Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
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....
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?
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
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!!
Have a Happy.
XP Home is replacement for Win9x. .NET/owning-the-internet thing is centered on IIS and couple other things.
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
Whoever thinks MS is pulling out of IIS business needs to stop smoking crack.
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
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
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.
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.
Sig is taking a break!
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.
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.
"Freedom in cyberspace'd be fine and dandy if we happened to live there."
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
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.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
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."
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
> 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.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
IIS is not installed by default on Win2000 Pro but it is default in Windows 2000 Server.
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!
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.
"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
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.
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
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?
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.
.00 CLASS IN HAWAII PLEASE!!!
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
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.
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.
"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.
Game... blouses.
IIS is always full of bugs and remote exploits. There hasn't been a remote apache exploit in years.