does it seem like if your favorite server software lost too much market share to Microsoft, you would pretty much be emasculated? Do geeks latch on to software like jocks latch on to sports teams, or what? No matter what is said, it always has to be punctuated by "but my team is the best." Sometimes OSSers have more in common with Christian Evangelicals and cheeseheads than geeks...
    • by protohiro1 (590732) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:52AM (#15495038) Homepage Journal
      For people like myself that work in web dev, this isn't religion. Its practical. Most of us have to work on what our employers work on. More gains for IIS mean more chances we have to work with it. If you have experience with apache IIS is like stabbing yourself in the head. If you want any extra features you often have to buy them, everything is managed through the clicky interface from hell and ISAPI hurts my brain. I'm sure that IIS is perfectly capable, but I just don't like it. So when I hear more people are switching it fills me with dread.
      • >> If you want any extra features you often have to buy them

        Like, for example, what?

        >> everything is managed through the clicky interface from hell

        Bullshit. You can manage everything from script or even by editing metabase (which is an XML file) or web.config or machine.config by hand.

        >> ISAPI hurts my brain

        Yeah, it hurt Microsoft developers' brain, too. So now you can do just about anything from ASP.NET which doesn't hurt.
        • mod_rewrite. Absolutly essential. I know you can do this with asp.net now, but it is nowhere near as powerful as apache mod-rewrite or ISAPI rewrite. And I know this is unfair, but my experience with windows has been that people in a windows environment do not trust open source. Here we are 100% windows and even installing the OSS IIS mod_Rewrite is a no go. I think for me IIS and windows server hatred is really just an aesthetic thing. I don't like it. I log in through terminal services and click around to
          • Well, now this sounds like your're in the wrong job. If you like LAMP so much and you want know LAMP and you want to work with LAMP.............hop on dice.com and find a LAMP job?

            Now I know someone will reply that this isn't that easy to do and jobs aren't out there or whatever. But if you're unhappy at your job, it causes stress, which causes tension, which causes problems. I know. I'm in a manufacturing job and I'm actively working towards certs in Solaris so I can get the hell out. But I'm worki
            • ha you are right. I am working on a new job. interviewed for one on solaris/jsp and the other on lamp. have to relocate though. oddly there are very few web jobs in denver
    • Apache & IIS are tools. Many of us use those tools as part of our job. It's normal for us to be interested in the popularity of those tools, because the popularity partialy reflects the quality and the future status of those tools. Sun's apache server has 2% of the market -- that

      This situation exists in every industry -- there are gearheads who prefer Ford over Chevy, gardeners who prefers Craftsman tools over another brand, or darners who prefer one brand of yarn over another.

      With OSS, we also have phi
    • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:12PM (#15495195) Journal
      Do geeks latch on to software like jocks latch on to sports teams, or what? No matter what is said, it always has to be punctuated by "but my team is the best."

      Do you really need to ask this question? Of course geeks do that. Unless they aren't computer geeks. Star Trek geeks battle over favorite episodes or captains, RPG geeks can't suffer a criticism of "their" game system, and I'm sure some Paleontologists geeks get their knickers in a twist when someone disses their favorite dinosaur, "Tarbosaurus could totally kick Dryptosaurus' ass!" "Could not!" "Could so!"

      Sometimes OSSers have more in common with Christian Evangelicals and cheeseheads than geeks...

      This is a human thing, most everyone is fundamentalist about something, and most people identify more with a particular group than they do with humanity as a whole. Should geeks be above this kind of thing? Maybe, but very few people have the emotional and moral intelligence to rise above their upbringing.
    • Sometimes OSSers have more in common with Christian Evangelicals and cheeseheads than geeks...

      Well, I'd say it's often closer to the former rather than the latter, and for good reason. The difference for many OSSers between open and closed source is an issue of basic liberty, not just cheering for the "home team". More people using OSS means more people who know about OSS, better press for OSS, more people who will be willing to choose OSS, and generally a more OSS-oriented software industry. It's lik
  • by Dark Coder (66759) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:47AM (#15494999)
    Oooohhhkay.

    So, after much years of expensive research dollars, Microsoft IE server has FINALLY become a highly optimized and finely honed webserver that serves just a single static page?

    Most lopsided lie (um,,, I meant statistic) I've ever seen.
  • Let's get real (Score:5, Insightful)

    by astrashe (7452) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:48AM (#15495003) Journal
    These numbers are meaningless.

    What possible difference could it make to me whether godaddy parks domains with IIS or apache? If godaddy's choice moves the stats in a significant way, then the stats aren't meaningful.

    • Market share == Mind share

      It makes no technical difference. But when PHBs see numbers dropping for Apache they'll think twice before choosing it.
    • There's also the statistic for active sites where IIS went +3% and Apache -3%.
    • Re:Let's get real (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Psychotext (262644)
      More importantly is why does it matter anyway? X uses what they like, Y uses what they like. Story over.
      • Re:Let's get real (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shish (588640)
        X uses what they like, Y uses what they like.
        I take it you've never had a manager? X and Y are far more likely to be using what management insists they use, and management makes decisions based on statistics (pulled out of an ass or not, it doesn't really matter so long as there are enough percent signs and an obvious winner)
  • erm.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment. "

    Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that --INSERT ANOTHER STATISTIC HERE EVEN THOUGH IVE JUST MADE AN INSINUATION THAT STATISTICS ARE TO BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT--
  • by damiena (263598) <neimad915@@@gmail...com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:48AM (#15495008)
    user@internet:~$ sudo apachectl start
    Password:
    Starting httpd:

    OK, try it now.
  • Apache vs. Linux (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ajs (35943) <ajs&ajs,com> on Thursday June 08, 2006 @11:49AM (#15495011) Homepage Journal
    The metrics from Netcraft are hard to read with respect to OS. They don't publish a free OS graph that I've found, and you can't assume that any particular percentage of Apache hosts are running on any particular OS.

    All this tells you is that the majority of "sites" (that being a nebulous term) are using Apache on some OS as at least their front-line Web servers. They might still be back-ending to whatever, and that would not show up.

    Personally, I don't think you can use Netcraft for any purpose other than to say "IIS and Apache are the most popular Web servers."
    • The metrics from Netcraft are hard to read with respect to OS.

      I totally agree [netcraft.com]. I mean the top 3 servers listed in the uptime report are supposedly using a BSD OS running IIS. How likely is that? ;) Anyone from NEC want to tell us what the real story is?

      [rant]On an unrelated and slightly offtopic note I'd like to just say here that domain parkers suck hard. I mean, if you figure that there are 1,000,000 words in the English language which are common enough to make good domain names (in reality probably far

  • The parent seems to discredit the survey by saying "It is fun to play with statistics." Obviously trying to cast doubt on the numbers by saying that they can be moved around to suite ones needs.

    However, since this survey is done monthly, the question is has it been credible in the past? Is the survey only being called in to question over it's validity now, because it reports on good news for Microsoft? Are we really so eager to turn on anything that provides positive news of any kind for Microsoft?
    • And I will continue to believe it.

      All this shows is that Microsoft also reads it and has decided to make the biggest change in those statistics with the smallest effort.

      Last month, there was a 40% difference in marketshare between Apache and IIS.
      This month, the difference is 30%.
      And it only took half a dozen companies migrating to make that big of a difference.

      But that seems to be it. Those were the big players. They've been converted. That's the best Microsoft can do. We'll see how the numbers play out ove
    • The parent seems to discredit the survey by saying "It is fun to play with statistics." Obviously trying to cast doubt on the numbers by saying that they can be moved around to suite ones needs.

      I don't think that's necessarily what it was saying, just that statistics only say what they say. The statistics are probably 100% accurate in what they're saying, the important thing is to make sure that you don't read too much into them (which people are known to do).
    • Well, you just have to read the charts. It shows that as of March 2006 that survey the survey had Apache looking great (actually it still is), but from March 2006 on there has a very noticable shift. So any survey before March '06 was credible and any survey after isn't (as they obviously became MS shills on that date). Of course if in the future the survey looks positive for Apache again, it will again be credible.
    • It is. (Score:3, Informative)

      However, since this survey is done monthly, the question is has it been credible in the past

      If you read the link, the largest movement of sites from Apache to IIS was once again at Go Daddy, with over 1.6M hostnames moving from Apache to IIS this month. If you read netcraft news periodically, you'll find that in the past mont [netcraft.com] they said: The shift is driven by changes at domain registrar Go Daddy, which has just migrated more than 3.5 million hostnames from Linux to Windows. Go Daddy, which had been the worl
  • And you know what else is up? IIS exploits hitting my apache log files... :)
    I also get a lot of php 'sploits too but I am seeing an increase in IIS "features" hitting my web servers. Wow, to be so popular... sigh.
  • I personally love Apache. IIS is also a decent alternative, but there's something about apache that is just hard not to love. I think we all know by default that Apache on Linux = Free. IIS + Windows != Free. Seeing as Apache offers no downsides to as compared to IIS (to speak of) i have trouble imagining why this "upturn" is taking place. It's not like IIS suddenly got "better" or that Apache got "worse."

    Could the whole GoDaddy deal really be that significant or is there another source?
  • Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's marketshare is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.

    Has anyone else noticed that Slashdot is pretty much incapable of publishing any story with so much as a tiny semblance of being pro-Microsoft without taking some sort of potshot somewhere in the summary?
  • Conflicting stats (Score:2, Informative)

    by ASP (3295)
    SecuritySpace.com's web server survey [securityspace.com]. Of course the methodology is different....
  • by C_Kode (102755) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:01PM (#15495116) Journal
    I can't fathom why large hosting providers would switch unless something is happening under the radar. Even then, I've managed both Apache and IIS. IIS by far requires more of a hands on approach and Apache is far more versatile in what exactly you can do with it.

    I've rolled my own self-healing scripts that manage my Apache servers and warn me if something is amiss. Our IIS servers can be a pain at times...
  • a much more interesting statistic would be the percent of actual web traffic served by server type and average traffic by server type _not_ including "parked" domains.

    "total websites hosted" is meaningless, as I could set up a hosting/registrar company, park ten bazillion domains and offer to sell my domain parking service to the highest bidding server vendor (or just pick my favorite (KHTTPD? matchbox-PIC-server?????) to screw the other guys.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:03PM (#15495124) Homepage
    *.blogspot.com should be counted as together, same with typepad.com. With all of the spam blogs created to boost google rankings, these should be counted collectively so as to err on the side of caution.
  • While GoDaddy moving all their parked domains to IIS certainly muddies the water, is it possible that .NET is actually starting to get some traction?
    /ducks
    • Erm, on the web side, .NET has had some serious traction for years now. Many websites - intranets and publically-facing Internet sites - use ASP.NET. And for those who want to hate Microsoft, you can use this for ammunition - MySpace uses ASP.NET [asp.net] to power those pretty, accessible, user-friendly web pages.
  • When Intel's market share vastly outstrips AMD's, the anti-Wintel crowd cheers loudly about AMD's solid gains at Intel's expense.

    When IIS makes solid gains in market share at the expense of Apache, the same crowd cheers loudly about how Apache still has 30% more share.

    Guess it's all about the spin.

  • Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadowlore (10860) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:16PM (#15495229) Journal
    Seriously. Who cares about parked domains and what they are on. Parked domains are nothing more than a PR tool. A parked domain coudl be served from a dead simple serve-only-the-parked-page custom binary/script. Anybody relying or relishing how many domains are parked on their software has issues. Particularly since it wouldn't take much for a registrar to "park" a very high number of domains on whatever combo they wished. About the only interesting stat in the Netcraft report is that a little more than half of all "domains" are "parked". Half the domains on the web are nothing more than "for sale" signs by domain name speculators and entities who couldn't buy real webspace.

    For those who actually care or might need to know which software serves up the most active domains, a report on just those is more beneficial.

    Even then, why does anyone care how many domains are on what software? After all, a domain could be served up by multiple machines running different OS/Software combinations. So those numbers wouldn't be accurate either. Further, for those who may need to know "what server is best" these numbers only add confusion due to irrelevance. If you are setting up a truly large site, you'd better already know your stuff and don't need this kind of 'data'. The only data of this type that would be useful to you would be what the really busy sites run. Even then it also depends on active vs. dynamic.

    As far as hostnames running a given OS, this too is not valuable due to key factor assumptions. The assumption underlying this statistic is that more is better. This is beyond mere OS capability. All hosts are not equal. A Linux box running a website(s) on 400MHz Pentium is not comparable to a Windows box on say a DL580, or vica versa. Regardless of OS in this case the DL580 will be capable of serving "more" of whatever it is serving.

    The Netcraft web server report is a curious statistic and should be taken as nothing more.
  • When netcraft numbers favor Apache/open source, the streamers fly and there's nothing but back patting on how this proves {insert open source alternative here} is a better product.

    But soon as MS gets some positive numbers. "OH THOSE ARE ALL INFLATED NUMBERS THAT MEAN NOTHING!"

    Guys pick a standard to hold things too and stick to it.

    Personally I don't care who's on top, long as what I use works for me.
  • Two of us in the I.T. group here are windows people who have transitioned to the Linux side. Both of us can't stand IIS. Even the more hardened versions have problems because they delve so deeply into the operating system.

    Apache doesn't. Just set it run as u/g nobody and mostly forget about it.
  • by Dekortage (697532) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:24PM (#15495273) Homepage

    "If you torture data long enough, it will confess to anything."

    I don't know who said this originally, but it's a great comment.

  • You used to have to buy the advanced server version of windows to get the load balancing (WLBS). It was significantly more expensive than standard edition. Now, you can buy 2003 web edition, which gives you the latest and greatest, it has all the stuff to do load balancing a couple systems, and the price is the cheapest of all the 2003 server OS's (~500 bucks retail). So, for 1000 in licensing, you can get a load balanced webserver setup. This will (and does) appeal to plenty of people out there.

    Linux i
  • by IainMH (176964)
    I think at least a significant portion of this is down to the continued success of C#.

  • Stupid Slashdroids (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JPriest (547211) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @12:30PM (#15495336) Homepage
    Unless you live under a rock you should know that Windows server sales are higher volume than Linux servers (source [eweek.com]). Since many of the Windows servers are used internally one could say IIS has been traditionally under-represented in the Netcraft survey.

    Now they win over a domain parking service and everyone want to say the statistics are unfairly in their favor? What about all the years those statistics worked against them, I didn't see you complaining then.

    I like to work with Apache, but 2k3 server is a large improvement from MS. If MS finally getting their act together on the server front means they win back some of the "Netcraft share" than great.

  • it shows IIS taking a dramatic upturn at the expense of Apache.

    The report does go on to note that IIS is also making solid gains in active sites (including some large blog hosts), and further notes that it appears that large hosting companies are dropping Linux." Check out the bold words above.

    Noticed how similar do they sound like Bush's crapola 'address to nation' speeches, with so called 'strong' words ?

    Not only vague and generic, but also giving a 'solid','definitive' direction to the paragrap
  • Now it's only a matter of time before the Apache are forced to live within reservations while their former home lands are turned into McDonald's and Best Buy lined freeways all running IIS. Really sad.
  • then Apache is diying.
  • What do they have in common you might ask? Well as this article clearly shows... they both are dominated by denial.
  • I don't care if a doman is parked in Apache or IIS or anything else. I'd like to know (well I really don't care THAT much) how many unique web server boxes are running what web server. That's the only figures that really matter.
  • by vanyel (28049) * on Thursday June 08, 2006 @01:10PM (#15495665) Journal
    ...GoDaddy's revenues fell markedly as people found they could easily break in and setup their own sites at the parked domains without having to pay for them.
  • Microsoft is making a BIG push right now to make it 'seem' that they are the viable choice. Negotiatibng with GODADDY and other domain parkers to manipulate statistics is part of their plan; all their salespeople then go out and quote nNetcraft stats to everyone neglecting to state WHY there stats changed and precisely what will happen to those stats when they actually go active.. in other words they will again go onto an Apache server in 4 out of 5 cases.

    To coordinate with this, they also have been getting
  • How many Microsoft servers were running Apahce for MS instead of IIS? (I'm sure its a low amount)

    @ the end of the article:

    Sun is the sum of sites running SunONE, iPlanet-Enterprise, Netscape-Enterprise, Netscape-FastTrack, Netscape-Commerce, Netscape-Communications, Netsite-Commerce & Netsite-Communications.

    Microsoft is the sum of sites running Microsoft-Internet-Information-Server, Microsoft-IIS, Microsoft-IIS-W, Microsoft-PWS-95, & Microsoft-PWS.

    Nothing states what the sum of Apac
  • by attackiko (170417) on Thursday June 08, 2006 @02:39PM (#15496425) Journal
    Great, first Black Hawk and now Apache :((

"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight." -- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory

Working...