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.
Have a Happy.
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.
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.
[)amien
...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.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
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.
Sig is taking a break!
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.
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.
...i can skydive from this world...
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.
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.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
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??
>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.
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.
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.