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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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."

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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).

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

[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

[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

[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

[SuiteSisterMary]

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

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

[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 =)

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....

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

[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!)

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!

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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...

[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.

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.

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???

[Tony-A]

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

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.

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. ;)

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

[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.

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

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.

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.

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

[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).

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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..