Slashdot Mirror

Fix is here http://www.iis.net/

In the default installation the services are configured to run

Let's learn about about some of the products I was referring to...

It doesn't run as a service

LocalDB doesn't create any database services; LocalDB processes are started and stopped automatically when needed

Anyway, 100 Mbit is still less than 300 Mbit, and Internet streaming is surely able to be upgraded to new encodings more easily than cable or satellite broadcasts, for example even if only a few people have new sets that support the encoding.

Nothing is stored in the registry anymore for IIS?!?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954864

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/820129

http://blogs.iis.net/ksingla/archive/2007/12/30/list-of-registry-keys-affecting-iis7-behavior.aspx

You can download a fix here.

If you're using a MIcrosoft web server (like Bank of China does ... did?) you really have to use the Microsoft browser for it to work properly

When I ran Apache HTTP Server on Windows Server 2003 inside my employer's intranet, clients running Firefox on Ubuntu had no problem accessing it. Nor have I had a problem reaching public web servers running IIS from my Ubuntu laptop. I've never used IIS in any of my own deployments, but I've been told it still runs PHP applications. So to what extent does any popular Microsoft web server technology require Internet Explorer?

iTunes decision to use abstraction on Windows can hardly be blamed on Windows itself; it's just pure laziness on Apples' part. There's plenty of native media & drawing APIs that iTunes just can't be bothered to implement, and the result is a slow and shitty iTunes implementation on Windows. I know no other app that installs so much shit; a custom USB driver (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/apple-rolls-back-usb-driver-in-itunes-8-for-windows/2270), various services, various other apps you never asked for, etc, etc. It's pure 100% bloat that seemingly only Apple seem to install; no other application I've ever seen piles in so much crap, and you blame Windows? The reality distortion field is strong in you.

Curious comparison with php; I never thought you could link the speed of a media player to that of a web-server technology until now. That aside though php is in fact faster on Windows apparently - http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2006/10/31/PHP-on-IIS.aspx

I find it ironic that Apple call Windows out on being so slow & insecure when they are in fact one of the biggest perpetrators of shoddy coding. The whole "You must use native APIs for the genuine experience" thing going on with the iPhone, while disregarding the same rules completely for their Windows apps. Utter double standards.

Upgrade to IIS7.0 and: http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/460/using-the-url-rewrite-module/

Well maybe they've decided to actually test the patch before releasing it? :)

I discovered today that a patch for a vulnerability in the IIS SMTP service causes the settings for the service to be reset if you're running it on Server 2008 (2003 doesn't seem to be affected, AFAIK).

Unfortunately we applied that patch (and others) last Wednesday and don't have regular automated testing of our website's ability to deliver mail to localhost, so took a while for us to notice... a quick Google lead me to this discussion where I discovered the cause.

Streaming video needs an Apache

Per Slashdot tradition, I will pick on your analogy a bit, because I can't argue with most of the rest you wrote. We already already have the Apache for video... and it is: Apache. And IIS. And nginx, lighttpd, etc.

Move Networks and Microsoft have shown that the best way to do streaming in today's internet is via HTTP, while chunking the video into variable bit-rate segments. This allows easy caching of video fragments via CDNs or even Squid-style caching proxies at ISPs, universities, etc. Yes, you can do live streaming this way, and the Move Networks/Limelight Oprah event streamed to something like 1M viewers simultaneously.

Of course Move Networks has this patented this up the wazzu, and I imagine Microsoft has some of their implementation patented as well. But the actual chunking of video files is pretty obvious, and there's lots of prior art, so I imagine their specific patents can be avoided by an open standard.

So we don't really need an Apache for video, the distribution problem isn't hard, and we already have Apache.

What we need is the content generation toolchain, as you describe later. So we really need the Eclipse/gcc/Spring analogues for video. A free-and-open codec, file formats, and widely distributed players. As you state, the hardest of all these is the codec. I took a fair bit of maths and even some CG and DSP classes back in the day, and I can barely understand how MPEG-2 works, let alone something like H.264.

It's only because IIS 5 came off so badly in the study that Microsoft finally decided to do something and fix their problems. Even people who worked on it admit that IIS 5 was crap in comparison http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2007/05/07/iis-vs-apache.aspx When you say "Security. If you're worried about IIS security vs. Apache, you're concerns are outdated.", you're acknowledging that the concerns were valid.

It backs up my point that market share does not necessarily correlate with vulnerability. Apache had twice the market share of IIS 5, and yet was much more secure.

Had you been given Windows Server 2008 Core to use as a web server, you would very likely have been in the same position. IIS might have been installed (no SQL or PHP support is on the Server 2008 disc), but without the ability to access some documentation, you would have been in the same state as if you were with Red Hat(look at instructions for IIS + PHP + MySQL here). Your point that "linux" does not have a unified installer strategy is just as valid with Windows. My point is that there are valid reasons for different installer strategies among distros, not just excuses.

Are you running the current Moonlight Preview? That's required for managed code support, and hence Smooth Streaming.

This definitely works in Moonlight. If you can see it, you've got it installed correctly.
http://www.iis.net/media/experiencesmoothstreaming

Silverlight (WMV) is in a standards based format, you can check it out in Mono.

These are actually Smooth Streaming files.

http://www.iis.net/extensions/SmoothStreaming

FWIW, Silverlight 3 supports WMV, MPEG-4 (with H.264), Smooth Streaming, and supports managed code decoders and parsers to add additional formats.

So I'm curious, since you're so obsessed with all this hot butt sex you've been having as Microsoft screws you, just how have they screwed you lately? What hostile actions has Microsoft taken towards open source lately? Was it opening the Microsoft Open Source Labs? Was it making sure PHP runs equally well on IIS as it does on Apache? Was it launching the open source .NET portal CodePlex? Maybe it was their monetary investment in several big open source projects? Wow, damn those evil bastards!!

Silverlight 2 supports MP3 and WMV files. WMV uses the SMPTE standard VC-1 codec.

Silverlight 3 (in public beta) adds support for MPEG-4 files and the H.264 and AAC-LC codecs. Most MPEG-4 files that play well in both QuickTime and Flash will also play inside Silverlight 3.

And bear in mind that the FLV spec you pointed to is just the file format. There are no public specs for either the VP6 video codec, or the Flash streaming protocols.

There's no such thing as the "Silverlight video format." There is the new Smooth Streaming technology, but the file format there is an ISO MPEG-4 implementation.

As for WHY Silverlight for media, check out:

http://www.smoothhd.com/
http://www.iis.net/media/experiencesmoothstreaming

There are several ISAPI filters for IIS which support mod_rewrite functionality
For example this one on Microsoft's IIS site : http://www.iis.net/downloads/default.aspx?tabid=34&g=6&i=1599

Funny you mention it, because, just as MS is toying with Apache, it's also working on improving FastCGI support in IIS, solely for the sake of it running PHP better.

Here is the truth on this folks. :)
http://blogs.iis.net/bills/archive/2008/04/25/sql-injection-attacks-on-iis-web-servers.aspx

The admins on the ground seem to disagree with you. From that page, "Our initial investigations are pointing at an attack through IIS using ASP in an overload."

Currenly the .NET Framework is not on Server Core, which means ASP.NET is currently not available. This is something the .NET team wants to add and we're working on adding it as soon as possible. Classic ASP works just fine, and with the new FastCGI support, PHP also runs great on Server Core.

There's a post-RC0 update that you can get from http://www.iis.net/downloads/default.aspx?tabid=34&i=1526&g=6
which updates the FTP service so that it supports FTP over SSL.

This link explains at a very high level why there is no SFTP out of the box, but it is a downloadable option.

http://www.iis.net/downloads/default.aspx?tabid=34&g=6&i=1526 IIS 7 will support FTPS, it is currently in a separate download

FTP over SSL for Windows Server 2008, by Microsoft: http://www.iis.net/downloads/default.aspx?tabid=34&g=6&i=1526

Well, you can read a great deal about it at http://www.iis.net/

You can also download a free evaluation good until April 2008 of Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/beta/ lhs/default.mspx

IIS 7.0 uses text file-based configuration.

You exaggerate to the detriment of your case. My web server's entire configuration file is exactly 125 lines long – less than three screenfuls in my text editor. And with Apache, for example, you can check your configuration file's syntax without actually running the server with apachectl configtest.

On the contrary, I find that plain text configuration files make administration much simpler. If I want to copy parts of a configuration from one server to another, it's as easy as yanking a bit of text. Documenting my settings involves merely dumping the contents of my configuration file to my manual, rather than expounding on my navigations through a GUI menu system.

It seems that Microsoft itself has come to recognize the weaknesses of GUI configuration, as one of IIS 7's most notable new features is that it is configured using plain text configuration files.

Well, then you should have a look over at the official IIS website amd see some of the improvements for IIS 7. Version 6 added more stability and allowed applications to be pooled, IIS 7 will allow full control over web server settings using the (formerly ASP.NET exclusive) web.config file. Also, Microsoft has been working on a new Fast CGI implementation which means that (for instance) PHP or Ruby will run under good conditions on IIS. Then there's ASP.NEt which has matured to a stable webplatform with good performance, big community, some good open source components, and support for multiple languages (including Python and Ruby in the near future) and a free IDE (Visual Web Developer Express). Last but not least, IIS in Vista has completely new administration screens, which makes it easier to configure.

I hear the security track record for IIS 6 is also pretty good.

So all together, I think IIS is good value, not just for professionals, but also for students and hobbyists.