Apache 2.0 vs. IIS

TonyG writes: "According to an item on InternetNews, the impending release of Apache 2.0 could very well mean the demise of IIS. Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS, the proof being its absence in XP Home and its non-standard presence in XP Pro. Apache.Net? Sounds catchy..." That's a silly argument by the internetnews.com writer - IIS isn't in the Home edition because Microsoft wants to charge more for "server" operating systems, not because they're "admitting defeat". But it's a decent look at the upcoming Apache 2.0.

Comments

Configuration

[ViceClown]

Kudos for the apache team on 2.0 but until it's as easy to configure and add onto as IIS it will continue to be a battle with Microsoft.

Re:Configuration

[tshak]

Kudos for the apache team on 2.0 but until it's as easy to configure and add onto as IIS it will continue to be a battle with Microsoft.

It all depends. I'd say that for most situtions you are right - IIS is not only easier to set up, but it is a very fast web server (dynamic content). Apache, however, _can_ be easier to setup when you want to "script" say 500 small static sites. httpd.conf is not that difficult to learn, nor is it that hard to create a Perl or shell script to automate it. On the flipside, writing VBScript via ADSI to script IIS sites is a huge PITA (and performance hog). If MS would just move IIS's config out of the metabase and into some XML config file, then I think your statement would be correct accross the board.

Re:Configuration

[ViceClown]

Ahhh... excellent points! Being a web developer (and a geeky one at that) I am not affraid of apache or http.conf. That said, I know that some other consultants I know that work in the IT field wouldn't know where to start. LOTS of IT folks with their summer training only know gui setup screens and dont' take kindly to conf files... to say nothing of compiling new modules into apache. Im not pooping on apache here... I like it and really appreciate it's security/stability. The majority of people using it, however, who are in IT so they can "have a job" don't want to deal with config files. Now Im rambling. Anyway - I appreciate the feedback!!

Re:Configuration

[93 Escort Wagon]

Reading these first few posts, I have to wonder - have you tried Apache lately? The latest 1.3 builds use the same installer as most other Windows programs. After a few mouse clicks, you've got an operational (and SECURE) Web server.

I'm a sysadmin on an Apache/Linux server, but about 6 months ago I installed Apache on Win2K. Having had past experience with IIS 4, I was pleasantly surprised at how easily Apache/Windows was set up. You may need to tweak it if you want to add certain functionality, but this is true of IIS as well.

Re:Configuration

[Jahf]

buy a Cobalt appliance or it's like ... or just install Webmin or something similar for free. Both of those are easier to manage than IIS for a server dishing out many different web sites.

Re:Configuration

[El_Koba]

That's always been a big complaint of mine as well. And from what I've seen of ASP.NET, that's exactly what they are doing.

Re:Configuration

[Monoman]

'If MS would just move IIS's config out of the metabase and into some XML config file,"

I thought i heard they are doing that with IIS 6. The almighty new , improved, secure version of IIS ... will have to see about that.

Re:Configuration

[Florian Weimer]

There are rumors that moving the IIS document root directory is quite complicated. Do you really have to change registry entries, without support from the GUI?

Re:Configuration

[Thatman311]

Eh? Like moving the root of the web site? That is REALLY easy via the gui. Open up the configurator. Right click on the site. Go to the home page tab...type in the path...hit ok. There you go..you have just moved the root of the website you selected.

Re:Configuration

[Y B MCSE]

until it's as easy to configure and add onto as IIS it will continue to be a battle with Microsoft.

The reason IIS is so easy to install is that it simply assumes all services should be on. Duh. That right there is a good 40% of it's security problems. The other 60 being the bad code rushed out the door by sales and marketing deadlines (I really doubt that even MS engineers want there products THAT insecure). Apache takes time to set up because you enable Apache to do your bidding, you must know what you want. No administrator honestly cares if the server has to be planned out, that is not a bother. The end users, home users and neophytes are the ones requiring ease of install. Already I hear my MIS director tell me constantly "Other than as a web server Linux does not belong in the corporate space" I wish I could convince him otherwise (MS does not belong) but it was APACHE that convinced hom that MS sucks
(well that and my RH machine running Nessus against both servers)

Re:Configuration

[spideyct]

With ASP.NET (which is a sort of "extension" to IIS 5.0/5.1 for running .aspx pages), you can configure MOST of the settings for ASP.NET pages using the XML web.config file.

But since it runs within IIS, you still have to use the IIS Manager for such tasks as creating a new application directory, changing the directory security settings, or setting the default document.

Re:Configuration

[Y B MCSE]

but about 6 months ago I installed Apache on Win2K.

While I am glad that set up was so simple, I can't help but wonder...Could running Apache ona windows machine be hazardous in a security/reputation sense (honestly I am not trolling) You put a secure web server on an insecure OS While only the web server is exposed to the net, the OS is still the same security flaw facing the corp. internals. A hack job (inside) to a Windows machine running Apache would probably make www.microsoft.com in BIG letters. OPEN SOURCE WEB SERVER causes Windows 2K to be exploited. Microsoft pundits would not even care that it was the OS that was exploited and not the web server. I am usually leary of putting good tools on Windows because of what Windows might do to them.

As an MCSE...I like making these posts :-)

Re:Configuration

[Cally]

Kudos for the apache team on 2.0 but until it's as easy to configure and add onto as IIS it will continue to be a battle with Microsoft.

Easy to configure?? Your'e kidding, right?

I first played with Apache (on NT4 in fact) at about the same time as I was given my first real live webserver to handle - which was IIS3, and soon afer, 4. Configuration of IIS is a nightmare compared to Apache. There are tons of things wher eyou have to painstakingly click up and down a complicated tree hierarchy with obscure generalist names like "web site" "host" "pubHTML" (IIRC, this was a few years ago now) and change them at multiple levels. This was especially true for getting CGI to run properly instead of sending back the source as text, or 500-ing, or whatever. Not at all intuitive. With Apache, there were IIRC a total of three things to type into a config file - plaintext, well commented, and pretty obvious what they should be. It took less an hour to get running even the first time I used it; and I wasn't at all used to editing text config files at the time.

From then on, as I used IIS to run Perl CGIs I'd mostly written & debugged at home on Apache, I grew more and more impressed with Apache. It's fast, flexible, incredibly stable (it's never ONCE crashed on me in production), secure (it was such fun tail -f ing the access log during CodeRed and nimda ...) and adding modules, of which there are tens of very powerful ones from HTTP proxies to authentication via databases, encryption, URL correction, you name it ) is usually just a matter of reading the docs for 10 mins, running configure, make, make install and adding a couple of lines to (the same) config file. Cos it's plain text I can do it in any editor I liked; when I started I was using Notepad and Programmers File Editor on Windows; now I use emacs , on Linux AND NT, but I could use Vi, or Microsoft Word, or whatever the hell else I wanted to .

Eventually I was fired for using Perl and Apache in production, instead of IIS. My successor was the guy who'd been doing the HTML and graphics for the content - a good chap and certainly capable of picking up at least as good Perl as I'd written (not very, at the time. But it worked, dammit! :) . He complained to me a few months later that after several very expensive courses, and a load of bloated expensive slow Visual InterDev / Vusal Studio guff installed on his machine, he'd started converting my Perl to ASP. IIS crashed all the time, not only on his dev machine but on the production server. He was secretly reading the Gecko on his own time and playing with a sly Apache install... :)

I wonder if any of the commenters in favour of IIS actually moved FROM apache to it. IN my experience the traffic is all one-way...

Re:Configuration

[Flower]

If you'd take the time to secure the web server you might as well take the time to secure the OS. Or as an MCSE are you forgetting about Win2K having IPSec and the work done by the NSA in providing guidelines on how to secure Win2K?

There are plenty of sites dealing with W2K security. Go to the Sans Reading Room for a start.

This coming to you from a MCP.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

Apache isn't that hard to configure. It's just a text file, like everything else on *nix box. That said, IIS isn't as insecure as everybody says it is either (let the flames begin). Yeah, MS's default install turns on every damn thing that no one needs, but if people would RTFM, they would know what crap needs to be turned off. Also, for the really lazy admin, there is the IIS lockdown tool.

Re:Configuration

[Y B MCSE]

There are plenty of sites dealing with W2K security. Go to the Sans Reading Room [sans.org] for a start.

This coming to you from a MCP.

This coming to you from an MCSE that's had to deal with a few "secured" NT servers. First, all those sites deal with fixing MS flawed security model...nice, how about starting with a secure OS. Second, having IPSec doesn't mean the OS is secure. It means that MS did something about a specific security problem. It is good that they start hitting the list but they may wish to change more than one item per upgrade or Bills grandchildren won't see the day that MS ships a secure OS. MCP, take it from this MCSE don't FRITTER away anymore dollars in pursuit of MS education. Go for a 'nix cert. My MCSE has done little for me.

Re:Configuration

[scrytch]

There are rumors that moving the IIS document root directory is quite complicated. Do you really have to change registry entries, without support from the GUI?

Find the server in "my network places", right-click, select "manage", expand "internet information services", right-click "default website", select "home directory", change it in "local path".

Too much clicking on different widgets and popups and waiting for my tastes... I tried editing this in the registry (seems to be under HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\W3SVC\Param eters\Virtual Roots) but it didn't seem to take when I checked the value in mmc.

Cobalt's approach is nice, they use mod_perl to read in a config file written by their configurator app and generate the appropriate config info. It's too bad the interface absolutely *sucks* for managing more than a couple dozen virtual sites on one box (we had one cobalt box serving up 200 sites. not fun, since the group-based security model starts to lock out the admin user after only 28 sites)

Re:Configuration

[Khalid]

While some modules might be indeed hard to compile and install, http://www.apachetoolbox.com/ has made that task much much easier !

Re:Configuration

[archen]

I'd say those are exactly the experiences I've had. At the place I work we have a box that was set up for months with IIS for the company intranet. Luckily I wasn't there for that part, as I hear that it took weeks to get it to filally work right. Now the problem is that they can't really get it to do much else. Not long after there was a linux box installed running Appache. Both the NT and linux box are needed for other things - the web server stuff is just extra baggage.

Then the word came down to me that I was to start working on the company intranet. I had no experience with IIS or Apache so it was pretty much whatever I found to be easier. With IIS I found a cute dynamically generated template from the start. The source of the pages looked like a mess of ASP stuff that I really didn't want to deal with. Actually trying to configure the thing wasn't much easier with the obscure/non descriptive names. Updating the thing didn't work very well either as the Microsoft wizards tended to break the things that were actually working.

In contrast Apache only gives you the "you're running Apache - have a nice day" page. I'm okay with config files, and I certainly found it relatively easy to setup with the well commented files. Thus the Linux side continues to grow and become more useful every day. I'm not neccesarily against IIS (although I'd never leave a server running it directly exposed to the internet), but I think it leaves a lot to be desired when compaired to the free alternative.

Re:Configuration

[sheldon]

It's not even so much that... It's pretty damn easy to automate the configuration of IIS using scripts. That's a bit more difficult to do with text files.

Yes it can be done, but it's not nearly as clean as using the ADSI interfaces which make the IIS metabase look like an LDAP server.

Anyway...

Re:Configuration

[ChrisBennett]

I just gave up moderation to reply to this nonsense. The author attmepts to compare IIS 3 and 4 (ancient) with Apache. This would be like comparing Linux 1.0 to 2.4. There is none, and it's not fair.

First, IIS4 was written for NT 4. Even as a windows admin, I will be the first to admit that NT 4 is the most unreliable OS on the hardware that I have run. The same applies to IIS3-4. In fact they are so old, that a Gopher server is a hosting option.

Here we are in 2002. Windows 2000 and IIS5 going on Windows .NET and IIS6. IIS5 was quick and easy to install and configure. Want to run Java Servlets/JSP? Install the JRun ISAPI filter. Want to run Perl? Install ActivePerl.

I wonder if any of the commenters in favour of IIS actually moved FROM apache to it. IN my experience the traffic is all one-way...

For all fairness, I have tried Apache 1.3.x and it was nothing comparied to IIS5. The only thing Apache is good for, in my opinion, is to host static pages to anonymous readers on the Internet. In an intranet environment, IIS wins hands-down. The most important feature IMO is the ability to control page access with ACLs. A user can log onto a domain, access a page being served by IIS, and automatically be authenticated for that page.

Oh, did I mention that I can do all that without touching a text configuration file? I do not have to mess around with text files in which I have to edit, then restart the server.

It all depends on the kind of environment you are running. If you have a cheap box running Apache to serve pages in a non-enterprise environment, then thats fine. In an enterprise environment, the easiest, best solution is Windows/IIS. Chances are, an enterprise would be running Windows desktops in a domain. Since they would already be running Win NT/2000 Server, they would remain homogenous and serve off of IIS, regardless of claimed performance issues.

Re:Configuration

[Dwonis]

apt-get install apache php4 and uncommenting 3 lines in httpd.conf was simple enough for me. Of course, I'm a spoiled Debian user.

Re:Configuration

[clifyt]

"I first played with Apache (on NT4 in fact) at about the same time as I was given my first real live webserver to handle - which was IIS3, and soon afer, 4. Configuration of IIS is a nightmare compared to Apache."

Well, yeah...IIS3 SUCKED. It had the worst interface ever. 4 wasn't bad. 5 actually got things right from a GUI POV. Every version only has gotten better.

Hell, if it weren't for M$'s practices of blaming sysadmin for their mistakes (and with an organization as big as M$, its to be expected...holes are actually easier to accidently be left in because so many developers have their hands in the pie) and the fact that I can serve almost 3x as much dynamic content from the equally equiped Linux box (IIS still can server more static text...but who the hell uses static text these days???) is why I moved over Apache for most of my stuff.

Right now, I use a mixture of servers and finally started converting my code to PHP and JSP from ASP (and a few other 3 letter acronyms) and finding these aren't nearly as bad as the 'professional' web developers will tell ya. Not as many visual tools to work with in the programming (ie., no PHP for Dreamweaver...ok there IS an extention, but it isn't nearly as fleshed out as the ASP and I still find it faster to do database stuff by hand).

So, if I had dedicated IIS Admin, more hardware that I didn't have to service and lots of licenses, I'd probably go with M$'s contribution...its much easier to find a monkey that can fix a M$ problem than a Linux / Apache problem. But as I know how all this stuff works and I don't have all the above, I'll probably keep converting my old boxes over to Linux as they retire from their windows duties (and get more performance they did in the previous years to boot :)

clif

Re:Configuration

[Dwonis]

I thought i heard they are doing that with IIS 6. The almighty new , improved, secure version of IIS ... will have to see about that.

Indeed. We all know how they handled the almighty new, improved, secure version of Windows... We'll have to see about that, indeed...

Re:Configuration

[Puppet Master]

Webmin is one of the biggest security holes you can install. I've known too many sites that got hacked because webmin was installed.

Re:Configuration

[Hunsvotti]

This is one of the reasons why I rail against my company hiring consultants. If our experiences are a good metric, then I'd have to assume that most consultants are mega-'tards.

Whenever we have hired consultants, they have given us products that range from mediocre to absolute crap. They have also been generally disinterested in providing after-hours support, even though they are paid for it. (Why should they be troubled at 3AM to fix something they wrote that's costing $5,000 for every minute it's broken? They're consultants. The company can do well or fail; it's no skin off their backs.)

Then, when they're long-gone, in-house types like me get a hold of their source code, SQL schema, etc. The source code is invariably coded in a style reminiscent of GW-BASIC (which, for those of you who don't know, is one of those crusty old BASIC interpreters from the mid-to-late '80s that make you use line numbers and have GOSUBs instead of functions): ultra-rigid structure, little to zero code re-use within the application, sloppy functions (if there even ARE functions), spaghetti-like style, etc. I recently looked at some utter crap left behind by a consultant. When I asked about it, I was told that someone had gone through a business requirements document with the consultant PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH and just sort of threw together a hodgepodge of crap to handle it, rather than sitting down and actually thinking about how it should be programmed.

Oh yeah. The entire source listing was written with caps lock on, as was the SQL schema. BHRLHBLHRLHBLHGLHLGHRLHB!@@#@#$

So when I hear that consultants and other jerkoffs are allergic to text editors, it does not surprise me. OUGH NO!!! I HAVE TO COMPILE THE KERNEL OR APACHE!!! I'LL NEED YOU TO SIGN OFF ON THIS $5,000 .00 CLASS IN HAWAII PLEASE!!!

Folks, if a total greenhorn (like I was a few years ago) can read a couple documents, figure out where httpd.conf lives, and tweak it (which any MORON could do, as heavily commented as it is), there is NO excuse for a so-called professional to shy away from it.

I will never - NEVER - be able to fully respect any system administrator, developer, or other technical-type IT worker who is not at least semi-proficient in some variety of UNIX (and by that I mean BSD as well as the SysV-based stuff like Linux and Solaris). It demonstrates lack of initiative and gullibility to Microsoft marketdroid drivel. In fact, if Microsoft didn't have world-class marketdroids, I probably wouldn't even be writing this paragraph. If you want to become an MCSE, more power to you, but UNIX aversion in someone who's supposed to be an IT professional strikes me the same way as a timid driver doing 15MPH up the onramp to the freeway.

Re:Configuration

[ViceClown]

Good point. I think I was mostly talking about unix installs/configs but I see where you're coming from :-)

Cheers!

Re:Configuration

[baptiste]

Webmin is one of the biggest security holes you can install. I've known too many sites that got hacked because webmin was installed.

Sure - but who in their right mind would install a root capable tool and NOT restrict access by IP?

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots like you make me laugh... you figure that because someone does not want to spend a whole day figuring out how to make a change in configuration on a piece of software because it's stored in an archane manner in a completely unintuitive fashion, that they are somehow inferior or not as hardcore as you.

Well for one thing, given the fact that you're a web developer, you're already pretty fucking low on the Hardcore Totem Pole.

Take me for instance... I do realtime embedded systems with military applications. A lot of our development is done in Unix environments and cross-compiled to emulators and actual small-iron. But I could still give a flying fuck about whether I could tell you off-hand where to set up a virtual web using Apache... in fact, if someone told me do it, I'd tell them to "fuck off ... ask the intern."

You're a fucking ass munching shitwad...

Re:Configuration

[hendridm]

I agree that the webadmin is easy to use (and can be secure from the outside if you limit it through the firewall, since it usually runs on a different port). What happens when the Cobalt server goes down? If the thing won't boot or the service won't start, the webadmin isn't going to do you a lot of good.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

you should get out of the Microsoft pyramid scam... you are just wasting your money on that co-dependant relationship.... sorry, but its true...

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

to say what you have said, you really do not have any clue as to how CLI works or UNIX works. You cannot see the limitations the GUI give you, as a result of it abstracting information into windowed structures. So sad.

Re:Configuration

[The Cat]

From a default install, get IIS (any version) to run a CGI script written in Python in less than 15 minutes with no reboots.

It's just like setting up networking in Win9x: you could be the world's greatest expert in it, but it WILL NOT WORK on the first reboot, no matter WHAT you do. It will take multiple restarts, multiple reboots, and the first attempt WILL fail, that and every subsequent attempt reading the same group of files from the CD-ROM, of course.

OTOH, in Apache, because there is some logic to the system, it is more likely to work the first time and as an added bonus, there aren't any reboots.

It would never occur to me to run IIS for any kind of web server or web development. Too much wasted time.

Re:Configuration

[Flower]

Work paid for my cert and the training. Just like my Solaris and Cisco training. Because upper management has decided that we're primarily a MS shop that cert got me a better raise and, when the department reorg'd, helped get me in the position I wanted.

Does my cert mean anything important? Not really. I think the experience I've gotten over the years means a hell of a lot more. But it does mean something to my employer and I would have been an idiot not to get it under the circumstances. And if it keeps me gainfully employed what's a few evenings of study and a test taken on company time paid for by a company credit card?

Re:Configuration

[sheldon]

I do not blame you for hiding as Anonymous Coward. I too would hide in shame if I were as ignorant as thee.

Did you read what I said? Do you understand the power of scripting?

I shall give you a challenge. Tell me how you would configure Apache to use a custom html page for a 404 error? From the command line, automated such that you can modify any Apache web server with this setting without having to write custom config files for each server.

Then explain to me how you think this change would be made with an IIS server.

Let us see just how knowledgeable you are.

I doubt you will respond.

Re:Configuration

[an_mo]

Well I don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know anything about servers and I am definitely not a hacker/expert etc... but I got apache running on my win2k box in 2minutes. All it takes is to click on a self extracting exe file. I serve static and dynamic pages. I have taken even a look at the config file and nothing seemed too obscure to me (well yes something is but if I understood that then I wouldn't really care for a nice GUI).

Then I installed zope with all its nice GUI and I still after a month haven't understood where it saves files. I hate it.

Re:Configuration

[Vlad_Drak]

Use IIS6's text based XML metabase.. looks shockingly similar to httpd.conf ;)

Re:Configuration

[Trepalium]

Well, yeah...IIS3 SUCKED. It had the worst interface ever. 4 wasn't bad. 5 actually got things right from a GUI POV. Every version only has gotten better.

I still don't care for any of these. Although that might have more to do with the fact that everytime I install a hotfix or service pack for Windows or Exchange server, it resets some of the IIS settings and messes up a working configuration. Win2K SP1 and SP2, and Exchange 2K SP1 both insist on turning on "Integrated Windows Authentication" on all exchange web services whenever you install them. Unfortunately, SSL and NTLMSSP auth don't mix well, and every single time I apply these, Outlook Webaccess completely stops working, until I remember that the stupid service pack "fixed" my configuration, and I need to unfix it back.

There is nothing I hate more than software that second guesses my decisions without asking me (if there would be a legitimate reason I would want to change that setting at this time -- asking me because it thinks I made a mistake is equally frustrating).

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked at PHP. I've done JSP and ASP. For the most part the environments are identical, with the real value-adds being the middleware environments like MTS or J2EE.

In short, I can't believe someone would pay you to migrate from one webscripting environment to another functionally equivalant one just because they were too cheap to pay for a few thousand bucks of hardware (not that JSP is in anyway remotely as fast as ASP or PHP). I'm guessing you must live in a real low wage area, or have total free reign from your managers and are using it install some job-protecting Linux boxes.

Re:Configuration

[c_g_hills]

I do not have to mess around with text files in which I have to edit, then restart the server.

Ever heard of USR1? I suggest you look it up. Until you fully comprehend what you are trying to compare, it's not your place to criticize. Do you think Slashdot is all static? You would be a fool if you did, but you already proved you're a fool.

Re:Configuration

[cobar]

If MS would just move IIS's config out of the metabase and into some XML config file, then I think your statement would be correct accross the board.

That's one of the features slated for IIS 6. Or at least exporting the metabase to an XML file.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot is a bad example, since it's down so much. But, to be fair, the reason slashdot is so often down is mysql (which isn't made to host a site the size of slashdot), not apache.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS 6 and ASP.net implement the metabase as an XML file. All issues you bring up are dealt with in new version.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope for you that box isn't connected to the internet, because it sounds like you didn't lock down that IIS at all.

Re:Configuration

[lewp]

"you figure that because someone does not want to spend a whole day figuring out how to make a change in configuration on a piece of software because it's stored in an archane manner in a completely unintuitive fashion, that they are somehow inferior or not as hardcore as you."

Sounds like the Windows registry to me.

Re:Configuration

[MaxwellsSilverHammer]

[OT]Brother, sounds like you worked where I worked just before! What a rat's nest of undocumented, unmanaged code all over the network. No telling which source directory built which program actually running in production. I was just one in a long, long series of people who had to work on that mess, and it showed in the code and systems. A real Rube Goldberg of logic and interaction, and nothing written down anywhere. They had C++ progs done by Fox Pro people. There had been one sharp coder, but who wrote code that was 'cutely' obfuscated and purposefully undocumented, which made it a bitch to figure out what the hell was going on. Stuff just slapped together over the years so the whole thing was a big accreted mass of spaghetti. Tried my best to improve it while I was there for them and for the next poor sod, but glad I'm out.[/OT]

Actual Relevant Comment So I Don't Get Modded Down as Off Topic:
Apache V.anything is never going to be the Death of IIS unless and until Lord Gates decides it to be so. There is no way they are going to abandon the server market. There is too much leverage there for them to allow anyone else to dominate it. Although Apache always -has- dominated! ;-) They will keep at it 'forever' if if they never get beyond the 20 or so percent mark. That monopoly has a lot of leverage.

Re:Configuration

[dodobh]

Aaah, but the text configurationfiles are exactly what make Apache so simple to administer.

And please, learn to read the manuals. Use
kill -USR1 `pidof apache` to restart Apache.

Even NT has that stuff, I believe (not kill, but something similar).

And for a enterprise, homogenity should not matter somuch. Keep the servers unix, desktop windows. Samba is great for filesharing and authentication. Dump your userdata into Ldap and mod_ldap with apache will rock for you.

Perl is available by default, and almost veerything can be scripted, leaving the admin free to look after reading slashdot :).

Re:Configuration

[rweir]

Amen, brother!

Re:Configuration

[jrp2]

Sure - but who in their right mind would install a root capable tool and NOT restrict access by IP?

Pretty much the same crowd that would need Webmin ;)

Re:Configuration

[bmajik]

For now. VS.NET will do the majority of this stuff for you.

Which is when ASP.NET will come into its own, btw.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow,
Easy? Got it right? You're joking, right? We just purchased an ISP's webhosting component and the transition was one of the biggest nightmares I've ever witnessed. The sites from the NIX servers were frighteningly easy: rsync, doctor /etc/passwd, script the VirtualHost containers into httpd.conf, for i in `cat list_of_sites`; do chown $i.webusers ~$i
In less than an hour, 700 sites were humming along on the Apache server. The SAME TASKS on the Win2k/IIS servers took 2 days of rediculous clicking through the cumbersome IIS Management Panel ... and we're STILL having FTP problems! No, IIS did NOT get it right, and I can't consider the OS in question legitimate hosting platform.
furrfu

--
Kishar, posting from the lapdog

Re:Configuration

[an_mo]

What exactly is the meaning of this message?

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Unix isn't a "secure OS" any more than NT is, athough the implementation is usually 100x more sensible from a security standpoint. Still, lots of major Unix demons have the same fundemental run-as-root problem that IIS has. Apache being a big exception.

Re:Configuration

[Dashslot]

While you are waiting for the other chap to get back to you, why don't you tell me how to, in IIS, do this...

Take a back up of your working configuration.
Then make the change you want, but leave the old version in place, but commented out.
Also, add a text comment in the configuration file, explaining the change you made, who made it, when and why.

I'm not going to give you any artificial restrictions, so you can click as much as you like. But if you want to install extra software on the server, then make sure it is approved by Change Management.

For bonus points, explain how you would do this sitting on a beach with just your Nokia communicator for company.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never - NEVER - be able to fully respect any system administrator, developer, or other technical-type IT worker who is not at least semi-proficient in some variety of UNIX (and by that I mean BSD as well as the SysV-based stuff like Linux and Solaris).

Here in zOS land, we feel the same about unix types.

Re:Configuration

[Yankovic]

There is a standard gui to have ANY error deliver a customized page.

Re:Configuration

[ethereal]

I think the point is that it doesn't take a whole day to scan through the config file or look in the docs, and while you're doing actual reading up on the server rather than just doing pointy-and-clicky, you might actually learn something about how it works. Something that will come in handy when you have security problems, or something doesn't work quite right, etc.

The big argument for me against GUI configuration, at least as provided by Microsoft, is that it makes it easy to make big decisions without understanding those decisions. This may make managers and monkeys happy, but it's a mistake in the long run. Configuration of complex things should be complex, or should at least instill into the user the understanding that they are doing a lot more than they think they are.

Now, if the config file is excessively convoluted (moreso than it needs to be) then that's a problem. Sendmail may fit that mold, but httpd.conf, with its abundant comments and consistent syntax, does not.

Re:Configuration

[CrayzyJ]

It's a flat file with HTTP configuraton. How different could it be?

Re:Configuration

[danielrose]

I'll pay that one.. Good call.

Re:Configuration

[abombss]

I will never - NEVER - be able to fully respect any system administrator, developer, or other technical-type IT worker who is not at least semi-proficient in some variety of UNIX

I would have to agree here. I am not network admin, just a DBA and I also do some APP DEV, but I am shocked at our IT group at my company. Many of them are MS Certified which is absolute crap. They know how to walk through a gui wizard but have no idea what they are actually doing. If you ever asked them to look at anything like *nix that just might cry.

I am not saying that I am pro when it comes to other systems ( at work I primarily use MS ) but I take pride in learning and expirementing with other systems and options. For some of my projects I have found that it is easier to write a perl script than fudge through some VB over weight piece of crap. I never would have found perl if it were not for my playing with Unix / Linux.

I would also have to agree with the fact that any professional should be able to do something on the *nix platform. The documentation, how-to's, tutorials, and help files available for *nix is astounding. All you have to do is read little and use your head.

I apologize if this sounds abusize towards the IT crowd out there that it is not my intent. I would just have to agree that any professional, certified or not, should be informed and versed in a wide range of systems. Every platform has its stengths and weaknesses and I think only those that take the time to understand the platforms can really realize how to exploit those.

Re:Configuration

[byolinux]

I had to support legacy GW-BASIC and QBasic applications, plus apps written in VB6, in the GWBASIC style.. talk about nightmare. No documentation, just occasional photocopies on paper that was literally falling apart... plus the guys working there who still used GW-BASIC as their main development tool. Nothing quite beats the shock of telling a bunch of guys stuff like "Oh yeah, you can have more than 255 characters in a string now" and telling them what a TextBox was.

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

That last paragraph was so good and inline with what I think sometimes, that I cut/pasted it for future referral...

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

While I would agree that the majority of consultants are disinterested, most managers out there are willing to continue to bring them in "because they are cheaper", all costs considered. I, like you it seems, don't agree. A good barometer would be that in-house talent that tends toward certifications (ahem, MCSE...) and general "techiness" means that management is hiring cheap and probably will continue to be susceptible to consulting. Interviewing for occasional specific skills while getting a general feeling for the person's attitude/approach is (IMHO) the best, though not infallible, defense.

Re:Configuration

[xtremex]

There are MANY utilities that will install EVERY module with ONE script. Just look on fm..takes 10 seconds. Or are you a MSCE who is a slave to the GUI with no concept of why or how it works?

Re:Configuration

[xtremex]

How any professioanl ANYWHERE? My doctor is in internal medicine, but he learned the ENTIRE HUMAN body!! He may not be able to give me heart surgery, but shouldnt I trust HIM to do it in a pinch if he had to? More so him than any Joe off the street. How come our industry doesnt have the same expectations? In a pinch, I had to administer a VMS box. Havent touched VMS since the 80's, but I got the manual, and did what I had to do. I wouldnt get a JOB doing it, but I figured it out! How to backup, change TTLS, and some other crap on VMS.(deja is great). How come Microsoftie types run when they hear Command Line?

Re:Configuration

[xtremex]

How about
How about in httpd.conf:
Instead of /usr/local/web
make it
/usr/web
then do a ./httpd restart
done!10 seconds

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a moment .....

There are somethings I agree with ... like needing Un*x skills but take it easy on the consultants .... I run a nichce consultancy ...
and we've rebuilt custome versions of Apache let
alone scary httpd.conf's.

later--

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

How can this be rated 5?

I do not know a consultant which is not proficient in solaris, linux *and* windows. I do not know a consultant which does use a text editor like vi or emacs.

After your post, I know a company where consultant can make easy money because their IT staff is not doing their work!

Re:Configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

At which point, all your base are belong to microsoft. Sucka.

I hate MS

[Anonymous Coward]

But i gotta admit that IIS's communistic integration with it's ASP, MySQL, and the Office 2000 package... IIS has proved very useful in created the most friendly of user friendly data input machines with IIS. I don't know anything about web design or programming... but I managed to create an entire weblog with IIS. Apache I wouldn't know where to begin. This is all internal and not accessed by the outside world, the webpage probably serves a little under 100 people. Apache runs our external webserver.

Re:I hate MS

[SocietyoftheFist]

I think that a lot of Unix/Linux people don't understand that Windows paradigm and they need to. Linux/X needs to have the same functionality as Windows to actually compete with it. I need to be working in Abiword and be able to double click on the Gnumeric spreadsheet that is embedded in it to work on it. Computers are applicances to many people they want to set it and forget it.

Re:I hate MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look at PHP if you want something closely integrated with a database, etc. Makes weblog creation, etc, as easy as reading the (extremely good) documentation available on PHP. ASP sucks by comparison (not necessarily because it's bad, but because at the end of the day it's a royal pain in the arse to debug other peoples' time-expired ASP.

Re:I hate MS

[spauldo]

I think you mean MS SQL Server rather than mysql :)

Really, it just depends... IIS has some features that are rather nice (integration with the NT domain was nice, but of course only works with windows) but I couldn't stand configuring the thing.

I dunno, lots of people like the little windows with their checkboxen and whatnot, but I find it a pain. Give me a flat config file or three and a man page and I'm good to go.

Besides, apache actually does integrate rather well with PHP and perl, both of which in turn integrate rather well with MySQL. Apache itself does have some database support for authentication, although I can't say much about that because I've never needed it. You can get frontpage extensions for it, and even use VBscript with it if you buy a commercial package.

The one thing I can't comment on is office integration - the only thing I can think of off the top of my head for that is the ability to use access databases with ASP apps (which is also possible with apache using ODBC). What other integration is there? I'm just curious, uncle sam might want me to work with it again sometime...

Re:I hate MS

[Anonymous Coward]

...and how many documents do you actually get on the MS side that someone has actually embedded an OLE container for another application (i.e., an Excel spreadsheet on a Word document)?

How many would know how to do it right (i.e., stick it in a briefcase file), so you could ship it around the enterprise?

Microsoft does have all this "cool" linking stuff, but no one really uses it, even those who know how to.

Re:I hate MS

[cheezfreek]

Computers are applicances to many people they want to set it and forget it.

OK, until my computer is made by Ron Popeil, I don't think I'll ever "set it and forget it".

Demise of IIS?

[damieng]

Give me a break.

It's well integrated into Windows and it's still running many many sites using ASP (the equivalent of PHP).

With ASP.Net we may even see it start to compete against more powerful web development environment such as Java Server Pages (JSP) and Apple's WebObjects.

Re:Demise of IIS?

[ZeroZenith]

If you thing JSPs are powerful check out Cocoon
at xml.apache.org

Re:Demise of IIS?

[Suidae]

I ran a RH server with tomcat for our JSP developer. He set up some pretty sweet stuff using JDataStore, and then had me put on cocoon and he wouldn't stop talking about how cool it was.

But I still have no idea what it does (other than the obvious implications of its name).

Can someone provide a simple description of what cocoon does?

Re:Demise of IIS?

[big_hairy_mama]

Basically a server-side XML processing engine -- you have the ability to set up all sorts of XML data pipes and to translate the output with XSL(T) and such. I dunno if it is the next Killer App, but it is very useful to anyone doing web development primarily with XML, especially if you don't want to rely on Internet Explorer's crappy XSLT engine. While I am currently in love with Servlets/JSP (my girlfriend is pissed...) I've never actually used Cocoon, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

I must agree.

[ImaLamer]

Microsoft has no plans to get rid of IIS.

Unless they are planing to replace it... no one knows. The reason that IIS isn't in XP Home? I'm guessing because it's not needed. Opens home users up for another hole. And of course, charge more money for IIS.

Remember code red? I can't forget, I'm getting probed for IIS daily.

Re:I must agree.

[Iamthefallen]

Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS, the proof being its absence in XP Home and its non-standard presence in XP Pro

It wasn't installed default in Win2k Pro either...how about nt4? Has it ever been in the default install on workstations?

Re:I must agree.

[tph]

A feature not added due to security concerns?
You must be kidding ;-)
The real reason must be to make more money selling the pro version.

Re:I must agree.

[ergo98]

No it isn't a `default' install on NT 4 (you had to go to quite the lengths and install the completely separate "option pack").

Re:I must agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

No version if IIS was included in NT4 Workstation.
Win2K Profesional included a striped down version for use on a LAN or or similar smale scale use. It seems, if anything, Microsoft is pushing IIS.
Why not include it XP home edition? Perhapse becuase a striped dopwn version might be Front Page (FrontPage 97 had a 'personal' web server), and so if you want to run a web server, you must shell out for either XP Pro, or Server.
The whole reason for the different versions of XP is better seperate you from your money ...

Re:I must agree.

[hogsback]

Unless they are planing to replace it... no one knows

They are planning on rewriting it ... this is public knowledge

Re:I must agree.

[Howie]

NT4 came with IIS3 (which was a waste of time) as an installable option, but not in the default install. It was IIS4 which was the first interesting version (ASP, ISAPI) that came in the option pack.

Or was it 2 and 3? I can't figure out where another one would come before Win2k's IIS5 then, but I'm sure I remember upgrading from 3 to 4 to get better ASP support. I've tried to blot it out - upgrading to IIS4 was a fricking disaster.

Anyway, there was an IIS on the NT4 CD.

Re:I must agree.

[Thatman311]

IIS3 came on the NT4 cd. IIS4 you had to install the Option Pack. Easy install actually. Just be sure to have Service Pack 3 installed first. Then install the Option Pack. Then wham...you have IIS4 with ASP support.

Re:I must agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone ever notice how MS's version numbers are always synchronized? Win2000 (aka WinNT 5), IIS 5...

Re:I must agree.

[oni]

Anyone ever notice how MS's version numbers are always synchronized? Win2000 (aka WinNT 5), IIS 5...

Welcome to the world of "me too" management. The really high-level managers are sitting around the table talking strategy. Somebody proudly says "We are developing the next version of the XYZ program" The other managers think 'oh shit!' and each in turn pipes up and says, "yes, we will update our PDQ program at the same time"

They all want to be part of the game; they want to keep putting points on the board.

The really funny part is when they return to their respective groups and brainstorm new features just so that there can be a point release.

Similar things happen in all organizations. I'll never forget being sent of a recon (spy) mission to another post in Korea to find out what humanitarian efforts were underway following a flood. In my bosses words "whatever they do, we had better do to" as opposed to the correct attitude "lets find out if they have any good ideas that we could also make use of to benefit the civilians living in our area of responsibility."

Re:I must agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't in 9x or NT Workstation or Win2K Pro either. You had to do a seperate install for it. The only place it is the default is in their Server series...these guys really need to brush up and quit writing their hopes down instead of legit predictions.

Re:I must agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Option Pack easy to install? I seem to recall it was Service Pack - Internet Explorer - Option Pack - Service Pack again - IE Patches - MDAC Patches - Y2K Patches - IIS/OS Patches - and pray. That would take a better part of an afternoon.

Having worked with both...

[AltGrendel]

...I actually find IIS easier to work with. I don't like this fact at all. I'm hoping Apache 2.0 does knock IIS's sock.c off.

Re:Having worked with both...

[Fillup]

Are you kidding? Dude, it's totally just my 2 cents, but I respectfully disagree with you.

I work with both daily - well apache 1.3, i haven't used 2. And yeah, if the MS gui control actually worked all the time, and really did what it said it did -- that would be nice. And i might respect IIS.

IIS has some neat features (like the Apache 2.0 features as far as application pooling, etc.) but I have never seen a server go down so easy as an IIS server. Ours restart themselves every few days, and we don't even really get that much traffic. High KB volume per-session, not many sessions. Maybe we're just a corner case or whatever.

I find their admin utilities to be absolutely frustrating, in that I often make a change, and then open up the panel later, and it's back to the "default" setting. I'll take my httpd.conf any day.

Re:Having worked with both...

[MsGeek]

Try having the web server go down DAILY. This is an e-commerce site we're talking about here. When I left this particular job, it would be dicey to show prospective employers that site, because on more than one occasion when it came time to see that particular site it might be 404.

I totally look forward to a viable Apache for Win32. Rip IIS out by the roots. Kludgy, unstable, non-scalable thing that it is!

BTW, a little secret about .ASP and .JSP...they are both ripoffs of each other. The back end guy at the same site showed me how easy it was to convert .ASP to .JSP. And BOTH are ripoffs of PHP v.2! :P

Re:Having worked with both...

[CheeseMunkie]

My chief admin tools for Apache are ssh and vi. No such option on Windows. Leaving aside all other issues, Apache is easier to admin just because you can do it over a 14.4 modem at your parents' house if that's where you happen to be when you get paged. With Windows, you can VNC or PCAnywhere, neither of which is tolerable over modem. That's why I believe firmly that Windows does not belong on servers: They need a monitor.

Re:Having worked with both...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Try Terminal Services, which is a) built in, b) free to use for 'remote administration' mode, c) blazingly fast, and d) quite happy on a modem.

Re:Having worked with both...

[DavidJA]

Try having the web server go down DAILY. This is an e-commerce site we're talking about here

Did anyone ever TRY to fix it? I mean you obviously know that there are MANY IIS implimentations running out there without going down daily.

Maybe it was running some dodgie ASP script (do until rs.eof; rs.loop; [without the rs.movenext]) will obviously make IIS crack the shits by putting it in an endless loop.

Anyway, point being, /. seems to be full of incompatent systems administrators; If I was running the site, it would NOT be going down every day. I would work day and night until I had a fix. Did you ever try MS support; I've used them for problems before, and they are execellent.

...and don't give me that crap about having to PAY for support, its an e-commerce site for god's sake!

Re:Having worked with both...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, for fucking morons like yourself.

Re:Having worked with both...

[Anonymous Coward]

terminal services isn't on NT4 server, you have to buy Windows NT terminal server. I don't think it's on 2000 server either.

Re:Having worked with both...

[nomadic]

Try having the web server go down DAILY. This is an e-commerce site we're talking about here. When I left this particular job, it would be dicey to show prospective employers that site, because on more than one occasion when it came time to see that particular site it might be 404.

How can the web server be "down" if it's still serving the 404 page?

Re:Having worked with both...

[blowdart]

I don't think it's on 2000 server either

Yes it is, both in a remote administration configuration, and in a licensable full blown, lets let X number of people attach version.

Re:Having worked with both...

[CounterZer0]

Um, you know you can run Internet Services Manager from ANY computer in a Domain / AD? That's right, ANY! Just tell it to connect to your webserver, instead of localhost.

If /.'s spent more time actually learning how their MS products are supposed to work, instead of just automagically assuming their bulky, cludgy and a pain in the arse....maybe Ms would get a tad more respect.

Re:Having worked with both...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did you ever try MS support; I've used them for problems before, and they are execellent."

First time I have EVER heard anyone say that about MS support.

Re:Having worked with both...

[DrSkwid]

or use micorosft telnet

end then when you get there realise that there aren't any text editors installed you can use so it's

copy con > file.txt

and hoping you don't typo!

And there you are sat at your friends house and you've got to install software just get in which you've got to convinve him to do

nope, gimme a computer I can control with a 9600baud gsm phone on a train or out skiing

that'll be that there unix stuff

oh and while you're there back your web server up without stopping the service

including the server side active X controls

oh, darn, you can't, you've got to reboot to unload them from memory so the kernel will unlock their disk image. How long does it take to come back up? 5 maybe 10 minutes, 20 even for a well used Exchange Server. oops forgot to set that service auto start, doh now it says something's changed and i need to reboot again.

lovely on a 14.4 modem in a hotel room at $5 a minute

I'm so glad I left all that behind.

Re:Having worked with both...

[DrSkwid]

maybe Ms would get a tad more respect.

/me shakes head

using MS stuff as a constant treadmill of change. Look back and see how much the paradigm has changed since IIs got properly started (IIS3 on nt4 I reckon). In that time the model for delivering content has changed wih such diversity and speed. In the MS world you're not allowed to stand still. Bugfixes and upgrades to new methods come rolled into one.

stuff like the MTS appear out of nowehere
Management Console came along and totally changed the GUI
J++ is the big thing for a few months
Com and then DCOM and then comes the CLI and .NET

Rapid change is exhausting and expensive and often uneccessary. The Unix world can still use the same CGI scripts they wrote ten years ago!

And if you want something quick and simple you can make a web server out of a few shell scripts.

GUI computers with binary config files are retarded

If someone asked you how many Virtual Domains you were running at that time how would you count them?

would it take you longer than typing this :

grep -c "^<VirtualHost" httpd.conf | awk 'BEGIN {FS=":"} {cnt = cnt + $2} END {printf "%d Virtual Domain Entries\n", cnt}'

MS don't earn the reputation out of spite, it's from experience

Re:Having worked with both...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the only thing that you can think of that would crash or hang ASP is a really basic error like an infinate loop (which actually is usually fully recoverable), the conculsion is that you only have really basic experience with the product. I say this as someone who has several years worth of ASP under my belt -- work with it a little and then get back to us.

Re:Having worked with both...

[inquisitor]

Although I shudder at the idea of administering Win2K through telnet, there are text editors:

G:\WINDOWS\system32>ver

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

G:\WINDOWS\system32>dir ed*.*
Volume in drive G has no label.
Volume Serial Number is 588C-29C1

Directory of G:\WINDOWS\system32

23/08/2001 12:00 69,886 edit.com
23/08/2001 12:00 10,790 edit.hlp
23/08/2001 12:00 12,642 edlin.exe
3 File(s) 93,318 bytes
0 Dir(s) 1,061,761,024 bytes free

Win2K on my system matches this too. Both Professional version, which means they'll be on server too. Admittedly edlin is rubbish, but the MS-DOS edit.com is OK; and you can always get vim from here, or even emacs.

Not that you'd actually want to, as Windows servers aren't aimed at UNIX people; they're aimed at people who want an easy-to-use graphical interface rather than going into the inner depths of the system. That's why Apache 2.0 needs an IIS-style interface if it is to get popular, rather than linuxconf/webmin (both of which have had holes as serious as IIS; linuxconf is one of the primary causes of the current glut of open relays.) Otherwise, Apache-2.0 on Windows will be just as much a minority view as 1.3 is today, which would be such a shame.

Re:Having worked with both...

[DrSkwid]

and you've used windows Edit over windows telnet then?

and edlin, please come one that's a line editor not a text editor

Re:Having worked with both...

[gregorio]

BTW, a little secret about .ASP and .JSP...they are both ripoffs of each other. The back end guy at the same site showed me how easy it was to convert .ASP to .JSP. And BOTH are ripoffs of PHP v.2! :P

I don't think so: ASP came before JSP, JSP came before PHP. So they can't be a PHP ripoff...

Re:Having worked with both...

[BigMeanBear]

Maybe "404" is now a figure of speech meaning something is broken or not available.

Erik

Re:Having worked with both...

[jlanng]

You don't have to restart the server in order for IIS (not the kernel) to release the server side components. You can simply restart the service, or shutdown the MTS package if the web site is running out of process

Re:Having worked with both...

[slainfu]

With all this moaning about Apache being harder to set up that IIS, arn't we forgetting about the GUI frontends such as Mohawk and TkApache?

Re:Having worked with both...

[armb]

> My chief admin tools for Apache are ssh and vi. No such option on Windows.

Both ssh and vi seem to be working fine on my NT machine with Cygwin here. (They probably wouldn't be much use for admining IIS though).

Re:Having worked with both...

[minus9]

So apache could never be popular without an IIS like interface? No wonder so few people use it.

Re:Having worked with both...

[DrSkwid]

is this wrong nowadays then :

the kernel locks the disk image of a DLL when it's loaded into memory and the only way to unload it is reboot

to test it, try and rename one of the ActiveX controls you've written and used in a VB script page.

Used to drive me mad

Re:Having worked with both...

[inquisitor]

Which is why I suggested vim (which is very good under Win*). Or any text editor you please. Your comment was that one doesn't exist; it does. Whether it's any good over TELNET is a different matter altogether.

Re:Having worked with both...

[inquisitor]

I was meaning Apache on Windows. Please don't read into my comments something I wasn't intending.

On UNIX, of course, an IIS-type interface is unnecessary because most UNIX admins worth anything all use the text config files anyway; an IIS-style system on most *NIX systems would be a complete non-starter. Not on Windows.

Re:Having worked with both...

[Dg93]

Erm, php goes back to '94. GnuJSP which was one of the early jsp implementations (and based on a pre-1.0 version of the spec) only came out in august of '99. Active Server Pages was released in late '96 as part of IIS 3...

The only statement that you have right there is that asp came before jsp.

But thank you for playing...

Re:Having worked with both...

[gregorio]

Nope, PHP goes back to 95', when it was just some thoughts about the future, and a small parsing engine written in perl by Rasmus Lerdorf. ASP first "stable" version was released in late 96', so you are comparing the "release" dates from two different versions, while PHP was "0.none" in 95', ASP was 1.0 in 96'. Anyway, it can't be a PHP ripoff, because PHP wasn't a known product back when Microsoft started to design ASP.

Re:Having worked with both...

[Fraize]

If someone asked you how many Virtual Domains you were running at that time how would you count them?

would it take you longer than typing this :

grep -c "^<VirtualHost" httpd.conf | awk 'BEGIN {FS=":"} {cnt = cnt + $2} END {printf "%d Virtual Domain Entries\n", cnt}'

No, it'd be quicker. Type: Win-R, c:\winnt\system32\inetsrv\iis.msc, click two plus-signs, and count.

Holier-than thou *nix wonks piss me off.

Re:Having worked with both...

[DrSkwid]

there aren't any text editors installed

try reading what I said

Re:Having worked with both...

[more fool you]

i tried that

C:\> Win-R, c:\winnt\system32\inetsrv\iis.msc

'Win-R' is not recognized.... etc.

Do *I* have to count the virtual domains?

Re:Having worked with both...

[Fillup]

yeah...i echo gregorio's sentiments....and without regard to the correctness of the date arithmetic here, i have one thing to say: "huh?"

I mean, they are all pretty similar technologies that occupy a similar spot in the whole application architecture...it's just...dude, i can't even formulate this thought due to the wild and crazy ignorance displayed by the first comment about them all being ripoffs of each other. That's like saying

Java, Objective-C, C++, and Fortran are all ripoffs of each other. And they're all ripoffs of Smalltalk-80!!

I mean, I repeat myself: "huh?"

Dude, I hope you're very young or that you don't speak English. Those would be two acceptable explanations for the comment. I mean, I don't want to be mean, dude, but wow that was some crazy shit you were spewing.

Re:Having worked with both...

[Fraize]

Win-R, meaning Windows Key plus R. It opens the "run" dialog. The remaining would open the Internet Information Server MMC Snap-in.

Do you have to count the virtual domains? Yes. You have fingers, right?

Re:Having worked with both...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unlocking" ActiveX is a matter of having IIS let go of it's resources. It has nothing to do with the kernel. This can be done by restarting IIS, or just ensuring that you release all references to that object. Reboot required? Someone didn't read their manual.

Uhhhhhh

[Bedouin X]

"Microsoft's only downside exposure would be the potential demise of IIS, which has no financial impact because the Web server is bundled as part of the OS. And, here, Microsoft has seemingly acknowledged defeat: IIS is not available on the Home edition of XP and the Professional edition, by default, is installed without IIS.

Officials from Microsoft declined to comment on this article."

What a crock of crap. As an IIS Admin I will not sit here and act like IIS is perfect (it is a royal pain in the arse actually), but this is just clueless reporting(?). IIS has NEVER been installed by default in ANY version of NT or 2000 Workstation, Professional, etc. I know that it wasn't installed by default in NT4 Server as well. I honestly can't remember with 2000 Server. Such drivel like this really throws lots of salt in the article. If I were Microsoft, I wouldn't give this writer any air of legitimacy by responding either.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[jarodss]

I recal having to format and reinstall Win2K Pro for a few clients of mine because of IIS installed by default and them not patching it against Code Red(II) and nimbda.

IIS not being installed on XP Pro means that MS reallized how many clues (l)users they actually have and not including it with XP Home is just another marketing ploy to make you buy the more expencive XP Pro.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[justletmeinnow]

...yeah, Apache still hasn't gotten around to supporting those MS CodeRed features yet... maybe in 3.0??? ;)

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Bedouin X]

I am telling you, IIS is NOT installed by default on Win2K pro, I just spent 6 months testing it for a deployment at my job and know way more than I wish I did about the OS and how it installs. Your clients may have selected to have it installed during setup, or may have upgraded installs that had PWS installed, but a clean Win2K Pro install does NOT install IIS.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Iamthefallen]

Indeed, directly from the bastion of evil.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[SocietyoftheFist]

Did you try every possible install configuration? I'm not saying it was never installed for you but that was a big problem with code red and nimda, many people were running it without knowing it. I know it isn't running on my Win2k installation, all my web serving is done through Linux.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Bedouin X]

What I am saying is that IIS IS NOT INSTALLED BY DEFAULT IN WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL. It must be consciously selected. As many times as I've installed it (Win2K Pro) on my personal box and gotten pissed off when I tried to access http://localhost and get an error I can vouch for this. Not that it's a bad thing, just a fact of the matter.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[RollingThunder]

The problem is that some things will "stealth" install IIS. You just think you're installing (iirc) a management console or similar, and surprise, you just installed IIS as well.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Dahan]

Seriously, dude... IIS is not installed by default on Win2K Pro. What do you mean by "try every possible install configuration?" IIS is installed in the configuration where you check the box to install IIS. Duh. It is not installed if you don't check that box.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Zuke8675309]

The Win2k Help file on IIS installation says:
"Internet Information Services 5.0 is not installed on Windows 2000 Professional by default.

Note

If you upgraded to Windows 2000, IIS 5.0 will be installed by default only if PWS was installed on your previous version of Windows."

Re:Uhhhhhh

[underpaidISPtech]

>I honestly can't remember with 2000 Server.

2000 Server and Advanced Server install IIS 5.0 by default. In fact, on all the installs I have done, if I ever tried to deselect IIS during the (attended) install, the machine would unexpectededly reboot, and I would have to resume the installation again. Suffice it to say, I would simply accept the default install and remove packages later.

I did an install the other day and was hit with CodeRed within 10 minutes of having the server up. I prolly had a few hundred active connections going to port 80.
I should have disconnected the box and turned off IIS before going to download the service packs and fixes. My bad, had to reinstall again. That's what you get for not paying attention, I guess.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[aardvarkjoe]

Yep. Offtopic. Right. This article had absolutely nothing to do with IIS or Windows. I applaud the efforts of this moderator who is protecting us from the slippery slope that leads to goatsex.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[cscx]

Actually, Win2k doesn't give you any install options besides the time zone (on a clean install). And therefore IIS IS NOT INSTALLED BY DEFAULT ON WIN2K PRO. You have to go into the Windows Components setup in Control Panel and install it manually. On Win2k server, I don't think it's installed by default either, you have to tell the setup wizard whether you want to make it a web server, file and print server, streaming media server, domain controller, etc.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[TheConfusedOne]

How did this get modded "Off-Topic"? The lead post states: "Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS" This person is factually, and a bit colorfully refuting the charge.

The reply is factual. In fact if you look at the NT 4.0 Workstation and W2K Pro licenses you'll see that it's against the license to run a web server on them (can't exceed 10 concurrent IP connections).

Remember the giant excrement-meteorological-event when MS tried to enforce the 10 connection limit in the early beta versions of NT 5.0? (The ol' 2000 name when it was going to be delivered in 98.)

Re:Uhhhhhh

[MsGeek]

It *IS* installed by default on Server and Advanced Server, though. I have no idea how it works on Datacenter Server because I've never seen it in action.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you haven't noticed the ZDNet ballet stuffing by Microsoft, their admission to purposely adding incompatibilities to early versions of Windows to destroy compatibility with rival MS-DOS like operating systems, their use of AT&T patented audio protocols without consent, their earlier attempt to block all users of non-MS browsers from using the MSN.com website, and countless other examples that I'm sure you've ignored, Microsoft has very little legitimacy of their own at the moment.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[SuiteSisterMary]

You should have had the service packs, if not the fixes, slipstreamed into a custom install disc.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS is not installed by default on Win2000 Pro but it is default in Windows 2000 Server.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[csbruce]

IIS has NEVER been installed by default in ANY version of NT or 2000 Workstation, Professional, etc. I know that it wasn't installed by default in NT4 Server as well. I honestly can't remember with 2000 Server.

Really, this seems like a massive missed opportunity for the monster marketing machine. (Is there a synonym for "opportunity" that starts with 'M'?) If they distributed IIS with every desktop and enabled it by default, they would push Apache off of its majority market share and claim the prize for themselves. This would be an important step in monopolizing both the client and the server. Of course, the Internet would be crushed under the weight of all the resulting worms and attacks, but that's not their fault, is it?

Re:Uhhhhhh

[cscx]

You're right... it's all coming back to me now. Adv server creates the c:\inetpub\ and c:\asfroot for IIS and WMS respectively.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Kidbro]

In fact if you look at the NT 4.0 Workstation and W2K Pro licenses you'll see that it's against the license to run a web server on them (can't exceed 10 concurrent IP connections).

Are you suggesting that the NT 4 IIS could handle more than 10 simultaneous requests?

Sorry, had to bite on such an obvious bait =)

Re:Uhhhhhh

[hogsback]

honestly can't remember with 2000 Server

With 2000 and .Net server it is not installed by default.

When you first logon to a freshly installed server, you an app runs automaticcaly called something like "configure your server". From this you can choose to install DNS, IIS, etc. etc. etc. (there are a lot of options)

Re:Uhhhhhh

[noc]

What a crock of crap. As an IIS Admin I will not sit here and act like IIS is perfect (it is a royal pain in the arse actually), but this is just clueless reporting(?).

Not to mention that if MS were to abandon IIS, there would suddenly be huge numbers of web sites running on abandoned software. At the moment, there is a ton of trust in MS among corporate types. Such a move would go a long way to destroying the basis for the MS monopoly, and they certainly know it.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS _is_ installed by default in all Windows 2000
versions

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

NT Workstation was TCP connection-limted when it came out in 1993. Nothing excrement-meteorological has changed .

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

And PWS was installed automatically on Win9x if you installed FrontPage or the versions of Office 2000 which included FrontPage. Which is a fuckload of users.

Re:Uhhhhhh

[kryptkpr]

It was not default in NT4, you had to get install the Option Pack and then specifically select IIS to get installed.. I remember as this was my first web server (the pain in the ass that it was... I've long since moved to Apache/Linux)...

Re:Uhhhhhh

[indigo78]

Also, check your internal network, if you got so many hits in such a short time!!

Re:Uhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

(Is there a synonym for "opportunity" that starts with 'M'?)

Your 'mother?'

Sounds like wishful thinking

[evil_roy]

Now just think of the article we'd be reading if IIS had been included in XP Home....

...and with a simple click an unwitting user will openn up their PC to the world. Evil MS has yet more holes/flaws....

Re:Sounds like wishful thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this is marked as a Troll. It sticks up for MS. Why don't you add a category called Pro-MS so you can set your threshold to avoid these posts. I guess slashdot readers figure they can complain about evil plots while at the same time filtering out news they don't like and adjusting reality to suit their beliefs with the best of them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

MS has not given up on IIS

[Utopia]

It is incorrect to say MS has given up on IIS. XP Pro/Home are not meant to serve Web content they are meant for business or home users respectively.

The next server version of windows (Windows .Net) will come in four different versions
Windows .NET Web Server - for Web serving and hosting
Windows .NET Standard Server - for file and printer sharing etc.
Windows .NET Enterprise Server - for applications services, Web services
Windows .NET Datacenter Server
Had MS given up on IIS they would have a seperate Windows .NET Web Server

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[SilentChris]

You mean I'll finally be able to install a Windows file/print server without having IIS installed with it? :)

Not bashing (I actually think the MMC is pretty dandy at keeping users in check) but that was always a sticking point with me. "It's a good server, but it basically forces me to install this drek..."

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[drsquare]

Meanwhile, every version of Debian is suitable for all purposes. You don't have to get financially raped up the arse every time you want your computer to do something else.

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[SClitheroe]

What the heck are you talking about? YOU get to choose what gets installed when you are setting up the OS. IIS has never been required on a file and print server.

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[DavidJA]

You mean I'll finally be able to install a Windows file/print server without having IIS installed with it? :) ...[SNIP]..."It's a good server, but it basically forces me to install this drek..."

You have HAVE to install IIS on a WIn2k/NT4 server. It's only selected by default. The first thing I do after an install of Win2k for a file/print server is remove IIS (and a whole lot of other crap!)

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[fcrick]

this is dead on - microsoft simply hasn't release their army or 'apache 2.0's' yet either...

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[xtremex]

You could do ALL those things with just ONE copy of Linux or any UNIX.

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[Utopia]

That is really very nice.

How do think Linux does it ?

Each of the Windows version serves a different purpose and hence use different schemes for memory addressing, schedulers. The internal communication systems is optimized for the number of CPUs on the system.

If you follow the Linux kernel development efforts, you'd see a nice scaling on 2-CPU or 4-CPU machine. But run Linux on a 6-CPU or 8-CPU machine you will see the performance degrade.

Well, Part of the problem is the PC architecture.
But my point is ONE single copy of any OS won't do.

I have nothing against Windows or Linux. I am not a fan of either. I just don't care.

Re:MS has not given up on IIS

[xtremex]

What I'm saying is everything is built into ONE version to allow all this. If you need Multiple processot support, you can always recompile your kernel..if you want a desktop, or a server, just enable or disable the services you want..that's all

Apache 2.0 vs IIS

[MoceanWorker]

come on... a 5 year old would know the answer to this :-\

Too bad we can't moderate articles

[the eric conspiracy]

While I absolutely despise Microsoft as a company because of it's predatory and illegal business practices, even I recognize this article as a troll.

Re:Too bad we can't moderate articles

[markj02]

Instead of providing a sound technical response, you just accuse people who you disagree with of trolling. I have no doubt that if you could, you would moderate down any article you don't like. That kind of attitude kills any rational discussion. Stop being trigger happy on your moderation and start contributing.

Re:Too bad we can't moderate articles

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't Adobe ported PhotoDeluxe to Unix?

Ummm, because Unix has less than 1% marketshare, you imbecile. Now go learn a little bit about "Return on Investment" or just fuck off and die.

Apache AND IIS are good..

[itsnotme]

You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch, but at the same time Microsoft wasnt too quick on telling admins to patch it OR published it that broadly.. BUT IIS to some people is easier to use, so hence the easiness facto makes it attractive to a lot of people..

Apache on the other hand is also a good webserver, its been tested pretty throughly and doesnt seem to have that many holes, ( I cant say it does or doesnt because I havent looked ) but its also pretty intuitive to use for people that use Unix, so until the Unix population grows bigger than the windows population, IIS is going to be a tad more popular among that crowd..

I applaud microsoft for moving it out of the mainstream windows, it creates less of a hole to fix, and it decreases the risk of having another CodeRed type of thing happen again where users dont know that their computer is doing something.. but yeah, microsoft is tryign to make more money off it too.. this shouldnt surprise anybody

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[Cally]

You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch,

Well, quite! ;)

I just happened to have spent the last couple of hours compiling Apache 1.3.22 with mod_perl under Cygwin on NT4. Rather a perverse thing to spend time doing, I know, but great fun and useful... I think that the act of compiling software is underestimated as a way of guaranteeing that the user / admin understands it, what it's doing and so on. When bugs appear, as-they-inevitably-do-in-any-software , the admin who's had to read INSTALL or README, read the output of make and configure to see what's going on and fix or tackle problems, will always end up with a more secure machine. (And of course as we all know, Apache has had far, far fewer security issues than IIS.) `Release often' also makes a big difference. If you install NT43 today, you then have to spend the best part of a day just installing hotfixes and rebooting. Same with IIS.MS never recalls the code for OSes or apps, even when they're known to be so riddled with holes that a default install connected to the net will likely be compromised within hours; yes folks, they're still shipping XP CDs with that UPnP hole in, and will continue to do so for the entire life of the product in all likelyhood. How many normal end-users would expect that to be the case? Apache OTOH always has the latest & best stable code up as the default install. yet another factor in it's allround wonderfulness.

I'm very happy to be seeing this banner, can you tell? :)

00:53:53:/usr/local/src/screen/screen-3.9.10
andrew@INEGO% telnet 192.168.0.1 80
Trying 192.168.0.1...
Connected to 192.168.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:54:10 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.22 (Cygwin) mod_perl/1.26
Last-Modified: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 04:29:35 GMT
ETag: "16078f-bd8-3c0073af"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 3032
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
.
.
.

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[SCHecklerX]

You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch

That's because it is a PITA to patch anything on microsoft platforms. Installation is even worse with all the bullshit licensing checks they do in the install scripts.

Could you imagine having to patch a large hosting facility (I dunno...500-1000 IIS servers)? No thanks. And that's why it doesn't get done.

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[90XDoubleSide]

BUT IIS to some people is easier to use, so hence the easiness facto makes it attractive to a lot of people.

Apache is not necessarily harder to use; if you just install Apache you will be doing all the configuration yourself, but there are scores of great configuration utilities for every platform Apache runs on that make it much easier to use than IIS.

Consider that in Mac OS X to get an Apache server up and running you simply put the files for the site in /Library/WebServer/Documents and (if applicable) have each user put their files in their ~/Sites folder, then open System Prefs, click Sharing, click Start Web Sharing, wait 2 seconds and it's up.

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[Flower]

Could you imagine having to patch a large hosting facility (I dunno...500-1000 IIS servers)? No thanks. And that's why it doesn't get done.

Doable if you are using AD. We discussed it while I attended the SANS class on securing IIS. You have one server that hosts the patches and you configure your IIS servers to periodically check that server to update themselves. The same is true of IIS settings in this circumstance. Let's say you have WebDev enabled on all of your IIS servers and you get an alert from SANS about an exploit in which there is no fix atm. You can update one template that all the servers are using and then send that out.

Would I want to admin a bunch of IIS 4.0 servers? No. But IIS 5.0 isn't as bad as people make it out to be.

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[DavidJA]

You have one server that hosts the patches and you configure your IIS servers to periodically check that server to update themselves.

This reminds my, why don't MS release patches in a .MSI or .MSP format to make is easy to deploy through AD.

This is my main gripe about MS's patches, they have this awsome AD technology to make deployment easy, but you need to create your own MSI for them!

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch....

I don't have to admit any such thing. Sure it's easier. But the security problems are NOT just the fault of lazy admins.

Microsoft patches are a joke. Here's an example of why I say this - the place I work for has some IIS web servers running. A security team from outside came in and did an evaluation of our security (FWIW, my Apache server passed with flying colors, but I digress). They ran a scanner that looked for common vulnerabilities and supplied a link to MS patches for the ones it found. We downloaded and installed the patches on the vulnerable servers. They came back in to verify, using the same software. The vulnerabilities that it found originally had been patched. BUT THE PATCHES OPENED UP OTHER VULNERABILITIES THAT WEREN'T THERE BEFORE!!!

Keep in mind that we downloaded the MS patches and installed them - that's ALL we did before they ran the second scan. Patches that close one hole and open another are inexcuseable!!!

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[Knightmare]

Thank you for reviewing my optoins, but no I don't have to admit that IIS is a good webserver. I have used both extensively and I would pick apache over IIS any day. Reasons:
- I can use a text terminal to administrate it, no waiting for my pretty windows desktop to display across my pc anywhere/vnc connection
- I can look at the source if I have a problem
- There are PLENTY of sources for help with problems with apache. Google being the only one really needed. I had a problem with IIS that I had to pull favors with friends working at Microsoft JUST to get the definition of an error code as it was "unpublished"
- It doesn't crash as much, if it ever does I don't have to reboot to get things happy again.
- Unlike Microsofts IIS knowledge base I have never seen any comment related to apache that stated that a re-install of the OS was the _only way_ to make the web server serve ssl ever again (might be fixed now that SP2 is out)
- it is insanely fast at dynamic content
- I can throw things in front of it like khttpd, tux as it runs on operating systems that let me do kooky stuff like that

I am getting tired of listing reasons... please give me some reasons that I should like IIS?

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[gregorio]

The vulnerabilities that it found originally had been patched. BUT THE PATCHES OPENED UP OTHER VULNERABILITIES THAT WEREN'T THERE BEFORE!!!

That happened because you act like a kiddie as much as you administrate as a kiddie: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q 296/8/61.asp

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay! Microsoft finally has the ability to make things work the way they're supposed to, like it's been in the *nix world for what, 30+ years now? Another victory for innovation, to be sure.

"No need for multiple reboots" - *chortle*, *snicker*, guffaw :)

Re:Apache AND IIS are good..

[gregorio]

Yay! Microsoft finally has the ability to make things work the way they're supposed to, like it's been in the *nix world for what, 30+ years now? Another victory for innovation, to be sure.

Can you patch kernel 2.4 with a patch designed for kernel 2.0 *and make the kernel work*, without changing the patch?

It's part of .NET

[johnburton]

And although .NET is much more than web services, they are a fairly important part of the whole system and IIS is a critical part of providing those web services so I would certainly expect microsoft to continue working on IIS.

And also apache is nice in many ways, but if you just want to put up a couple files on an intranet or something, it's so easy just to right click on the directory and choose "Web Sharing" to create a virtual IIS web directory that it certainly has it's place.

Re:It's part of .NET

[dunstan]

That's exactly the problem. All the time you make people think that's all they have to do when they publish web content, you'll get stupid security breaches.

I'm not against making things simple, but some things are made dangerous in the process of simplifying them.

Dunstan

Re:It's part of .NET

[johnburton]

Well I don't really see any difference between editing an apache configuration file and using a dialog box to create a virtual directory to publish some files.

Of course in both cases you need to make sure that your web server is configured right, and has any security patches installed, and that when you publish script based pages that you make sure they are secure.

But there is nothing more secure about having a nice simple user interface to acomplish simple things than making you edit a complex configuration file apart from discouraging less experienced people from doing it all.

Re:It's part of .NET

[El_Koba]

Just wait till it's time to move your site to another machine. Or try to set up multiple web servers with the same setup to sit behind a load balancer. That's when you'll be wishing you had config files you could just copy to the new machines. I know I have.

Re:It's part of .NET

[Rooktoven]

Or if apache is installed you make a symbolic link for the directory you want to share to an existing web directory...

Shoot, with them fancy x-window file managers you can even drag and drop... ;-)

Re:It's part of .NET

[wadetemp]

Actually, IIS is not that much of a player in .NET. Everything .NET is handled through an ISAPI module for IIS that could easily be run by something else. It makes very little use of existing IIS functionality at all other than the http port.

Re:It's part of .NET

[un4given]

Just wait till it's time to move your site to another machine. Or try to set up multiple web servers with the same setup to sit behind a load balancer. That's when you'll be wishing you had config files you could just copy to the new machines.

You can use the iissync utility to copy the entire metabase from server to server, which makes site duplication as simple as Apache.

Re:It's part of .NET

[kputnam]

No, what is even easier than that is to symlink the content you want without editing any config files, or opening a GUI dialog box. How's this for easy?

ln -s ~/photos/ ~/web/kputnam/

There is no need to edit configuration files or open any GUI configuration tool to share otherwise offline content.

Re:It's part of .NET

[steve_l]

I think you could support .NET pages (like .ASPX and .ASMX files) under apache2.0 on win32. IIS isn't .NET aware after all; it just has some new filters to hand off various requests to ASPX, ASMX execution engines.

If that was implemented (simplest would be cgi-bin handoff to .NET code); even the CGI-bin could be .net exe, then you could go IIS free and still run .net webapps. And lets face it, if you have to expose webapp to the rest of the world, which server would you rather use?

Re:It's part of .NET

[xeno-cat]

You can use the iissync utility to copy the entire metabase from server to server, which makes site duplication as simple as Apache.

I doubt that. iissync is a case of going the long way home. If it's "just as easy", why the heck build all the limiting GUI stuff in the first place?

MS config utilities can not beat Unix text files, versioned in CVS and distributed via automation. At leat I have never seen anything that comes close.

Kind Regards

Rest Assured

[loteck]

IIS will be back in force with the release of Windows XP 64bit Edition. It's half-broken presence in XP Professional should be hint enough that not only will it be staying around, but MS will be pushing more and more services to use it in some way, shape or form.

However forbidden it may be to link to MS on slashdot, check out this link to some specs on the next generation of MS's Server OS.

Apache hasn't won by a long shot.. the battle wages on in the minds and hearts of sysadmins across the globe.

Re:Rest Assured

[ergo98]

Half-broken? What the hell are you talking about? IIS 5.1 in XP has the exact same limitations as IIS 5.0 in Windows 2000. There is no such thing as "XP 64-bit Edition": The server editions of XP are call ".NET Server", and they actually come with IIS 6. I like Apache, but this story is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT that caters to the worst of the worst in the FUD world.

Re:Rest Assured

[loteck]

Well, aside that I sit here and support XP all day (which tends to qualify me to know what I speak of), I'm also looking at the public MS knowledge base and the Hardware Compatibility List. In both instances, what you call ".NET Server" (which very well may be what it is eventually called), it is still in beta 3 and is referred to by MS as either 64bit edition or Whistler Beta Server. Bitching over terms, pointless. Troll.

Re:Rest Assured

[Dahan]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about server editions of XP. There is a Windows XP 64-bit Edition. It has nothing to do with ".NET Server." It is Windows XP. The 64-bit edition.

Re:Rest Assured

[Dahan]

Your sitting around all day doesn't qualify you for anything. And your post here shows that you don't know what you speak of. .NET Server (and that is what the family is called; there are four different versions in the family) is not the same thing as Windows XP 64-bit Edition. Windows XP 64-bit Edition has already been released--it is not in beta, and you can buy workstations that are bundled with it.

Re:Rest Assured

[loteck]

i stand well corrected!

Demise IIS

[motox]

I don't thing Microsoft is gonna replace IIS with an Opensource product anytime soon. I had recently problems getting apache 1.3 to work properly on Win32, (first a buffer overflow in PHP then a crasher bug in mod_ssl), in the end i got both bugs patched and it's working. In my struggles i even tried the beta of Apache 2.0 but looking in the TODOs of mod_ssl (now integrated in the Apache distributions), i saw that the port is like 60% complete. Let alone the insecurities of IIS, Apache as of now is hardly the most stable webserver on Win32.

Re:Demise IIS

[Anonymous Coward]

I have only one comment: LOL!

Dumb article

[CaptainSuperBoy]

The authors of the article have proven they know nothing about IIS.

IIS wasn't in the default install for 2000 pro either. Why does this matter, anyway? Is there anyone who uses web server software "because it was there?" Organizations don't run web servers on workstations, either. XP home and pro are both workstation operating systems.

Re:Dumb article

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"Why does this matter, anyway? Is there anyone who uses web server software "because it was there?" Organizations don't run web servers on workstations, either. XP home and pro are both workstation operating systems."

Well if you want to run Visual Studio.NET it forces you to install and enable IIS even if you only want to develop stand-alone applications.

This is the way that MS is going- everyone and their dog with port 80 open and *receptive*.

graspee

Re:Dumb article

[Anonymous Coward]

Lean reading.

It does not "force" you. It warns you that if you dont install the IIS, you can ONLY develop non-web applications.

Well, if you call a warning like this forcing you - you deserve being here.

MS gives up on IIS?

[nulleffect]

XP Home is replacement for Win9x.
There is no IIS or PWS (the watered-down version of IIS) in Win9x although you can download PWS from MS.
XP Pro, which is replacement for Win2k Pro, has IIS as optional component just like Win2k Pro.
As far as I know, there has been no change in MS' commitment to spreading the virus that is IIS. The whole .NET/owning-the-internet thing is centered on IIS and couple other things.

Whoever thinks MS is pulling out of IIS business needs to stop smoking crack.

WebDav support

[tjansen]

A missing piece in the acticle is the importance of Apache 2.0 for WebDAV. WebDAV is a HTTP-extension making the HTTP-server a real fileserver - Apache 2.0 comes with full WebDAV support. As WebDAV is quite flexible and allows stuff like meta-data, versioning and different authentication mechanisms (that are unfortunately not finalized yet) it is a possible successor for both NFS and SMB/Cifs.
WindowsXP supports the mounting of WebDAV shares, as does Linux with the help of the DAV filesystem driver. And Apache could be the standard fileserver... scary.

Re:WebDav support

[Fillup]

as keanu would say: "whoa." that was a pretty insane post. i'm still dizzy.

the kickass new "sorta still beta" Apache Tomcat servlet container has built-in WebDAV too. Anyone know if there's some coordination between the two implementations?

Re:WebDav support

[Tachys]

WindowsXP supports the mounting of WebDAV shares, as does Linux

Mac OS X also supports mounting WebDAV shares

Re:WebDav support

[Khalid]

CVS succesor Subversion, http://subversion.tigris.org currently developed by collab.net (who is also the maintainer of CVS) is also based an Webdav. Distributed repositories will be much easier to operate.

Re:WebDav support

[extra88]

Cool. What's the URI format for WebDAV? What do I type to mount a WebDAV share?

Re:WebDav support

[extra88]

Windows 2000 Pro can mount WebDAV shares as well, I use it to mount my Apple iDisk at work.

Re:WebDav support

[leandrod]

Can someone give a good URL with more data on this, especifically comparision to NFS, Coda and others? While anything can be better than SMB (CIFS), betting NFS would be very, very hard, let alone Coda, Intermezzo and the like.

Apache 2 thoughts.

[Xial]

The current Apache, as is, is a very well known name when it comes to servers.
Lots of businesses, and even home users use Apache, because it can be fast and easy to set up.
If I remember correctly, Apache is also preinstalled on Apples using OS X (at least the newest iMacs.)
Apache is a powerful name, period.
I think Apache 2 will be an even more powerful point in server history, because up to now, Apache has been free (i can not say, in regards to IIS), stable, and secure.

Hopefully, however, A 2 will be easier to configure. I was looking at configging it today on my (WinXP X_X) box, and was lost in all the configurations.

However, In my opinion, IIS is just a danger and a nuisance. I used to be hosted on a server using IIS, and it was just a continuous stream of problems. I moved to an Apache server, and I was in heaven.

Plainly speaking, all people need is to see how powerful Apache is, and all its benefits, and be able to compare them.
In the end, they'll figure out what they want.

I know my wants lie with Apache and its future.

Re:Apache 2 thoughts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody claiming that apache in it's current implementation is hard to configure is so full of it. What's so freaking hard about editing one tiny little conf-file? Everything in ONE place, it's beautiful and I hope that never changes! Hurrah!

Re:Apache 2 thoughts.

[Xial]

I'd like to clearly state the following.
Not everyone is as savvy as you might think they are.
Sometimes, someone may just want to just be able to just drop the program in its place, and be able to cleanly run it.
I'll admit, i'm not the sharpest stick in the mud, but I know this for sure: not everyone can easily just look at the conf file, and say "oh-kay, i want it to do this, this, this, and that."
I couldn't even get php to work with Apache, personally, on this box - i eventually got ticked, and installed phptriad - a preconfigged Apache installation with PHP and MySQL.

Realize this, oh one who hides behind "anonymous",
not everyone can do what you do. We're not all the same.

Thank you.
- Xial

Re:Apache 2 thoughts.

[mox358]

i won't hide behind "anonymous" and i'm certainly not attacking you, but i would like to present a counter point. I configured apache (on OS X, so I figure a lot of was already done for me) simply by opening the httpd.conf file in BBEdit and searching for "php" etc.. and taking out the remarks(#). As soon as I restarted the server everything worked. The next day I was helping a guy setup ISS on his Windows server and it took 3 hours (still didn't get it to work) to get Perl working. I setup Perl on Apache by removing a few # signs. Not too hard to configure for me, but I have had some html experience...

Microsoft ditching IIS? Not likely...

[MalusCaelestis]

Microsoft will not be ditching IIS. It is not an option in Windows XP Home because the average XP Home user isn't creating database-driven Web sites in ASP or Perl/CGI (you'd be lucky to find an XP Home user that knows HTML, I'd wager). Further, IIS is not a pre-installed option in Windows 2000 Professional, so why should it be in Windows XP Professional? Most XP Professional users are not Web developers (though many Web developers are XP Professional users) that don't need IIS installed on their system.

I suppose anti-Microsoft fanatics will also say that IIS on XP Professional being limited to 10 concurrent connections is further proof that Microsoft is dropping IIS. (Windows 2000 Professional is also limited to 10 concurrent connections.) But really this is just a way for Microsoft to ensure that people buy their more expensive Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2000 Advanced Server (and their forthcoming Windows.NET Server and Windows.NET Advanced Server).

Just because something isn't included in the Home version and isn't installed (by default) in the Workstation version of a product doesn't mean it is being dropped.

Anyone who argues that Microsoft is giving up their fight to be dominant in the Web server market doesn't know anything about Microsoft strategy and obviously knows nothing about their .NET campaign.

Re:Microsoft ditching IIS? Not likely...

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, that # of limited connections can be changed in the registry. I haven't actually tried this, so take it with a grain of salt (I'm a *nix geek).

Essentially, the only difference between Win2k/Pro and Win2k/Server are some tweeks in the registry.

Or so I hear.

Re:Microsoft ditching IIS? Not likely...

[ahde]

What is Microsoft's definition of 'concurrent'?

i remember using IIS on my Win2k Pro computer and after a dozen or so periodic refreshes (after editing html) I got the max users error. It wouldn't go away even after I closed down all open IE and Netscape windows and waiting several minutes.

bah...

[Anonymous Coward]

still not as good as http://www.aolserver.com

Um....

[kawaichan]

Microsoft's only downside exposure would be the potential demise of IIS, which has no financial impact because the Web server is bundled as part of the OS. And, here, Microsoft has seemingly acknowledged defeat: IIS is not available on the Home edition of XP and the Professional edition, by default, is installed without IIS."

XP Home is a home OS, it is not suppose to have IIS built in. XP Professional is a replacement for the workstation version of NT, historically speaking it had always have a crippled version of IIS as an optional addon.

You are only suppose to have IIS on Server edition of XP which will be called Windows .NET

is this a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, i suspect is it rather a bit of desparate wishful thinking by those in the slashdot community. iis isnt included in the home edition of windows xp just like it isnt in windows 98/me by default. it is available in the pro version just like it was in 2k but professional isnt a server operating system so why would it be installed by default? to take this and make the conclusion that microsoft is phasing out iis is ridiculous especially when their market share is growing at such a rate as now and taking over the competition. this is ridiculous to even post on the slashdot site that calls itself a respectable news site.

My only question--

[Rooktoven]

is "Why would someone who has decided to use Apache seriously consider running it on a windows platform?"

Re:My only question--

[BigBir3d]

because the boss at work says "we are only going to use a MS solution wrt OS."

or, I don't know how to use Linux, *BSD, OS/2 or whatever, and I am smart enough to know (because someone 1337 told me) to not use IIS.

or, I am tired of doing all the damn patches for MS IIS...

whatever, ad nauseum.

Re:My only question--

[Xial]

In my case, it'd be more of an experiment.
sometimes, someone wants to share files with a few people for a limited amount of time (ie: i've done it with a few drawings for a few people).
rather than having to sign up with a free webpage service (which usually sells your email address, for some dumb reason), it's easier to just start an apache process.
plus, it can be a bit of an educational experience, as well. I can learn something about how a web server works, and, with the right stuff, I can try to learn PHP, without having to ssh or ftp in to my server. i can just work from the /apache/htdocs folder instead. much faster and more efficient, don't you agree? :)

Re:My only question--

[Rooktoven]

Granted I disregarded the educational aspect. I still suspect though, that when the server becomes more of a need than an experiment, and costs are taken into account, one who implements an apache server is rarely going to put it on windows.

Re:My only question--

[Anonymous Coward]

That boss will not be able to tell pepsi from jolt and should obviously not be in charge...

Re:My only question--

[wadetemp]

I do it because I like developing websites on Windows (Photoshop, etc.) and most of the websites I do are hosted on Apache. In the cases where I don't have direct access to the server, I simply set up my Apache system to mirror the configuration of the intended server, and then write the site and test away. This could easily be done with two computers, but it's nice to have everything all in one box.

Re:My only question--

[Tony-A]

If the purpose of the box is to run apache, then *nix is a much better foundation. If it's a Windows box that needs to serve up a few web pages and sorta work most of the time, then ...

Re:My only question--

[Flower]

In my case it's because that is what CiscoWorks serves up web pages with.

Re:My only question--

[Anonymous Coward]

You still do not have to run the web server on Windows though.. if you have an old computer lying around, you can install unix+apache+samba on that and then use samba to connect your Windows computer to the server. Whether or not that is any easier depends on what kind of dynamic content you deal with I guess.

Re:My only question--

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is why? apache for windows is perfect to test-bed web sites before you transfer them to a *nix server, and it only takes 10 mins to set up, why would you want to waste 3 hours+ finding whether your old computer works and installing an OS on it?

Re:My only question--

[Anonymous Coward]

That boss probably has a pointy head too!

Re:My only question--

[Xial]

True.
when it gets beyond my 'experiment' phase, i'm going to just open my ftp client and upload, and remotely edit the files to match the requirements on the server (FreeBSD. Yay!)

But still. I'm considering for the cases where someone may not have the luxury of an always on connection and/or wants to test out a new layout without destroying stuff on the server, or having to wait for the screech of their modem to dial up and connect so they can just edit stuff.

And, in all honesty, if I had the money to buy the hardware I need to be completely satisfied, I'd not even be using Windows. I learn nothing in it except more inventive ways to curse, it seems.

Anywho, I'll stop rambling now.

Re:My only question--

[wadetemp]

So I should pack 2 laptops around? :) If I ever do something that relies on a "UNIX only" feature (which is not that often... Perl, PHP, and other useful things run equally well on Windows) then I use two machines. Otherwise Apache running on Windows simulates the intended environment quite well. At least well enough that I don't have to lug 2 computers around to be mobile.

No, really...

[Master Of Ninja]

I wonder (like all the other posters are) what the authors were thinking when they wrote this article. I can only come to the conclusion that when they wrote the term "IIS" in the article, they were thinking of the personal web server (PWS) program that has come with the last few version of windows. Looking at it that way, it would be true that the web server would have no impact because it's rubbish, and only home users would use it (and why would they anyway). Really, criticising (spelling?) MS because they don't include IIS in XP Home - must be a very slow news day.

Re:No, really...

[wadetemp]

I'm pretty sure you're right about this. I went poking around on the Microsoft website and the location where I've downloaded PWS before was gone. And I'm pretty sure I did read somewhere that MS intended to clean up the server product line and replace it with a trimmed version of IIS instead (that actually has useful functionality.)

Re:Configuration - Easy? WTF you talking about!

[Anonymous Coward]

The day linux gets a gui for every configuration option, is the day i leave linux. I want to be able to control everything, not just be limited to a few crappy options

Contradicted yourself a bit didn't you mate?

Why was this article posted???

[Ars-Fartsica]

Its obvious the interviewer in the original article has no clue, his arguments are baseless, even the /. editors knew so much when they posted it. So the question is, why??

Re:Why was this article posted???

[wadetemp]

For the same reason that they post duplicate stories? To revive the dead horses and the lame ducks so we can work them over again? :)

Re:Why was this article posted???

[Tony-A]

In the vain hope that maybe, just maybe, Code Red would stop filling up our Apache log files.

Microsoft admits defeat!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they're only charging more to hide the fact that they're admitting defeat.

Won't really help Windows as a server

[mnordstr]

"Who can benefit?
Ironically, all of the developments mean the biggest beneficiary of the release of Apache 2.0 could be Microsoft."

Ok, fine, Apache is much better than IIS in Windows, but why the ... would anyone seriously want to run Windows as a server (other reasons than the fact that one can be braindead to use Windows, but then again, that's the result)?

Re:Won't really help Windows as a server

[_johnnyc]

I know, I just don't get it. I can't see any good reason why anyone would want to run Apache on Windows, but there must be some.

Anyone got any?

Re:Won't really help Windows as a server

[Junta]

Easy, from experience, making the best out of decisions handed down by idiot management. Despite administrative complaints, sometimes the business people make the decisions and thus we are stuck with MS platform because the business people are allowed to make decisions that reallly shouldn't matter. So Apache on Windows is the best way to cope..

Re:Won't really help Windows as a server

[Anonymous Coward]

'would anyone seriously want to run Windows as a server '

Who knows, it's possible that someone would actually use the best tool for the job and situation. And not get all fucked in the head over some OS/Platform holy war like most Linux users seem to be.

Zeus!!!

[chrysalis]

IIS and Apache aren't the only one in the market. There are a lot of other very interesting web servers, especially Zeus.

Zeus is a non-forking server (at least for static pages). It's extremely fast, it performs even better than thttpd, while being more secure and with plenty of features. A single server running Zeus can easily replace 3 servers running Apache with the same content.

Zeus has an excellent web-based administration interface. The only fact that you can group sites can make you save a lot of time (group them by customers, then to disable all sites of a customer, one click is enough. No need to parse an ugly httpd.conf file) .

Zeus is designed for clustering (to add a machine to a cluster, one click is enough) .

Zeus works on a lot of operating systems (still waiting for the OpenBSD 3.0 version, though) .

Zeus supports frontpage, php, perl, etc. There's also a perl script to convert an existing Apache configuration to Zeus.

Ah yeah, Zeus isn't free software, though. Neither is IIS.

Re:Zeus!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay.
Purpose is to publish, make available. Who presents or serves it is no consideration or importance.
Fancy plugins or need for security modify this argument as does cost, but any competent manager would move the static, plain content to something other than IIS.

As for making proprietry content - bad cos. Scalability and size demands different solutions. IS managers should also resent their loss of control, and have that plan B envelope ready.

Instead of focusing on the demise of IIS

[Pinball Wizard]

as this article seemed to do(which is ludicrous, as many comments have already pointed out), why not play up the strengths of Apache?

If Apache 2.0 really works as well under Windows as it does under Unix, that is a really great thing. Apache currently supports almost as many languages as .NET promises to, and furthermore, modules are compiled into the server, rather than being compiled to an intermediate language and served up from a virtual machine like the .NET server will do.

Apache is a winner because it is secure, scalable, fast and reliable. If it is all these things under Windows thats even better. I wish the article could have played up the strengths of Apache rather than serving up the pipe dream that Microsoft is ditching IIS.

Re:Instead of focusing on the demise of IIS

[Anonymous Coward]

They also don't mention anything about performance. Apache 1.3 was still noticably slower than IIS 5.0, especially in dynamic content. Of course, if speed is really what you want, Tux is the clear choice.

Re:Instead of focusing on the demise of IIS

[Embrionic]

>> as this article seemed to do(which is
>> ludicrous, as many comments have already
>> pointed out), why not play up the strengths of
>> Apache?

If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re:Instead of focusing on the demise of IIS

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole speed on windows problem was EXACTLY what they were talking about in the multiple processes versus multiple threads argument. Apache 2 is supposed to be as fast on windows as it is on linux.

Btw, Tux is no longer the fastest webserver. It experiemnted with new techniques to make webservers faster, but those techniques have mostly been adopted by other webservers too nowadays.

IIS isn't going anywhere

[RebornData]

MS has always been successful in the enterprise space by focusing on developers and putting together a platform that creates compelling value for business software developers. While it's true that MS is rarely best at anything, it's one of a small number of companies that provides a complete, supported server product line (OS, DB, app server, web server, message queueing, transaction coordination, etc...) and a development environment that is reasonably integrated across it. Enterprises see this as an advantage.

IIS is perceived to be "good enough" by many companies and organizations. The effort to find, learn, integrate, and get support for another slightly-better alternative just isn't worth it to them.

However, MS is taking a huge beating on the security issues, and if they loose that "good enough" image, there will be a crack for Apache to squeeze through. Don't count on it being there for long...

Re:IIS isn't going anywhere

[spasmatik]

It seems to me people are ignoring a lot of the reasons IIS and all that usually goes with it are so commonly used. Its there with the OS and easy to install and easy to start serving dynamic content with ASP. IIS is huge on intranets within organizations for all those reasons. Its easy to extend with COM and provides most companies who use it with all the power they need. PHP/Apache is not an equivalent to ASP/COM/IIS or .NET. I often hear uninformed open source friendly sorts pushing Apache/PHP/MySQL as a viable alternative to IIS/COM/SQL Server which doesn't help the cause. Comparitive *nix solutions are just as or more costly ie: Oracle/j2ee/apache. I am not trolling just stating the facts as i see them.

Re:IIS isn't going anywhere

[steve_l]

IIS are being hosed on security. .NET server (that's XP advanced server really) will also export COM+ object as SOAP services, which is another recipie for security configuration disasters, but I guess this time things will be disabled.

There is a complete rewrite of IIS in the works, still native win32, but done 'properly'; maybe it wont even have to run as administrator no more. Who knows, maybe IIS6.0 will use the apache codebase to achieve the performance, security and reliability milestones, though I doubt MS would do the sensible thing there.

Re:IIS isn't going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has always been successful in the enterprise space by focusing on developers

Actually, MS has been successful by focusing on managers, which in turn decree IIS will be used. Windows wouldn't be so much used as a server platform (where in most situations it performs worse than *nix alternatives) if it weren't for the gullibility of managers and the talent of microsoft marketdroids.

Re:IIS isn't going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the integration of components in MS-land is kind of like the integration of components in Frankenstein's monster.

Re:IIS isn't going anywhere

[leandrod]

Unfortunately you see them wrong... MySQL sure isn't good enough, but with PostgreSQL behind it Apache and BSD or GNU become unbeatable. Both Apache and PostgreSQL are also present in Debian mirrors and BSD ports collection, so they are just there.

But if you want to compare the proprietary side, even if Oracle and J2EE are expensive, they are much better than IIS and SQL Server. The problem is that most corporate decisions, are ill informed and ill formed.

Re:IIS isn't going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

However, MS is taking a huge beating on the security issues, and if they loose that "good enough" image, there will be a crack for Apache to squeeze through. Don't count on it being there for long...

A "crack" for Apache to slip thru? Read your history. Apache has blown IIs away in sheer numbers of servers running it and smaller numbers of security vulnerabilities....for many years.

Please do your research before posting.

AG

Compaq servers

[alen]

Maybe it's Compaq SmartStart and the unattended setup file they create, but IIS is installed by default with Windows 2000 on compaq servers. I know because me removing it is one of the first things I do when I configure a windows 2000 server.

Re:Compaq servers

[DavidJA]

Maybe it's Compaq SmartStart and the unattended setup file they create, but IIS is installed by default with Windows 2000 on compaq servers

IFAIK Compaq Smart Start is for setting up SERVERS, there is no option on Smart Start to install Win2k Pro (or NT4 WS for that matter), and SmartStart 5.20 (latest release available in .AU does not have any options to install any version of XP.

No one is denying that IIS isn't installed by default on Win2k SERVER (because it is); the argument is about IIS on Win2k Pro.

watch out...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Microsoft is going to come out with guns blazing and firing on all cylinders with IIS6.0, I'll bet. Remember, we are talking about a company that is uber-paranoid and run by relatively intelligent people. Apache is a threat right now. It is more stable and more secure than IIS and Apache runs on a wider variety of platforms. While I'm not sure that we'll see IIS running on UNIX anytime soon, you can bet your bottom dollar that in terms of stability and security IIS6.0 will be a major improvement over all previous versions. IIS7.0 will just move further in that direction.

Of course, my only justification for making this statement is that Microsoft values its survival and is not, contrary to popular belief, run by idiots. If

a) Microsoft's survival depends on its ability to sell its products;

b) IIS is a product that it wants to sell;

c) A competitor (Apache) offers something that appears to be highly demanded by the market;

d)IIS and Apache compete with each other;

e)By building the market-demanded functionality into its product Microsoft might sell more of its product and take market share away from its competitor; then

Microsoft will build that functionality into its product.

They've done it in the past with other products and even leveraged their status as a monopoly in order to swallow market share. It's good to see the developers of Apache continuing to improve their software because if they were to stop doing so, Microsoft would soon provide something as good or better. As a company, Microsoft is ferociously competitive.

Re:watch out...

[inerte]

That would be .NET, Hailstorm and Passport, right?

That's where Microsoft is aiming, services.

Re:watch out...

[JamieF]

>It's good to see the developers of Apache continuing to improve their software because if they were to
>stop doing so, Microsoft would soon provide something as good or better. As a company, Microsoft
>is ferociously competitive.

Um, no. If they were to stop, Microsoft would soon stop also. There would be new releases but they wouldn't really add much.

Seen IE 5.5 or 6? Back when Netscape owned the browser market, each new release came with something earth-shattering like tables, LiveScript (now called JavaScript), frames, SSL, plugins, applets, animated GIFs... yeah, they gave us the blink tag too, and many of those other technologies have been abused by some content providers (flashing popup ad windows!) but seriously, every new release made a huge difference in what a browser was capable of. Huge. Then Microsoft came and killed Netscape by using monopoly profits from Windows to fund a web browser project that cloned Navigator, and a web server project that more or less cloned NCSA httpd, and giving both away for free.

Now Microsoft gives us IE 6, which includes some UI changes and some minor updates to stuff like CSS support. This is the amazing innovation that Bill Gates loves to brag about, that an antitrust remedy would prevent. Don't get me wrong, improved compliance with standards is a good thing, but the browser market is basically dead, and there's not much innovation going on anymore. Of course there's Mozilla, but that's basically cloning IE 5, which is no surprise since open source projects seldom innovate either (they just clone closed-source products or implement existing open standards).

Apache will continue to incorporate support for new standards, but don't expect it to blow your mind. Look at the 2.0 new features list... new threading model? New module API? Wow, my web sites will never be the same! Well, WebDAV is a welcome addition, but it's not as though Apache just invented WebDAV; that's been available for Apache 1.3.x for over a year and a half.

Microsoft knows that the web server market is dead, from a profit standpoint - you can't sell a standalone web server anymore. They'll just keep updating it and bundling it with Windows so that the overall Windows platform checks out OK versus the competition. Since there's no money to be made here, why bother innovating?

Re:watch out...

[nygeek]

The point is that the traditional Microsoft
strategy is to add features. Features that
can be named and explained seem to be more
effective in making sales than characteristics
like "more secure" and "more stable." Probably
because the payoff for security and stability
are longer term while the payoffs for more
features can be immediate.

Astonishing Lack of Information

[rommi5]

Its well know that Microsoft are rewriting IIS from the ground up. It wasnt finished in time for XP pro or home, and some say that it may now not be ready for Blackcomb. But to suggest that MS are giving up on IIS is absurd.

Re:Astonishing Lack of Information

[Anonymous Coward]

Its well know that Microsoft are rewriting IIS from the ground up.

And this time they're going to make sure the new web server software is written by beings who resemble programmers (perhaps), rather than a large group of circus elephants using massive circus elephant keyboards.

Re:Astonishing Lack of Information

[rommi5]

>And this time they're going to make sure the new web server software is written by beings who resemble programmers (perhaps), rather than a large group of circus elephants using massive circus elephant keyboards.

I love these comments, most probably from people who couldnt code one line. IIS is actually a very good web server, otherwise Dell couldnt do 14 million dollars of business everyday on it could they ?

IIS is being written with buffer overrun protection built in as well as new features, buffer checking is now an option for C++ non managed code in VS.Net, and all managed code in .Net is protected.

People used to moan about Windows crashing (from 3.1x days). No one accuses windows of crashing these days certainly not Win2k or WinXP.

Shortly, MS will get security right, then people will have one less thing to moan about with regard to Windows.

Security, and the fact MS actually charge for their software (gasp/shock/horror) are really the only two things anti M$ children belly ache about these days.

I like config files better

[Anonymous Coward]

because they can be managed with a cvs repository. Anyone who manages more than a couple of boxes and isn't using cvs to manage config files changes really needs to look into do this.

There is nothing better than doing a cvs checkout and being able to access 100 sets of config files for every server, use a script to make changes across all the servers, check them in and then let a cron job on each individual server check for changes and restart the affected services when it updates their configuration files.

It is also great to be able to review every change to every config file and to see _why_, _who_ and _when_ those changes were made. Want to revert back to the exact same configuration that was in use 6 months ago? No problem.

GUI's are nice for managing one box, but configuration files are the method of choice when you are managing hundreds or thousands of servers.

Until the windows registry can be maintained using a revision control system, it is just a toy.

Re:I like config files better

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why Microsoft sells Application Center Server. The purpose of this software is that it controls large webfarms by a single configuration or multiple configuration, and migrates these configurations to every server in the farm. If configuration changes require the server to be dropped, it also does this in a staggering manner so that the site is never unavailable.

Re:I like config files better

[SuiteSisterMary]

Until the windows registry can be maintained using a revision control system, it is just a toy.

You can use .reg files to define keys and values. These can be checked into CVS, and can be applied from a command line, I believe. That having been said, the MS way would be to use a WSH script with your API of choice to make changes, either by creating 'change scripts' or by storing the key/value/date/reason-why-done sets in a database. Oh, and with DCOM and domain auth, you can distribute the changes across an entire network quite easily. Windows is just as flexible and scriptable as UNIX; it's just done in a different way.

Re:I like config files better

[wadetemp]

FYI, while IIS (version 5 and version 6) may not be config file configurable, in a W2K or XP ASP.NET configuration they are nothing more than no-configuration-needed shims for the .NET framework, which is fully configurable using XML files. You can set performance, security, and your own custom properties for each individual component, group of components, or the entire ASP.NET system.

Re:I like config files better

[purplemonkeydan]

IIS 6 (.Net Server) allows the metabase (where IIS keeps it's settings) to be stored in an XML file. You make a change to the XML file, it updates the metabase. You make a change to the metabase, it updates the XML file.

Very handy if you want to keep a standardised configuration backup.

Apache vs. IIS

[Jennifer Ever]

Not to dump on Apache or anything, but-- One of the reasons why so many people use Apache is that it's free, not that it's necessarily a better product. If you're a small web host, well, a free server running atop a free OS beats the hell out of something like IIS, where you're paying for features that probably aren't going to get used all that often. Apache is a nice product, but let's face it--if MS decided to pour their resources into building a web server for *nix, they could probably produce some pretty incredible stuff. Of course, their whole business vision will probably prevent this from happening (and, for that matter, would probably end up crippling the product anyway). This isn't to say that Apache is a bad product--I have no doubt that there're plenty of hosts running it because it because it's simply the best product on the market for their needs, regardless of cost. Personally, I really prefer Apache to IIS, but I've only used either of them slightly, and never in a real administrative context. As for the article... What exactly does the author think MS is going to do? Drop out of the server market entirely? I mean, honestly, if you're going to draw a conclusion, which one seems more reasonable: that MS's vision of a net dominiated by MS/.Net is going to lead them to delve even deeper into the server market, or that because IIS isn't included with a couple of home/workstation OSs, it's being EOLed by MS? As far as I know, there's never been a full-featured version of IIS included with any home/workstation OS from MS.

Re:Apache vs. IIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as the guy who designed the web hosting systems for an ISP, I chose Apache over Netscape and IIS, because both Netscape and IIS are, basically, big loads of crap. They don't scale well, don't configure well, and are less well supported by popular web development tools than is Apache.

In other words, I chose Apache because it was better, not because it was cheaper.

Re:Apache vs. IIS

[archen]

if MS decided to pour their resources into building a web server for *nix, they could probably produce some pretty incredible stuff

As pure speculation, I'd venture to say they couldn't do as well as Apache. Microsoft making something, clean, efficent, extensable and open would be a feat within itself. In my opinion MS would have a hard time dealing with two things. 1) Not integrating with the entire OS or some other half related application. 2) Security mindset - running nothing with root permissions (unless absolutely neccesary). I mean if the only people that used Apache used it because it was free, it would probably only have the same marketshare as Linux...

Re:Apache vs. IIS

[Jennifer Ever]

Well, that's sort of what I meant by their business vision preventing it from happening. MS has a lot of money and no doubt many, many talented programmers, and between the two, I think a really awesome server could be produced. But you're right, the company would fuck it up. The business side is so bent on complete MS dominance that it's pretty doubtful they'd even consider producing something like this, and even if they did, there would be some absurd OS integration or proprietary protocols for interfacing with, I don't know, Word documents or Excel spreadsheets or something of the like. There would be lots of useless, half-baked features designed to give MS as a whole a leg up on the competition through proprietary interfacing with other MS products. And no doubt they'd release it before thorough testing and it'd be full of bugs. But those are flaws of company policy more than anything else. My main point is that MS has the resources (i.e. cash and clout) to hire experienced Unix programmers, get details on proprietary/commercial operating systems and hardware, etc. It's like this--how much better could Apache be if the guys developing it were getting paid to work on it and it alone 40 hours a week and had immediate access to whatever information/hardware/etc they need? Of course, I doubt there's enough money in the server market (without producing the underlying OS and/or hardware) to justify their doing this even if they were open to the idea. I'm just saying--they could do it.

IIS is there in XP Home and next windowses

[fferreres]

It's just that MS has a new strategy for software bundling. Windows will come barebones installed in the next 2/4 years and everything will be plugged from .net.

So they will not get sued for monopoly as everyone will be installing IE, IIS, OFFICE, etc from the net n a matter of seconds.

Of course, they key point is that only MS products will be able to keep the pace of their .net strategy.

Everything else that is a competition against Microsoft will have a hard time finding a place, similar to what we have seen in the past with Wordperfect, Quattro Pro, Novell, Netscape, etc. etc.:
- MS has privileged access to sources of new version and have a time/quiality advantage.
- MS can integrate stuff easily by creating dependancies to key basic stuff that ultimately force you to use their stuff.
- MS will control the "install" front end.
- MS can make free whatever they want untill they competitor dies (if he does not pledge as a MS servant) so there is no revenue model for producers unless they are MS slaves.
- MS patents and licesing costs will harm free/opensource products, just like RSA harmed free SSH clients, etc.

Ultimately, everyone would be forced to "voluntarily" install everything Microsoft wants...and everything will be tuned so as to "voluntarily" maximize MS revenues.

I think of this not as a prediction, but a possible near future scenario. This is independant of whether we like this or not to happen.

IIS going to .NET

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS is far from dead. A good deal of .NET (namely ASP.NET) relies on IIS (although it can be implemented in any webserver, or without one at all (System.Remoting makes it possible to launch a service EXE of your own design for the purpose of automatic SOAP communication between components over HTTP without the need for a webserver of any form.)) IIS is being overhauled for this purpose, with dynamic compilers to have ASP.NET code (no longer scripted, now natively compiled and cached,) which might be why IIS of today is being downplayed. I expect this functionality to exist in full by the time the Windows.NET Servers become available, with the cheaper Web Server edition.

Also, Microsoft has added new functionality to Visual C++ 7.0 that permits an application to define a buffer overflow exception handler that will add code to the prologue (4 cycles) and epilogue (6 cycles) of every function that deals with pointers to double check the return address. If a function causes a buffer overflow in any module (this would extend to custom written ISAPI modules) IIS could catch the error, report it to the logs, and gracefully kill the thread. I'm not sure that IIS now uses this, but I wouldn't be shocked if IIS of tomorrow does.

Re:IIS going to .NET

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY. Sadly, the author of this article (which should never have been mentioned on /.) seems completely uninformed of any of this, and jumps to amusingly inane conclusions.

Choose Quit to commit your prefs

[yerricde]

I find their admin utilities to be absolutely frustrating, in that I often make a change, and then open up the panel later, and it's back to the "default" setting.

This is a common problem with preferences in many applications. You have to make sure that the application writes its preferences to disk, and many apps don't do this until you close the app. So much for five nines.

(OT)You can moderate articles, just not...

[yerricde]

Too bad we can't moderate articles ... even I recognize this article as a troll.

Users can moderate articles, but not on a Slash site. Go to Kuro5hin or any other Scoop site and moderate as many submitted articles as you want.

--
Pinocchio

Servers timesharing with workstations

[yerricde]

Organizations don't run web servers on workstations

Some organizations use their workstations as backup capacity for servers in case of a slashdotting or for large static files that demand very little CPU.

Re:oh yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's MindCraft you moron.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[Anonymous Coward]

At work we have 2 webservers, one with Linux and Apache, and one with Windows and IIS. Recently we replaced the Windows-machine with a faster one and at the same time upgraded to Windows 2000. Ofcourse the windowsadmin had to manually create and move all the users/websites manually over to the new server, since there basically is no good way to script stuff like that on Windows. He is a MCSE and he sometimes envys the way I, as a Linux-admin seem to be able to script just about anything.

I love my Linux, the text-based configuration files and perl.

Server != production server; other reasons

[yerricde]

why ... would anyone seriously want to run Windows as a server

Because server != production server, and a fellow often has valid reasons for running server software on a workstation. Some users like to share a small number of files from their workstations and need more flexibility than AIM and MSN provide. Others develop web sites using tools that run on Windows and prefer to test their designs initially on localhost. If FreeBSD doesn't support your network card, your video card, or your sound card, what are you supposed to run on your workstation?

Still other organizations have an exclusive contract with Microsoft for operating system software or hard-bummed bosses who won't take UNIX for an answer.

Re:Server != production server; other reasons

[infiniti99]

If FreeBSD doesn't support your network card, your video card, or your sound card, what are you supposed to run on your workstation?

The answer: you go to the computer store and buy compatible hardware for FreeBSD. If you were talking about special-purpose hardware then this would be a different story (especially since such hardware usually comes with specialized software for a particular OS). A $15 network card should not be holding back your OS choice.

Re:Server != production server; other reasons

[archen]

If FreeBSD doesn't support your network card, your video card, or your sound card, what are you supposed to run on your workstation?

What if Win2k/XP doesn't support your sound/video card? Do you switch to Linux? Probably not - you get a different card, or try something else. It's a valid point, but that sword cuts both ways.

Re:Server != production server; other reasons

[Bake]

I dare you to do that in a big homogenous environment where, in case of some broken hardware the box is switched for a non-broken one (possibly keeping the disk).

It's not about admitting defeat

[gilbertt]

It's about them finally realising what a dreadful security hole IIS is in the hands of your average home user.

Some more info

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is some more information on this topic.

Check it out.

and article was wrong here too.

[Erris]

Let's have a look at that again: Microsoft's only downside exposure would be the potential demise of IIS, which has no financial impact because the Web server is bundled as part of the OS.

The finacial impact would be huge. Microsoft's desktop is inferior and free software continues to march ahead. Really, who does not feel like a veneralbe cripple on the M$ box they have to use at work? Microsoft's only hope for maintianing their monopoly is to extend it to the internet where their servers will then inconvienence all those who don't use M$IE. If this does not happen, Microsoft will be forced to, gasp, compete with free software's features.

Re:and article was wrong here too.

[scrytch]

> Really, who does not feel like a veneralbe cripple on the M$ box they have to use at work?

At work, sure, it's usually locked down so I can run my apps and not tweak it. At home? I have an office suite I can program in a half dozen different languages, a development environment without equal for C++, perl, python, haskell, ocaml. I use bash as my shell with all the unix utilities I want, including X11 ones. I run mysql, postgresql, and MSSQL for my databases, I run Java apps with blazing speed. I have my choice of IIS and apache for servers -- and run both at once, IE, Opera, and Mozilla for clients. I get remote access to my desktop with VNC, to my individual apps with MTS.

Frankly I don't see where I'm stuck here. I suppose if I needed to put up a cheap firewall I'm out of luck on my platform, but that's all I can think of offhand. Yes it costs -- I willingly paid for these features.

Absence of IIS in XP

[mentin]

> Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS, the proof being its absence in XP Home and its non-standard presence in XP Pro.

It is not installed by default in XP to avoid security risks associated with IIS. So users who don't use it, don't have to worry about installing security patches, administering it, etc. It is not about phasing out IIS, it is about mininizing security risks and exposure surface.

Re: Config., Security, Ease of Use in IIS? Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't included in Win9x either! Personal Web Server (PWS) was included but you had to manually go about installing it and such. PWS was not even a full IIS installation! And if configurability is your issue take this: in the last 24 hours I was able to install, configure, and build a simple database driven site using Apache, PHP, and MySQL. I had no experience with any of these other than a little with Apache. The config files for Apache are well commented and make plenty of sense. PHP does not yet configure itself for Apache but it tells one exactly how to do it. And MySQL configures itself easily with PHP on Windows box

FreeBSD threads?

[mike_sucks]

Does anyone know what they were talking about when they said "Developers are still working out compatibility issues with [...] FreeBSD's thread implementation"?

I know -CURRENT is working towards use KSEs for threading, so is the issue with -CURRENT, or are they having problems with libc_r (the POSIX threads impl) in -STABLE? Or somthing completely else?

Cheers,
Mike.

Oh my God, this is just too funny!

[sheldon]

I love it!

"Microsoft has seemingly acknowledged defeat: IIS is not available on the Home edition of XP and the Professional edition, by default, is installed without IIS. "

Microsoft get's questioned as to why IIS would possibly be installed automatically, or why it would be installed on a machine whose user probably doesn't know what it is... So in an effort to offer a more secure platform they change the configuration in Windows XP. Home does not get IIS, and Pro only installs it by request.(Actually Win2k Pro only installed IIS by request as well, and WinMe didn't ship with IIS at all either, but whatever)

Now this guy claims it's because Microsoft is abandoning the market.

That has got to be the funniest thing I have read thus far this year. There are some equally stupid statements made elsewhere in the article, but it's really not worth the effort to point them out. :)

Re:Oh my God, this is just too funny!

[Tony-A]

Oh, but we can dream. Maybe someday we can get rid of Code Red on all these systems that IIS was never installed on. ;)

Re:Oh my God, this is just too funny!

[bilgebag]

Slashdot: simply *the* best place to find out that articles I wouldn't have even known existed aren't worth reading anyway. Hmm.

LOL

[--daz--]

What a misguided headline. IIS will not "die" anytime soon, because it's a really good product.

"But what about all the security problems?"

Look back, you'll see almost 100% of the "security problems" that have plagued IIS recently have not been IIS at all, but ISAPI extensions to IIS. The core of IIS has actually been pretty stable and secure for some time now.

Anyhow, kudos to Apache for another great product, but saying it spells the death for IIS is rather humorous.

As to the "Microsoft has already given up...": this poster is severly misguided. It's obvious he has no clue about what he's talking about.

Ok, first, XP Home is missing many features of XP pro, this is by design.

Second, the "non-standard IIS" in XP Pro is another lie. "Personal Web Server" (aka IIS lite) has been around for a long time. It ran on Win95, 98, and NT 4 Pro (among others). Win2K Pro shipped with "IIS" but it was a restricted versions, not unlike PWS. Windows XP Pro ships with the same deal that Win2K Pro did.

Perhaps this poster should check his facts before further embarassing himself.

That scares me

[wirefarm]

I guess the thought of consultants 'doing IT' just so they can 'have a job' is something I cannot quite comprehend.

To me, that's like someone saying that they only 'do sex' to 'have children.'

Re:That scares me

[Anonymous Coward]

"To me, that's like someone saying that they only 'do sex' to 'have children.' "

this might be the worst analogy i've ever heard. a lot of people work so they can "have a job" because they need money to live and they do what they do because they can do it well enough to get hired for enough money to support themselves. there's a shitload of webdesigners who are not geniouses in their field, nor do they have a love for programming, yet they can do it well enough to make money.
yet you "cannot quite comprehend" this??
to the point where you're going to compare it to sex for procreation? damn..
i mean.. maybe i'm the screwed up one here, but i've never had sex with the intent to have children, but a LOT of people go into IT/web design, etc. in order to make $

Re:That scares me

[nomadic]

Uhhh...you don't understand why people need to work?

Re:That scares me

[wirefarm]

No - I just don't understand why people do IT if they don't love it. OK, maybe I do, in an abstract sense - It's indoor work, no heavy lifting, but I mean, life is short - do what you love.
I could probably make money and support myself doing something like sales or accounting or marketing, but I'd probably rather make less money doing something I was fascinated with than spend each week counting the days until my next vacation.
I've worked with people who had gotten some training and learned enough IT skills to make themselves useful, but very often there was something *else* that they'd rather be doing - they didn't love their work, did only what they had to and lived their 'real' life on the weekends.
Personally, I'd burn out pretty quick if that was my situation.

Re:That scares me

[nomadic]

Unfortunately there isn't that much really enjoyable work. I've heard people here complain about that a lot, how they don't understand people who work in IT but don't have a deep love for computers. What are the options though? There just aren't that many ways to enjoy yourself, and I doubt those people would be happier in something like marketing or accounting. For a lot of people I bet it's the least objectionable job.

Re:That scares me

[more fool you]

Maybe people in IT would like their jobs more if it wasn't for microsoft... I mean, I always feel a little postal by fridays after "coding" in "vbscript" all week

related stories

[csbruce]

Check out the related stories on the referenced page:

• Another Vulnerability Discovered in IIS
  
• New IIS Patch the Ultimate Fix?
  
• Microsoft Says IIS 5.0 Web Servers Vulnerable to Attack
  
• Apache Group Creates Foundation
  

Chortle.

Article laden with errors.

[Jayde Stargunner]

I'm sorry...but the person who wrote this article is very mistaken about the nature of IIS and Windows as a whole.

First off, it's not in Home because...well...it's HOME EDITION. IIS is one of the major "features" in Professional compared to Home. You didn't see them putting IIS in WinME, did you? Didn't think so.

Second, I assume by "non-standard" he means that IIS isn't installed by default in WinXP Pro? Yeah. Time to wake up to the FUD that has perpetuated about the "default install" of IIS. Windows 2000, both Professional and Server, didn't install IIS by default either. IIS has been "optional" for almost 2 years now. Unfortunately, the general /. crowd has chosen to keep saying "IIS is installed by default" over and over during that time, basically in reference to NT 4 only--which, honestly, is a painfully old OS at this point in time.

I'm not going to claim that IIS has actually gained ground in the last few years, since I honestly can't be sure given all the conflicting reports. However, all MS's claimed increases have taken place without IIS installed by default on all current, shipping OS's. The fact that this will continue to be the case should have little to no bearing on their current position.

Now, a brand-new Apache coming out? That's news. Talk about that. There's really no need to toss in anti-MS propaganda at any possible opportunity because it just looks plain silly. (Although I'll probably be modded down for saying so.)

-Jayde

Re:Article laden with errors.

[Rascalson]

Windows 2000, both Professional and Server, didn't install IIS by default either. IIS has been "optional" for almost 2 years now.

Maybe not by default, but install something that needs a piece of IIS and in it goes, that goes for getting something from an OEM as well. You can see some programs configure it as they install.

Corollary

[The Ape With No Name]

"Until the windows registry can be maintained using a revision control system, it is just a toy."

Until Windows can be maintained using config files, it is just a toy.

Re:Corollary

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything maintained by config files is a toy. So there. Nyaaaa! Fucking 2 year-olds!

Maybe he means ./configure

[Sloppy]

It's possible he might not be talking about the config files, but instead the pre-build "./configure" step. Building Apache really is more complicated than building "normal" stuff, if you have a lot of modules like mod_php, mod_python, etc. It goes something like (remembering off the top of my head) configure apache, then build all the modules, copy some files from the modules to somewhere in the apache sources, then go back and configure apache again with a long list of arguments, and then finally, you compile. It's a pain in the ass.

Re:Maybe he means ./configure

[spanky555]

Depends on where you are building it. On FreeBSD, using the ports, it's not such a big deal, IIRC. Debian may provide a similar ease of building with it's tools.

Re:Maybe he means ./configure

[Sloppy]

When you build Apache, how can BSD or Debian magically know what modules you want to build into it?

Re:Maybe he means ./configure

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely the debian apache is setup in a way that if you compile it, it goes looking for modules you already compiled and installed.

A bit like how software that suggests libpng will only compile it in if there's a libpng-dev package on your system.

Any debian package is setup in such a way that you can download the source and debian .diff for it, and then build it into a tweaked/optimized package. I've built software from debian unstable for debian stable like that several times, because it wasn't available yet in the stable distro. And the good thing is that when a version enters stable, your version is automatically upgraded, IF you want to.

Re:Maybe he means ./configure

[Hast]

In Debian you do it by doing apt-get install apache-php IIRC. It will then install apache if you don't have it installed already and configure it so that it works. You do have to remove a "#" on one line in the .conf file for Apache though.

Re:oh yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder NT won the test... the other computer was running REDHAT 5.2 on a 2.2.2 kernel. Now that M$ is moving everything over to 2000, recent pipe tests involving XP, 2000 and Linux (Redhat 7.1).. show that Linux outperformed the other M$ OS's by a ridiculous rate... also.. if this test was used with Debian... Debian would have won

Microsoft can't compete

[Tony-A]

with Apache on *nix.
The ability to run multiple Apaches on same machine.
The ability to run buggy modules with relative impunity.
The ability to upgrade Apache in place while the old one is still running.
Useable owner/group/world file permissions. Ability to have user and group with same name. Ability to soft-link so that logical structures do not have to reflect physical disk layout.
IIS might be faster. If I want faster I'll use Tux. If I want slower I'll use Tomcat.

Re:Microsoft can't compete

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the point here is just that though Apache has all of those possible configurations now and though IIS does not now have those possible configurations doesn't necessarily mean that IIS won't have the ability to do those things in the future. The more people say what it is that they like about software x, the more Microsoft knows how to change their software to match people's desires.

Re:Microsoft can't compete

[TaoJones]

...you forgot one:

The ability to make a few minor changes without having to reboot.

In a production server this is a Good Thing. I know this has been hit on in a lot of posts, but a server should just be there period. If your average random websurfer hits a 404 on your site (based say on a Google search) he's not going to think "maybe they're just applying the latsest Service Pack because of Code Red IV" - he's going to back up and click on the next link.

Now as far as "ease of use" goes, I find hand editing the Apache config files to be a lot more comfortable than drilling down through half a zillion cryptic configuration menues. I know that I made a change in line 23 of httpd.conf - so how much do I know exactly about the changes made (to both the application and the underlying OS) when I apply the latest update patch to IIS?

Give me "ease of control" over "ease of use" any day...

Re:Microsoft can't compete

[Flower]

The ability to run multiple Apaches on same machine.

True. afaik, you can only run one inetinfo.exe process on a server.

The ability to run buggy modules with relative impunity.

Process Isolation in IIS 5.0

Useable owner/group/world file permissions

NTFS permissions aren't that bad.

Ability to have user and group with same name.

Somebody with more experience running a web site is going to have to inform me on why this is important.

Ability to soft-link so that logical structures do not have to reflect physical disk layout.

What the heck is a virtual directory then? Have you even used IIS?

Oh and somebody else mentioned having to reboot everytime you make an update. With IIS 5.0 I haven't required a reboot after applying a hotfix for it yet.

If the developers need IIS or if management wants it on IIS I'm installing IIS.

Why it's not in Pro anymore

[NineNine]

This is simple. With all of the problems with badly configured default webservers on workstation boxes (anyone remember NIMDA??), it's the SMART thing to do to remove it from workstation boxes! That was a SMART move by MS. They're in no way giving up on IIS. They've just realized that if somebody wants to run IIS, they'll do it on NT/W2K/XP Server. IIS on Workstations is generally just a gaping security hole. MS has also been continuously improving IIS for years. In the past few benchmarks I've seen, IIS has blown Apache away when it comes to dynamically-generated pages (ASP/PHP).

Re:Why it's not in Pro anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is simple. With all of the problems with
> badly configured default webservers on
> workstation boxes (anyone remember NIMDA??),
> it's the SMART thing to do to remove it from
> workstation boxes!

No, the SMART thing(s) to do would have been to:
1) write (more) secure code and test it to make sure it IS secure
2) have an option to turn off VBScript (whoops - it's built into the OS - seemed like a good idea at the time - see also #1 )
3) not have made it a default install in the first place.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't turning IIS default install off NOW as the SMART thing to do - I see it as the COVER YER ASS thing to do.

Whatever happened in the past, the FBI and the DoD paying the Redmondians a visit damn sure got Ballmer's attention (albeit for a non-IIS related security flaw...) Not even M$ can afford to ignore the gub-ment..

Re:Why it's not in Pro anymore

[Mike A.]

Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't turning IIS default install off NOW as the SMART thing to do - I see it as the COVER YER ASS thing to do.

It's both, of course.

Re:Why it's not in Pro anymore

[NineNine]

1) write (more) secure code and test it to make sure it IS secure
2) have an option to turn off VBScript (whoops - it's built into the OS - seemed like a good idea at the time - see also #1 )
3) not have made it a default install in the first place.


1. IIS with all of the latest patches, and properly configured IS secure.

2. VBScript in and of itself works fine server-side. Also, you can use any scripting language you'd like with IIS.

3. Since nobody has yet invented a time machine, removing it from XP Workstation is the best thing that they could do right now.

IIS not end all, but either is Apache

[f00zbll]

It's great that apache 2.0 supports threading and other new features. Apache is a solid webserver, but it is far from the end all. IIS like wise is not the end all of webservers either. I don't claim to know the truth about the increase in IIS deployments, but IIS does offer useful features.

As other have stated, the article has tons of errors. Why in the world would IIS disappear if .NET is microsoft's push into enterprises services. Microsoft is trying to enter the world IBM dominates, so having IIS is an important piece of the puzzle. What part of web services does bob lui the writer not understand?

It's amazing he didn't read the whitepapers availabe on msdn site and see that HTTP protocol, webservers and SOAP are critical pieces. From my limited understanding, .NET takes the idea of ASP to the next level and integrates a new CLR into the webserver. It's obvious the previous ASP scripting engine for VB and Javascript wasn't going to meet the needs of .NET.

It's good that IIS is getting a serious upgrade to bring it closer to application server. Ever since ASP came out, it lacked a standard application server framework. When ever a website required stateful sessions with complex data management, developers would use Visual C++ and write com objects. Apache and IIS are finally getting closer to application servers, so that is good for developers. The article should have gone deeper into the new features of both servers and showed how it all fits into the new model of web services.

Re:IIS not end all, but either is Apache

[Anonymous Coward]

It's great that apache 2.0 supports threading and other new features. Apache is a solid webserver, but it is far from the end all. IIS like wise is not the end all of webservers either. I don't claim to know the truth about the increase in IIS deployments, but IIS does offer useful features.

Here's a little educational link. Pay close attention to the second graph, which shows actual use (rather than "market share" which basically means "we've sold this many copies").

http://www.netcraft.com/survey/

Note (read some history) that in no time in the last four years has IIs come close to Apache in usage stats. I doubt this is entirely due to Apache being GPL.

AG

Re:Configuration and scripting

[n0-0p]

Hate to tell you this, but in NT/2K you can script essentially everything. It's pretty much always been that way. The problem is that NT admins rarely ever learn it because everything appears so GUI centric. The GUI interface is very approachable to the novice. In the long run, though, you can only go so far with the training wheels on and to properly administer an MS system/network you have to learn how the OS actually works. Unfortunately that's not covered by the MCSE requirements.
I spent 3 years as an NT admin and I can honestly state that I scripted any repetitious or large tasks I encountered. Of course most of the other admins I worked with, while fairly technically knowledgeable, seemed oblivious to the concept of scripting or programming in general. I'm not a fan of Microsoft (I don't like signing 12 NDA's to look at my OS's source) and NT/2K/XP do have some serious flaws. But it get's a bad rap for the wrong reason most of the time, and a lack of scripting support is not really one of it's failings.

Quality Config Tools

[MikeD83]

What the GNU community has to do now is create quality configuration tools for our text based config files. Yes, modifying the text file directly is very powerful, but MSCEs and n00bs don't understand that; they may not even understand a part of the configuration. However, this is where Microsoft has the upperhand- easy setup/deployment. I know everyone hates this idea but: Apache NEEDS a graphical configuration wizard. I encourage someone to work on this right away as I am currently working on a configuration tool for Samba.
- Mike

Re:Quality Config Tools

[mirabilos]

Samba actually _has_ a good and working graphical
configuration tool. It's called lynx.

$ lynx http://localhost:901/

In combination with SWAT, of course.
By the way, be sure to use the firewall to block
incoming SWAT to the local network!

Re:Quality Config Tools

[the eric conspiracy]

What the GNU community has to do now is create quality configuration tools for our text based config files.

My opinion is that text based configuration for servers is far superior to the Microsoft GUI approach. Here are some of reasons why:

- No need to run some sort of windowing protocol over the network, be it X or PC Anywhere or whatever. These are SLOW. Hell, on Linux/Unix servers there is no need for any sort of GUI.

- Please explain how you grep a GUI interface to find that key coniguration parameter you want to change?

- Want to experiment with a configuration change? cp the text file to a backup copy, and hack away secure in the knowledge that reversion is just another cp away!

- GUI configuration tools under Microsoft are very misleading because they do not give you access to the whole story. Example - what does it take to install another service using port 80 on a Win2K server? You have to hit the command line!

There are many others.

The ulitmate proof of my argument is that there have been a number of projects to develop GUI configuration tools for Apache. Does anyone use them? No! Why? Because text configuration if far superior.

Re:Quality Config Tools

[90XDoubleSide]

Text configuration obviously offers more power for experienced server admins, but as the poster said, Apache could reach a whole new market if any MCSE could set it up with a GUI tool. If you don't already know the program, a GUI will allow you to configure it just by looking at a few dialogs, whereas you'd be wading through man pages for quite a while to learn how to config everything you needed to, so GUI configuration tools are far superior for environments where there is no dedicated IT person, such as SOHO, plus many middle-sized businesses will be able to lower the TCO of their servers if they don't need an uber-geek to config them, and even pros can often get something up faster using a good GUI if they don't need to change to many options from their defaults.

Now while there are advantages to the GUI front end, you are absolutely correct that the config files should be directly editable so that you can gain access to tweak every little option, something that is cumbersome to implement in a GUI, and preserves all the niceties of being able to grep the file or edit it where a GUI app is unavailable or unnessesary. As for being able to cp a backup, you will still have that, but you should be able to do that with any (well-designed) config file anyway.

Clearly there is a market for friendly front-ends to Apache, and wherever it is possible to be able to do something in both a GUI and a CLI, implementing both will allow the user to choose the tool that best suits the situation: configure it with a human-friendly and fast GUI or edit the file directly with the unlimited options of a CLI.

Re:Quality Config Tools

[lmd]

While I do agree with most people here and editing httpd.conf is the way to go, there is a GUI for Apache.
I've recommended Comanche to people in #apache on efnet when they ask for an Apache GUI config tool in Windows and Linux.

Re:Quality Config Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Something the hardcore 'linux boys' are saying alot is 'Who needs a GUI when you can just edit teh config in VI! FNAR!'.

Well to me that is quite a crap thing to be saying, why can't you have both?

Grow up and take the shutters off your eyes.

Re:Quality Config Tools

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Though I agree that text based files are great (I've done my share of Apache setups, I was web geek at a dotCom that went down in glorious flamage), there's nothing stopping you from having both. My reading of the the statement seems to confuse configuration interface and configuration storage format. You can have a GUI configuration program write text files. Comanche does this. Kind of a best of both worlds thing. You have all the benefits of a GUI and write out a text file. Curious users can even look at the text file and learn what their changes did. Downfall of this? Config program must be in sync with your version of config file format, or it may write things that won't work or may break things. This is kind of the problem now with no official "blessed" Apache config program.

BTW: a couple more benefits of text files vs. binary unreadable config data, UI of config tools notwithstanding:

• Can copy one and make one changes for other machines.
  
• Or automate those changes using postprocessing with macro tools and other text tools.
  
• Easier change management (ever try a binary file in CVS or SCCS? If so, I'm sorry). As part of the registry, IIS config can not be put under CVS, at least not easily.
  
• See changes with diff tools so you can change back what you messed up (and if you used CVS, find out who made the change and hit 'em with a bag of nickels).
  

What programmes? (wasRe:Article laden with errors.

[mirabilos]

Could you please tell me, what exactly programmes
do need the IIS?
On my W2k Pro there are only these in the IIS
folder (Control Planel->Software->...Windoze
Components).

But I remarked there is very few to configure
there...

Warning!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Above link is goatse.cx

Re:Warning!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You RUINED IT for me!

Why there's lack of driver support

[yerricde]

What if Win2k/XP doesn't support your sound/video card?

It's more likely that Windows will support a card than FreeBSD simply because many manufacturers consider the size of the market for devices that attach to FreeBSD workstations negligible compared to the size of the market for devices that attach to Windows workstations, and they spend driver development money accordingly.

you get a different card, or try something else.

Sometimes, there exists no acceptable different card. What if a company has an effective monopoly on a type of device (e.g. video cards designed for PCs) and refuses to release specs to developers of operating systems less popular than Windows?

Can't just look for the daemon

[yerricde]

The answer: you go to the computer store and buy compatible hardware for FreeBSD

OK, so a fellow goes into Best Buy and looks for video card with a BSD daemon on the box. He doesn't find one.

Then he walks up to a salesperson in the department and asks "What's the best video card for a PC running FreeBSD?"

"What's FreeBSD?"

Re:Can't just look for the daemon

[infiniti99]

Can't just look for the daemon

True, so he should look at his OS distribution's hardware compatibility list. I can't speak for FreeBSD, but SuSE, for instance, has a link to their hardware compatibility database on their front page.

Oddly, this is backwards from the Windows way. Instead of seeing what is supported on the hardware package, you check for support from the OS vendor. This also makes me wonder what the purpose of even listing "Windows" on a hardware package is. After all, since no one knows what a Linux or a BSD is, it obviously works on Windows. Maybe it is sort of like labelling water as fat-free.

Re:Can't just look for the daemon

[didyaseethat]

A day in which a person running BSD is actually shopping for computer hardware at Best Buy could only exist in a world where *nix is the majority OS. In that future world, hardware compatability will not be an issue anymore. Seriously though, does anyone who knows squat about computers actually shop at places like Best Buy??? By actually I mean not only going to laugh hysterically at the huge markup on their stuff.

Re:oh yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, a Pipes benchmark? Wow, you are one amazingly stupid person.

Moron alert

[NDPTAL85]

Yes apache is only good for serving static pages. Obviously it cannot and is not used for anything else.

You sir are a moron.

Apache run ASP and ASP.net?

[purplemonkeydan]

I'd like to see Apache 2 on Windows be able to run ASP and ASP.net. While Apache can run ISAPI applications (similar to CGI but without the performance issues), it can't run ISAPI filters.

If Apache 2 could use filters, you could probably get ASP.dll and the .Net one to run.

Any plans for this?

Re:Apache run ASP and ASP.net?

[(H)elix1]

If Apache 2 could use filters

Its called an apache mod.... More or less the same thing as an ISAPI filter in IIS, or NSAPI filter in IPlanet.

Re:Apache run ASP and ASP.net?

[purplemonkeydan]

Its called an apache mod.... More or less the same thing as an ISAPI filter in IIS, or NSAPI filter in IPlanet.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'm just saying it would be handy to be able to use ISAPI filters in Apache, so you can run ASP.dll through Apache without Chili!Soft or Halycon, which aren't perfect copies of MS ASP.

Re:Apache run ASP and ASP.net?

[(H)elix1]

Ah, got you. That was not ment to be sarcastic, BTW... The little C++ coding I do these days are either ISAPI, NSAPI, or an Apache mods to tie into a sindle sign-on vendor. Under the covers, they are similar birds.

The jump from JSP to ASP is not too bad if you are not heavy into COM components. You can add a ISAPI filter to IIS to redirect your JSP/Servlet calls to Tomcat, port code over chunk by chunk. When you hit 100% JSP, flip the switch to Apache/Tomcat and you are free! (well from MS anyhow, you don't even want to know what Websphere, Weblogic, ATG, and the others cost as app servers)

Re:Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Interesting
+1, Underrated

Metamoderate

[hendridm]

That's what metamoderating is for.

IIS usage actually going up?

[N3P1u5U17r4]

There is an article on Linux Today that says the exact opposite, that apache will die... see it here.

Re:IIS usage actually going up?

[the eric conspiracy]

That article on LinuxToday was written by someone crying "the sky is falling" when in fact it is not.

Web Services are a big deal, true. Microsoft deserves a great deal of credit for getting behind the idea early, and supporting SOAP etc.

BUT does that mean Microsoft owns Web Services? Not hardly. Surveys of developers are showing that they have bought into the concept of Web Services, BUT implemented in their own development environments, which increasingly means J2EE these days. .NET is okay, by why switch to .NET when you can get the same effect without changing to a new platform?

How does this affect Apache? Not at all! Apache is generally used as a front end to J2EE application servers to handle the tasks that don't need the services of the application server - images, static pages, etc. This is true whether that application server is JBoss or Weblogic.

hmmmm..?...

[HellCowboy]

"Apache 2.0 vs. IIS" ..Is this a joke?

Re:Uhhhhhh -- Installed by default

[xrayspx]

In NT4 server, you have to UNCHECK a checkbox, or else you get IIS 3. That sounds like a default install to me. If, like most 'regular users', you blow by any config screens with default settings, then you get IIS 3 when you install NT4 Server. This is a problem because, if you do not need it, then you won't install Option pack, and you're unknowingly stuck with a very very insecure IIS 3 webserver.

sort of on a tangent, but...

[caveat]

The APR is a library of blocks for portability issues that will help smooth the transition between platforms whether Windows, Unix or Mac.

Isn't mac now unix, and doesn't it come with Apache? I somehow don't see any transition problems with OSX in the near future....

Re:Configuration and scripting

[SuperLiquidSex]

This may be a stupid question but how do I go about scripting stuff in 2k and nt?

GUI Wrapper?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

I'm no expert, but have editted a few httpd.conf files in my time. I have trouble understanding how a simple GUI wrapper around the whole thing is any trouble. At least for the majority of servers where simply clicking "Next"..."Finish" should be enough to give them a fully-functional webserver. If you're doing anything fancier, you're probably already pretty comfy with .conf files.

I'm not saying that the good people at Apache should do it - I'm sure they have enough on their hands - but with the millions of computers running it, is there no one else willing to take care of this? If so - is Apache willing to accept it?

Apache vs. IIs == Godzilla vs. Bambi

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said

Webmin

[wirefarm]

Try webmin.
Even if you are quite adept at editing conf files by hand, webmin can be a real convenience.
It is a GUI administration tool for a lot more than just Apache. (mounts, samba, sendmail, packages, perl modules, firewalls, whatever...)
It reads from and writes to the same files that you would normally edit by hand, plus it does a better job than I normally do with vi.
It's web-based, has its own server and is written in perl. (Minimal resource usage and very good security.)
I can install it to all of my machines and administer them from anywhere, or just on my own network, if I like. (SSL is an option, too.)
It's sort of ugly to look at, but it works really well - It's one of the first things I install on any Linux box I set up.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[SpryGuy]

Well, for one thing, check out "Windows Scripting Host" on the Microsoft website. Using either VBScript or (much preferably) Jscript, you can do pretty much anything you want, including controlling any application that exposes COM automation interfaces. There are also Perl plug-ins for Windows Scripting Host, and I'm sure some others that I'm not aware of.

IIS Dead? Ha.

[MasterOfDisaster]

I think it's very doubtful that either Apache or ISS will be going anywhere, any time soon. Infact, Nothing MS makes (with the exception of all their osses but XP) is going anywhere. Don't get me wrong, Apache kicks ass, But, IIS has Microsoft and their billions of dollars of bank account. That's why it's hard to beat MS. Even the best quality sometimes loses out to piles, and piles of cash. On the other hand, Apache is one of the most easy to use and god damned powerful peices of software i've ever used. But, the poster was crazy. MS will not dump IIS for a long, long time.

Mac OS X: Apache is there

[kiwipeso]

Apache is installed as default with OS X.
All you have to do is open the Sharing Preference, click start WebSharing (& FTP if you want) and then it's on.

You then goto Library/WebServer/Documents/ and customise index.html
You can start Apache, make a personaised page and forget about it.

Pages for individual users are /~

Which reminds me, I have to update my site to deal my new info later.

IIS 6.0

[Vlad_Drak]

I've been working with IIS 6 (Whistler/.Net) for over a year now, and its actually come a really long way in this release.. (duck) Alot of the positives of Apache have been built in (remarkably similar..makes you wonder) like a text based config in XML, an HTTP kernel mode listener, and some really cool isolation features. For a shared web hoster its a god-send, letting you bind a virtual server to its own process (and security context), so if a customer starts hogging you just check the PID and voila you know who's the culprit. You can also ping the worker processes/virtuals for various stats and do non-intrusive restarts. Much better than the old days of having the whole server dump hard and a reboot.

Anyways, funny they didn't mention any of that in the article.. quite the clueless writer. I'll never claim IIS is as stable, secure, or flexible as Apache, knowing first hand, but its definately better than it used to be.

Next IIS = .Net Application Server

[e2d2]

Actually there is much to be gained in this area. As the development crowd demands more power from their application servers, IIS will move away from being another web server to a full blown application server (Think Java App Server). The whole .Net strategy leads one to believe that this is inevitable. There are obvious elements missing or delegated to older COM technology in the current .Net releases, such as messaging, transaction management, database->object mapping, dynamic discovery, SOAP/Webservice management, remoting, etc. I am not saying that these services cannot be used from within .Net, but past MS history tells us that its not done till it has a GUI and I think IIS, in some form, will be the front end on that GUI. Application servers are a huge market and I doubt MS wants to miss out.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[Trepalium]

Part of the problem is that the mere fact that such functionality exists is nearly completely hidden from casual view. The other problem is the scripting stuff is all located on MSDN, which says to many people, that this stuff is only for developers. The third problem I have with all this is some of the interfaces are just too difficult to find documentation on, or implement every concievable function you could ever want, EXCEPT the one you urgently need.

eyes

[joehahn]

"The Microsoft user is a big weiner in the move from 1.3 to 2.0," Rowe explained.

sgi and apache

[abdulla]

did sgi dropping input for apache have any effect on its development, i'm lead to believe that sgi's apache efforts were quite considerable

IIS 6 Info

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a post I found on the newsgroups. This is the most complete description of what IIS 6 will be :

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=iis+6&start=10 &h l=en&selm=upFKY2vbBHA.1540%40tkmsftngp03&rnum=19

IIS 6 in Windows.NET server

[Otis_INF]

Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS, the proof being its absence in XP Home and its non-standard presence in XP Pro.

Well, when I look at the Windows.NET Standard Server beta3 install I have here, IIS 6 is there, alive and kicking as ever. Besides a total new kernelmode driver (ala TUX), the installment of IIS is new (no more standard install of all buggy extensions) and Windows.NET server is relying more on the webserver than any windows server OS before: remote administration is totally webbased, the teamware software (sharepoint) is totally webbased etc. So saying that Microsoft has given up on IIS is totally bull.

Besides: XP pro has IIS in it, so another FUD article. Nevertheless, Apache 2.0 on Windows could be cool.

Interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you call THIS interesting? Oh my goddess.

Re:Interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Both Apache and IIS are pretty good."
How's that for an easy way to get points.

OT: Unix Backwards compatability

[xQx]

"The Unix world can still use the same CGI scripts they wrote ten years ago!"

Yes, and if you look at the /etc directory of a solaris 8 install, you'll see the sence in BREAKING those scripts every now and then.

WHY have I got symlinks to *BINARYS* in the configuration directory of a unix box? IMHO breaking 1% of the applications made 10 years ago in order to TIDY UP an operating system is a *GOOD THING*

Re:OT: Unix Backwards compatability

[Anonymous Coward]

Myself and most of the UNIX-using world don't seem to have any trouble finding what we're looking for. Except in RedHat...

IIS and default installation

[JonathanF]

One thing I'm glad MS has learned (or at least hasn't botched) is to make sure that IIS isn't automatically installed with non-server editions of Windows! Just because you're a "professional" (as Windows 2000 and XP might have you believe) doesn't mean you're inclined to - or capable of - hosting a web server.

It also keeps people out of trouble with broadband ISPs; I'm sure a few people have been shocked to have their connection cut and receive a phone call because they didn't get a patch for Code Red. Likewise, it prevents "casual" hosting of web servers; if you're determined, you can do it, but most ISPs are tired of people treating their $40-a-month cable modem connection like it's worth $400 (or more!) instead. The more recent treatment of IIS will at least force this to be a deliberate move by the user.

Similar to X-box?

[larien]

Sure, MS bundles IIS with Windows and so doesn't make any money off it and so ditching it and telling users to use Apache would save money. However, they do sell a lot of other software which ties into IIS, such as Visual Studio (for writing ASP pages etc) which is a money stream. Chances are, MS makes enough money from 'add-on' sales to justify keeping IIS around. In any case, it would look bad from a marketing perspective if they did stop IIS; aren't they good enough to keep up with some spotty geeks coding for free?

NB: I think Apache is a great web server, and I've used it at my old work and on my home PCs. The "spotty geeks" line is just what some might say; there are some very good programmers working on Apache.

Another Flaw in the Article

[RazzleFrog]

With such dominance in market share and quality, what new features could Apache's developers possibly add to entice even more users to adopt the Web server -- already the world's most popular?

I don't know if anybody pointed this out but while Apache may be running the most sites, Windows is running the most servers. Now granted some of those Windows servers may be running Apache but I don't think there is a significant amount there. The truth is that a lot of web hosting companies choose Apache because it is free and more scalable for large amounts of virtual domains.

Re:Another Flaw in the Article

[the eric conspiracy]

I don't know if anybody pointed this out but while Apache may be running the most sites, Windows is running the most servers [netcraft.com]. Now granted some of those Windows servers may be running Apache but I don't think there is a significant amount there. The truth is that a lot of web hosting companies choose Apache because it is free and more scalable for large amounts of virtual domains.

Not to mention that Apache is more flexible - the availability of source code is a big advantage if you need to customize your server - I just finished a project that required exactly that. It would have been impossible to do the same thing with IIS.

As Netcraft also pointed out, Windows is most popular with end-user and self hosted sites, where the host to computer ratio is much smaller.

It is unlikely that these small sites are going to take the time to replace IIS with Apache because their needs are limited to perhaps a few static pages and one domain. It also accounts for the fact that hacks like Nimda are so succesful - these sites are not administered by a real sysadmin.

Unfortunately none of these statistics say much about what the real impact of IIS vs. Apache to the whole interent is. For that we need a traffic weighted analysis.

Re:Another Flaw in the Article

[RazzleFrog]

Excellent response. I agree that a lot of IIS sites are not professional sites but I also believe that there are a lot of companies how use IIS but only for 1 or 2 domains.

Your point about traffic weighted is a great point but extraordinarily difficult to implement.

Department of Redundancy Department

[mickeyreznor]

Michael himself said to ignore this stupid argument of the article, but rather focus on the talk on apache 2.0.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[n0-0p]

Standard NT Command Shell, Windows Scripting Host, Kix scripting, and Active State's PERL and Python implementations are some major ones. I generally tried to use the straight NT command shell and a few additional resource kit utilities whenever possible. That approach was guaranteed to work on plain vanilla NT. This was a few years ago, though. you can probably assume now that all machines have scripting host installed on them at the least. The best books I ever had on the subject were published by New Riders. As I remember they published Titles on NT cmd shell, scripting host, and automated deployment. I've noticed several other books on NT/2K/XP scripting popping up in the book stores but I don't admin NT anymore so I don't really know the quality of them.
These days I work in computer security. Now if anyone wants to point out the most serious failing of the MS approach I'd say that's it. Too much point, click it works and not enough "Why" and what is the impact of this. That's where we have infinitely more headaches than with the Unixen.

IIS has its problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS is easy to work with under windows envionrment. I have setup several web sites on IIS for small companies/assoications. They are running ok, but you have to due with virus and reboot the machine regularly. Maybe Apache has its problem too, but I won't recommend anybody using IIS on serious stuff.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[n0-0p]

I wouldn't say it's hidden, but it's not very openly presented either. I never really found the MSDN of as much use in my scripting days as the resource kit. You pretty much have to plunk down the $80(?) for the resource kit to get started, but that's a one time purchase and definately worth it. Along with that you'll probably need a few books on scripting; I mentioned in another post that I liked the New Riders series. Other than that the majority of the scripting resources are built in to the OS or free.
I agree that these things should be more accessable. For instance, paying for the resource kit is absurd when really it's just a set beta utilities and things that should have been included. Also, there's no excuse why there is no scripting and almost no command line requirements at all for an MCSE. So, yes, it's a very frustrating thing to encounter. Especially when you come from a Unix background.

complete bullshit

[Ender Ryan]

The company I worked for switched to Apache simply because it is far more reliable than any other www server we tried. Not to mention the security aspects, Apache having few security problems over the years, other web servers having many.

Why do you think Amazon.com, Fatbrain.com, 3DRealms.com, Egghead.com, etc, etc, etc, use Apache? Because they can't afford IIS? ;-) Ha!

Apache is simply better, in every single aspect that matters for a web server, high end or low end.

Re:complete bullshit

[Jennifer Ever]

Yeah, I'm just sort of playing Devil's advocate here. I'm not going to rule out other commercial servers, but between IIS and Apache, I agree--Apache is better. I've had both installed at home for kicks (IIS on Windows 2000, Apache on Linux and FreeBSD) and done programming in ASP (on IIS) and PHP/perl (on standard Apache, as well as Cobalt's version) for commercial and personal use on remote hosts. In both cases, I prefered Apache. The Unix way of doing things vs. the MS way of doing things and all (I for one like editing text-based configuration files). And most of the times I've seen the two compared, Apache has come out on top. But you have to admit, there are lots of people whose primary reason for using Apache is that it's the best free server available, and they'd probably find something else to use if they had to pay for Apache.

And that's basically my point--Apache enjoys such popularity in part because it's free. The fact that it competes against commercial servers is pretty remarkable. On the other hand, it's obviously lacking something (and that something may very well be a well-known logo), else nobody would pay for IIS, etc.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[jrp2]

Well, for one thing, check out "Windows Scripting Host" on the Microsoft website. Using either VBScript or (much preferably) Jscript, you can do pretty much anything you want...

...including a nice virus. See info on the Gigger virus. Gigger exploits the Windows Scripting Host to do "anything it wants". The exploit sends a .htm attachment (not one normally thinks of as "executable"). Can't MS do anything without opening a gaping security hole?

IPv6

[3.1415926535]

Does IIS support IPv6 (or will it soon)? I know Apache 2.0 does, because I'm using it right now.

IIS is *too* easy to configure

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too damn easy for any fucking script kiddie on the net to "configure" for you....

Re:Configuration and scripting

[Ubernutter]

I have to both agree and disagree. Until Win2k scripting was an 'additional feature' e.g. free download, and was often overlooked. Having said which anytime I learn something on *nix I have always learnt as much about using Windows - especially scripting.

apache rocks

[timecop]

IIS is always full of bugs and remote exploits. There hasn't been a remote apache exploit in years.

Re:Configuration and scripting

[Anonymous Coward]

About your .sig: in my version of that quote, it's credited to one "Rich Kulawiec"

MSCE Configuration

[Nigel_Mellish]

From a "click and drool" vs. .conf/perl standpoint, OS X Server might actually provide the best of both worlds *someday*. Unfortunately, it all depends on Apple .