Slashdot Mirror
March Netcraft survey
awptic writes "The March Netcraft survey is out.
Among the changes is a 4% increase in the number of websites
running IIS, primarily due, however, to register.com's domain
name parking service switching to mostly IIS servers, which account for over 2 million
of the 38 million sites surveyed.
Ironically, a large number of the websites were defaced shortly
thereafter."
Interesting.
If the parked domains can be hacked and defaced so easily, one has to wonder just how secure the rest of their system is, which is responsible not just for domain name serving, but must handle massive credit card traffic.
lysergically yours
It's interesting to see the trend occurring in the articles charts. It looks to me as if the trend has Apache leveling out and then dropping recently, and IIS use jumping hugely this year. Even accounting for register.com I see MS catching up strongly.
We (being a primarly MS house) got so fed up with this IIS (4.0) box that we actually put Apache for Windows on it. The main issue was dynamic scripting for site creation. A Perl script written in less then an hour (with minimal Perl experience then that, and NO experience with httpd.conf) was much more efficient then a huge VBScript (written over a few days) that accessed the IIS Metabase. However, with IIS 6.0 all site configuration and creation can be done by simply interfacing with an XML file.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
With the popularity of IIS servers on the rise maybe it is time that Apache gets a GUI and setup wizard option.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
You know MS/UniSys's new anti-UNIX site www.wehavethewayout.com? Well take a look at what NetCraft reports</a>
- and compare to the results of a<br>
lynx -head http://www.wehavethewayout.com<br>
command. Interesting. Has MS fiddled the server, and NetCraft is pulling some tricks to get the truth, or is NetCraft pulling a "funny" one?
What do you expect from a spam-friendly provider? That fact alone means that they are run either by the clueless or the criminal.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
What I really meant was this: pmgdirect.com (the marketing group that is running the campaign) had hosted the wehavethewayout.com site on THEIR OWN HARDWARE and the marketing company's OS of choice wasn't a Microsoft product. Of course, the web site has since then been moved to a box running Microsoft OS (the damage control part) and Netcraft hasn't yet caught up with the change. Netcraft does cache the results, see their FAQ.
Moral of the story: if you're promoting an operating system with the help of a marketing agency, make sure the marketing agency runs the web site in question on the "correct" operating system.
Follow your Euro bills at EBT
I have heard of several cases (all off the record, obviously) where MS has done just that. Wouldn't you consider switching if you were offered free (or almost free) licenses for all software in the MS catalog?
IMHO we are seeing the first signs of MS fighting back in the back office segment in ernest. This is not going to be pretty...
I nmaped them with the exact same command yesterday, and got a result of FreeBSD. I guess they changed the OS in a real hurry...
That begs the question.. If people choose apache because they are smart, and choose IIS because they are sheep, why do people choose Netscape, Zeus, Webstar and Website? What do those people know that we don't or are those people stuck by vendor lock-in? Are there certain webserving applications that are better suited to something besides Apache? Applications besides passport, that is...
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Because of benchmarks like this? (Note how, ignoring the hardware cost for a moment, the top-of-the-line 16-processor IBM pSeries machine running zeus supports 2.5x more users than the best-available 8-processor IIS server.) Also, zeus (and, may be, netscape enterprise, etc.) is known to have better single-machine scalability because of serveral interesting I/O techniques it tends to use---these benefits are more pronounced when run on operating systems like solaris that support fine-grained user-level threads to kernel-level thread mappings. On top of the raw performance, many also support application-level clustering and redundancy (may be important for some portal sites that demand underlying data consistency, and, which, therefore, require more app-level work to scale-up/failover than just adding more server instances). However, for the vast majority of the sites out there that serve out mostly static and simple dynamic traffic, I think apache is more than sufficient (these sites tend to be bottlenecked by the n/w, not by the server), and I would pick apache anyday over IIS for simplicity, stability, and security reasons (even the humble tux server almost matches the best-available IIS5.0 on the same hardware in the benchmark above in terms of performance; there is no need to go into security/stability comparisons).
I know that this is a well known fact among most /. readers, but no one else commented on the lack of M$ II$ servers on the 'Sites with longest running systems by average uptime' page. I think that should have been the lead 'comment' appearing on the front of /. instead of just announcing the survey results. something like 'M$ cant keep it UP!'