Slashdot Mirror

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

According to this arstechnica article (2011), Microsoft had a 25% webserver market share (IIS) as of 2010, and 15% as of 2011. For standard servers, they accounted for 71% of all quarterly server shipments (original source, IDC). According to a survey in 2010 (the only one I could find on smtp market share, and was linked in Wikipedia), Exchange is the third most popular SMTP server (17%-- behind exim @ 34% and postfix @ 21%, and just ahead of sendmail).

You can call that many things, but "comparitively tiny" it isnt. Microsoft server is remarkably popular in SMB situations, and even in larger companies, and trying to write it off as irrelevant or whatever your angle was is silly.

Also silly is the comment about "code already there"-- EVERYONE does this, from RedHat to VMWare to Adobe any other company that sells multiple tiers of its software product.

Erh.... you might want to read this.

Linux may not be popular on the desktop, but I'd say Linux has a very high percentage of servers since roughly 60% of mail server responses are exim, postfix, and sendmail, while microsoft continues to decline. My own vanity domain is "tested" daily hundreds of times, and let me tell you, Iptables and ACL keep my server secure, not obscurity.

But that isn't how this malware is spreading. Users are downloading and installing this, it isn't an attack. That comparison doesn't really work there.

Linux may not be popular on the desktop, but I'd say Linux has a very high percentage of servers since roughly 60% of mail server responses are exim, postfix, and sendmail, while microsoft continues to decline. My own vanity domain is "tested" daily hundreds of times, and let me tell you, Iptables and ACL keep my server secure, not obscurity.

A couple days ago I did a count of the number and kind of computers offered by DELL that come with Ubuntu pre-installed. Dell offered, when I counted, a total of 32 different laptops and, surprisingly, 32 different desktops. Only 3% of their desktop offerings and 6% of their laptop offerings ran Ubuntu pre-installed. I also noted that the customization offerings were much less with the Ubuntu. With friends like Dell, Linux needs no enemies. That's why I say that Dell offers Linux so that Microsoft can point to them when people accuse it of being a monopoly.

Comparing an Ubuntu XPS7100 with its Windows counterpart I noticed the Ubuntu offering was only $20 less, but it had fewer customizations, and those that were offered weren't of the caliber or range of those offered for the Windows machines.

This is why, when folks buy a DELL but with the intent of running Linux, they buy the hardware and customizations they want using the more generous Windows offerings, and then either dual boot with Windows or REPLACE Windows with Linux. Thus, Windows gets the "retail sales channel count" but Linux gets the machine. The Windows purchaser continues to shell out even MORE cash for adequate AV software, cdrom burning software, firewall software, office software, graphics software, etc... The Linux user installs all of that software from their repository at the same cost of their distro - 0$. The result? Windows machines continue to be added to Windows bot farms in the tens of thousands. While Windows servers comprise only 16.6% of all Internet servers, they serve 99% of all spam and malware. OpenSource software, running on 76% of all Internet servers, account for a fraction of a percent of malware. This is why, as Steve Ballmer noted 18 months ago, that Linux is their main competition and its desktop market share has exceeded Apple's.

As the economy continues to stagnate, people are without jobs or are in low paying jobs, and money is tight. I have had nearly a couple dozen people who have been running Windows for years call me up and say they've heard about Linux and ask me to install it on their computer. These are friends who've asked me several times in the past to restore their Windows boxes to running condition again. Since installing Linux (usually PCLinuxOS or Kubuntu) the only calls I get are "what printer should I choose?", or "This pop-up says my computer is infected with Windows viruses! What should I do?" I laugh and tell them to ignore it. Only one, who couldn't find a Linux version of the kind of software he was using, returned to Windows, but he uses Linux in dual boot to surf the web and do online accounting and buying.

There's another web server survey out there that says the latest Apache 1.3.x alone has 4.26%, and its graph may be interpreted to say that it's not dying. Damn :)

There's another web server survey out there that says the latest Apache 1.3.x alone has 4.26%, and its graph may be interpreted to say that it's not dying. Damn :)

How on earth were my points FUD? Are you sure you're using the right word?

The main cause of DLL hell is shared library authors who are unable, either through incompetence or lack of discipline, to maintain backwards compatibility between minor updates. (A minor cause is bad installers overwriting newer versions of libraries with older versions. But bad installers can overwrite or just delete other files as well, as well as mess up your system in countless other ways, so that's not really a problem with the DLLs per se.)

The only reason I am aware of (other than the system/user distinction that I already made) that you might want to install multiple copies, or private copies, of shared libraries is to work around this lack of backwards compatibility. If you are aware of another reason, please state it instead of just claiming FUD without anything to back that up.

The .NET article linked to does state that maintaining backwards compatibility "is extremely difficult, if not impossible." That's a direct quote, the crux of the article, and the problem it tries to describe a solution to.

However, while maintaining backwards compatibility might require a modicum of discipline, the claim that is made simply does not stand up under scrutiny. Nearly every single shared library written for every operating system other than Windows *does* manage to maintain backwards compatibility between minor revisions. The libraries I listed, as examples of some of the largest, oldest, most complex, and most widely ported shared libraries I could think of, are concrete evidence of that. Or are you claiming that factual counterexamples to over-stated claims are "FUD"?

Having private copies of shared libraries does cause security problems when security bugs are found in those libraries. Take a look at the fallout from DSA 122-1. The 8 packages which included private copies of the zlib library were still vulnerable to the zlib bug, even after the system-wide shared library had been patched and updated. In contrast, the thousands of packages that use the shared version (1715 packages depend on zlib according to apt on my system) were all fixed as soon as the shared copy was updated. Again, demonstrable fact.

So, the basic problem is that the authors of DLLs for Windows seem incapable of maintaining backwards compatibility between minor revisions, despite the authors of shared libraries for other OSs managing it, and despite the security problems that arise from having multiple/private versions of a library installed which is a workaround that is a direct result of the lack of backwards compatibility.

Making it easier to install multiple private copies of DLLs, or allowing apps to depend on specific "side-by-side" versions of "assemblies", does not fix this problem, it simply papers over it.

Please, if I've overstated anything, claimed anything that's untrue, or made a leap of logic that is unsupportable, point it out in detail instead of just wildly claiming that my whole argument is FUD.

What's the solution to the problem? Demand that your library authors to do a better job than the one they're currently doing and maintain backwards compatibility. Especially if you're paying for your software, and those authors can't maintain the same level of professionalism as hobbyists and other people who are simply giving their code away.

4. Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month. Netcraft provides these statistics here: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/22/june_2008_web_server_survey.html

As Mark Twain said 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.' These stats are INCREDIBLY slanted as Microsoft paid several domain parkers to move to IIS thus making it look like alot of people use IIS when in fact they do not. Also, they forked their stats: Googles web server is actually a custom build of Apache (not for resale), lighttpd is a custom build of apache as well. Add these stats back in, take into consideration that Microsoft paid off domain parkers and you actually get a stat more like this.

Why do Apple's Safari vulnerabilities on both Windows and Mac make all *nix stuff look bad? I think this is one case where fanboy mods or no, the point fails.

Because every time there is a security hole in their competitor's software the Microsoft fanboys (and shills) come out with the "Microsoft isn't any less secure, it's just targeted more because of its market share," line. By itself this is contestible: Web servers are riper targets for Internet based attacks (always on, always connected) and *nix has a clear lead there. Also, the privilege escalation methods on *nix are less obnoxious than the Windows equivalent, which is usually switched off as a result. Meaning Windows hasn't got the relevant market share, and is less secure than the alternatives.

So, when Apple do something like this, the MS fanboys roll out FUD about their competitors software being just as buggy as their own (see above). People believing this are less inclined to even look at other software: why waste the effort, when the quality is no better?

I think what the OP is trying to say is that Apple has an effect on all non-Microsoft software, because in many markets anything non-Microsoft is lumped into the "alternatives" category. That's certainly how the Microsoft fanboys and shills will try to spin this anyway.

Some operating systems provide a well defined (documented) set of interfaces/APIs/libraries to develop with. Version info included.

Some don't.

The market shows which philosophy is more successful.

Yes, the Webserver market, the embedded market and the supercomputer markets do indeed show which OS is superior.

Thanks for the insight, AC! :)

Why do they continue to quote Netcraft when http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200712/index.html has always put Apache ahead of windows? Is it that Netcraft is more of an authority than Security Space.

Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache.

Doesn't quite look like the rest of the world got your memo.

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200711/mxsurvey.html

There, Googled it for ya:

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200710/mxsurvey.html

And, at 0.17%, I'd say it wasn't as widely used as the poster wants us to think.

This comment seems to be in line with the numbers presented on the SecuritySpace survey if you assume the custom Google web server is reflected in the "Other" numbers.

Apache dropped: 0.06%
Other rose: 0.05%

With the other 0.01% in the servers outside of IIS.

This is according to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html, though Security Space paints completely different picture http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200709/index.html.

This is according to http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html, though Security Space paints completely different picture http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200709/index.html.

By the way, who of the two is more credible? Netcraft or Security Space?

Also I think it's worthwhile to note that world wide IIS has actually lost 1% market share in the last six months. January,2007: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200701/ index.html July,2007: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200707/ index.html

Also I think it's worthwhile to note that world wide IIS has actually lost 1% market share in the last six months. January,2007: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200701/ index.html July,2007: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200707/ index.html

If you look at the current survey, Apache is gaining ground even in China.

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200707/ cn/index.html

You have provided a good link for different countries, yet did not follow up. For example, all domains are at,

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200706/ index.html (20% ISS, 73% Apache)

now, if we go by countries we see immediately who is responsible for the boat of ISS, (see website above for source)


Germany: 5% ISS, 92% Apache
US: 21% ISS, 74% Apache
Canada: 25% ISS, 70% Apache
India: 33% ISS, 63% Apache
China: 67% ISS, 28% Apache


Now, since China is adding more net users on the web faster than any other country, we see the problem. China is skewing Netcraft.

There is also a serious discrepancy in that other stats seem to show IIS on the last moments of extinction in hi-tech zones like Germany. NetCraft report doesn't really have any explanation of the figures it presents.

What's really problematic is that over time NetCraft has become less informative. No mention has been made lately of what the changes in market share are attributed to. In years past, even a percent or two got a few lines of explanation or analysis. Did one of the service packs or 'security' upgrades install and turn on IIS for all Windows users? Or are more domain parkers and cybersquatters using IIS in the server identification string?

This downturn started last year when MS paid GoDaddy to swap out (or claim to swap out) its domain parking. GoDaddy did get the OSS community to lay off by throwing some chump change to OpenSSH and we can see the result of these last 12+ months. The money did some good, but if it's just a one-off donation, then it's questionable whether then benefit offsets the harm. Either way it's funny to see GoDaddy decision makers thinking they can buy indulgences. Maybe it ought to become an annual fee.

Second? A bit of googling suggests qmail was third in 2003: http://www.credentia.cc/research/surveys/smtp/2003 04/
And this survey suggests it's falled to 22nd in 2007: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200 701/mxsurvey.html

qmail seems to have been abandoned by DJB, and his licensing requirements mean other people can't fork development, they can only distribute patches for it.

If I set up a DNS server with a wildcard A record, I can create a single web page providing 10,000 links to different sites, all in the same domain, but each with a different host name, each resolving to the same IP. Visit that page, and each of the 10,000 pages in turn, and you'd just have identified 100 million new sites.

Check the methodology at SecuritySpace, along with their Monthly Web Site Growth image (half way down the page). It projects an estimated "Active Web" size significantly smaller than that of Netcraft.

If I set up a DNS server with a wildcard A record, I can create a single web page providing 10,000 links to different sites, all in the same domain, but each with a different host name, each resolving to the same IP. Visit that page, and each of the 10,000 pages in turn, and you'd just have identified 100 million new sites.

Check the methodology at SecuritySpace, along with their Monthly Web Site Growth image (half way down the page). It projects an estimated "Active Web" size significantly smaller than that of Netcraft.

The reason you shouldn't try to tell other people's stories is that people who actually understand what you're talking about laugh at you when you get it wrong.

You got that right. Too bad you didn't follow your own advice, which is why everyone is now laughing on you, even harder for doing it while being a smartass.

The AT standard required a half second pause between each plus, and there was no known modem which got that wrong.

There are plenty of known modems which got that wrong and had no delay at all. It's quite well documented, see for example http://www.securityspace.com/smysecure/catid.html? ctype=cve&id=CAN-1999-1228, or justfuckinggoogleit.

And next time, check your "facts" before you accuse people of lying.

This list might be of use:

http://www.securityspace.com/de/s_survey/data/man. 200603/casurvey.html

Popularity does not equate to quality or value for price, but it often well correlates to it. At least you could use this as a starting point for investigation.

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200605/ index.html

They say something else...

SecuritySpace.com's web server survey. Of course the methodology is different....

http://www.securityspace.com/en/smysecure/catid.ht ml?id=12009

First example I could find, older versions didn't even ask before installing.

Honestly, >95% of the websites nowadays make use of js, and quite often for very good and valid reasons.

Securityspace has statistics for javascript penetration at sites in their Technology Penetration Report.

But who knows how many sites use javascript properly? And despite your woeful claims, javascript is a security risk.

Only 22% of servers use cookies. The best sites work fine without them.

My understanding is that half of Europeans run with JavaScript disabled but I have no hard figure.

I am dismayed at the number of sites that use JavaScript when it is unnecessary (clicking on a link, etc.). Perhaps there is some explanation for this, some use in it, that someone else can please provide?

I'm interested in what data they have for Germany or other countries. If Apache is any example, then Firefox should be much more in use some places: Apache has only about 70% of the HTTP server market worldwide, but has over 90% in Germany.

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% 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)

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

Also, here's SecuritySpace's Apache module survey which covers everything else.

"Gartner remains concerned that viruses and worms will continue to attack IIS until Microsoft has released a completely rewritten, thoroughly and publicly tested, new release of IIS," the report says.

The difference, real or perceived, is enough that sites are going out of their way to choose Apache.

Over here at http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200506/ index.html, it shows Apache simply increased its market share in the month heading up to July 2005. This reminds me of what statistics can be: They can be made/manipulated into anything the presenter wants to project. So who is telling lies here? SecuritySpace or Netcraft or both?

In major countries like Germany, IIS is already down to around 3% of the server market. Even world wide, most people have the sense to run Apache. You can look at the percentages, but every time an IIS farm is rolled out, shortly thereafter, they wise up and drop it for Apache or any other product actually suited for being connected to the network.

Frankly, I'm not sure why this article even made it to Slashdot. Is slashdot or OSDN participating in this year's marketing tsunami by doing product placement ads? Please let's go a week without MS articles, there's enough shilling going on in the discussion without them.

Of course it will be impossible to completely rot out Windows in all South Korea, but Microsoft has very good reason to be worried.

• First Linux does eat up Microsoft's marketshare, no matter how often MS sais otherwise. Just look at this for an idea, or even at this Yes, that's right, Linux has already marginalized Windows in some markets. In Germany it's hard to find a webhoster even offering Windows (and when they do, they charge about twice the usual fees). Windows is doomed in central and eastern Europe, all the usual network effects (it's established! the people know it!) work against it there and there are no more advantages left.
• Then what Linux does is what we all wanted, right? Unify Unix. What's the point of having similar but slightly incompatible systems from IBM, HP and Sun? Linux unifies Unix in a way that even if you don't run Linux, it will be compatible to Linux (compatibility layers for Solaris and AIX). Of course a unified Unix is also a lot stronger versus Windows than a balkanized one. "Unix is incompatible to itself" and "Unix needs overpriced hardware" were the 2 biggest pro-Windows sales arguments. No more.

• First Linux does eat up Microsoft's marketshare, no matter how often MS sais otherwise. Just look at this for an idea, or even at this Yes, that's right, Linux has already marginalized Windows in some markets. In Germany it's hard to find a webhoster even offering Windows (and when they do, they charge about twice the usual fees). Windows is doomed in central and eastern Europe, all the usual network effects (it's established! the people know it!) work against it there and there are no more advantages left.
• Then what Linux does is what we all wanted, right? Unify Unix. What's the point of having similar but slightly incompatible systems from IBM, HP and Sun? Linux unifies Unix in a way that even if you don't run Linux, it will be compatible to Linux (compatibility layers for Solaris and AIX). Of course a unified Unix is also a lot stronger versus Windows than a balkanized one. "Unix is incompatible to itself" and "Unix needs overpriced hardware" were the 2 biggest pro-Windows sales arguments. No more.

...concerning MS in Europe? I'm just interested to see how deeply entrenched they are there financially. It may be just the stuff I'm reading, but open source seems to have a stronger foothold there than in the States.

As usual it's difficult to get statistics on client software, but web-servers are easy. securityspace.com keeps statistics on web server breakdown by top-level domain. Of course TLD isn't a great indicator of where a box is actually located, but to my knowledge it's the best we've got to go on.

Breakdown across all domains is around 70% Apache, 20% IIS, 10% other. (This is broken down by number of domains served, not number of servers running). It's about the same for .com, Apache does a bit better on .net, IIS does a lot better on .edu and .gov.

.fr (France) has a slightly higher than average score for IIS (~28%). In fact, based on my admittedly incomplete survey of the statistics, IIS seems to run about even with or ahead of Apache in most Western European TLDs. IIS seems to clean up in Latin America, the Middle East, China, and Southeast Asia. Apache seems to have near-total dominance in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and practically the entire former Communist East Bloc.

Again, disclaimer: TLDs aren't a very good measure, and I haven't studied the results exhaustively. But based on what I've seen of it so far, I'd say that:

1. The idea that Europe and the Third World are the natural hotbed for Open Source looks less certain. Right now they're pretty happy with pirated MS products, and are likely to stay so for a while.

2. In general, the higher a country's historical commitment to technical education, the higher its uptake of Open Source. Which suggests to me that MS is indeed doing something very right with ease-of-use (surprise to OSS zealots, perhaps), while at the same time OSS is doing something very right with technical solidity (surprise to not really anyone).

Thanks for posting those links. While I appreciate how much more significant the move to linux is outside the U.S. those graphics still blew my mind. Seeing a pie chart showing 90% to an OSS solution with microsoft at 7% and dismally trailing out into oblivion makes me delirious with joy.

Unfortunately the country I live in (au) is not quite at this joyous point yet. Oh well, maybe once we disengage from the U.S.'s latest military empire play we can start thinking a bit more independently. I live in hope.

Depending on whose numbers you are going to believe, Linux already holds about 30% to 50% of the market, strangely the Linux share is always higher in areas where the numbers are not guessed but counted like in webservers where Apache/Linux holds a comfortable majority.

Have you ever searched a webhoster in Germany that even offers Windows? Mine stopped to offer it last year. Windows is dying there, and losing more and more:

look here

In Japan, the same picture:

stats

In a lot of countries, Windows on servers is already an exotic niche platform.

Webhosters don't want it anymore because the support costs aren't worth it and the added risk (a worm was the reason my webhoster stopped offering Windows) has to be paid somehow. Customers don't want it anymore because Apache gives them a much larger palette of availabe webhosters - thus more choice, lower costs and more competition among webhosters.

Windows just offers no real advantages to make up for all the license hassles.

Depending on whose numbers you are going to believe, Linux already holds about 30% to 50% of the market, strangely the Linux share is always higher in areas where the numbers are not guessed but counted like in webservers where Apache/Linux holds a comfortable majority.

Have you ever searched a webhoster in Germany that even offers Windows? Mine stopped to offer it last year. Windows is dying there, and losing more and more:

look here

In Japan, the same picture:

stats

In a lot of countries, Windows on servers is already an exotic niche platform.

Webhosters don't want it anymore because the support costs aren't worth it and the added risk (a worm was the reason my webhoster stopped offering Windows) has to be paid somehow. Customers don't want it anymore because Apache gives them a much larger palette of availabe webhosters - thus more choice, lower costs and more competition among webhosters.

Windows just offers no real advantages to make up for all the license hassles.

http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200403/ kr/index.html

which is somewhat a prerequesite for Linux on the desktop. If admins in companies have experience with Linux on servers, only then they will evaluate it on the desktops. It seems Microsoft has already lost the Korea-server market without any hope of gaining ground (When you run Linux, you have more choice of webhosters, have better support and on top pay less.) the desktop is next. It will take much longer than on the servers, but it will happen, especially when the government is helping.

Well, a real leveled playing field can't exist in software anyway, market dynamics always favor the market leader.

However, even with that advantage plus many illegal or unfair tactics (like force-bundling Windows to new computers or making their software as incompatible to anything else as possible) Windows can barely hold their position on the desktop and is losing badly everywhere else.

Just look at webservers in Germany:

link

Without their "market-leader" bonus and without being able to pressure hardware makers, Windows is losing consistently marketshare without any hope of ever regaining it. In Germany it's very hard to even find a webhoster that even offers Windows, and when they do, they usually charge a premium and/or are pretty expensive overall. All new Hosters in Germany don't even bother to offer Windows and some webhosters outsourced or discontinued their Windows-lines completely. In that scenario, Microsoft being incompatible to everybody else which used to be an advantage in their dominated markets is turning into a disadvantage everywhere they no longer dominate. So Windows has lost all advantages and is clearly a legacy system already.

And the same thing can and will happen in China on the desktop, too. As soon as Windows is no longer needed because all needed software is available on Linux, Windows will lose marketshare until it's gone completely. Yes, initially, the government will probably spend lots of money to overcome switching costs (but let's be realistic here: China doesn't have that much IT anyway, most systems will be new systems, not systems switched from something. I think they can probably fullfill their 70% ratio even if they keep all their MS systems and use Linux only on new installations), but after that marketforces alone are enough to push Linux even farther. Microsoft's attitude at discontinuing support for older versions will make sure it's headed to 0% marketshare in all markets it cannot dominate with an iron fist.

For Microsoft, losing domination means losing the market. And that's exactly why Ballmer interupted his vacation for the Munich offers. Because even one sinlge city among hundreds of big cities is a serious threat in the goverment niche.

Because when Munich successfully switches, it will be easy for Berlin, Paris, London and Rome to do likewise.

No need to depend on gut feeling to know which version is most used. Read it here. Apache 1.3.27 is the most installed version of any server.

So I hope that Apache gets some viable competition.

For that matter, it would be nice if Apache1.x got some viable competition from Apache2.x. I can't find a breakdown by version on Netcraft's site, but the general concensus for the past couple of years has been that Apache 2 "isn't ready yet" -- even if, for most purposes, it can work just fine, and is far more flexible & efficient than Apache 1.3.x versions have been.

Does anyone have any stats on Apache 1 / Apache 2 usage levels? If Netcraft is keeping track of this, 20 minutes of poking around their reports site hasn't yet turned it up for me. The closest report I can come up with is this overview of secure sites, which puts Apache 2.x at roughly 3.25%, and Apache 1.x at around 61%. [They break down by exact x.x.x version number, so I'm just putting a thumbnail estimate based on eyeballing the table of percentages.]

Obviously, Apache 1 & 2 are in the same family, but they have a lot of differences as well; the new version is a complete rewrite of the codebase, from what I understand. Increased adoption of Apache2 would be a nice diversification of the web server "ecosystem", but it looks like real acceptance of Apache 2 may still be years off.