eWeek: Apache 2.0 Trumps IIS

AK47 writes "eWeek has a very positive review of Apache 2.0, entitled "Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game." They recommend the native Apache version on Windows over IIS for production use, citing superior security with no loss in performance."

Comments

Looks like MS lose at their own game yet again

[parkanoid]

We saw it with WinXP also...

How well can it run ASP?

[autopr0n]

And if it can run ASP, can it run it 'all the way' -- ie could you take any ASP page and run it from apache?

If it can handle ASP, there could be a lot of changeover. If not, then most 'hard core' M$ shops won't change.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[mdemeny]

You can get a lot to run on Apache using Sun Chili!Soft ASP.

We were able to port all of our web-based reporting code with only 1 line change (including COM objects). However if your ASP is truly hard-core then it might be more difficult.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[sh0rtie]

who needs Windows at all with this

http://www.halcyonsoft.com/

combined with

.NET,.ASP both on Linux and having used it, it actually doesnt suck as much as chillisofts implementation

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[mikerackhabit]

Well, you could ask the folks at Apache::ASP.

From their website:

Apache::ASP provides an Active Server Pages port to the Apache Web Server with Perl scripting only, and enables developing of dynamic web applications with session management and embedded perl code. There are also many powerful extensions, including XML taglibs, XSLT rendering, and new events not originally part of the ASP API!

Sounds pretty good to me. Of course, I don't use much ASP so I don't really know what most 'hard core' m$ shops would need support for to be convinced to switch.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Bitsy Boffin]

Never mind that ASP sucks (I'm a Coldfusion on Apache developer and that rocks), but I would guesstimate that 95% of all ASP is written in vbscript not Perl. Realistically ASP is synonymous with "vbscript on the server". Sadly this means that until Apache can offer the ASP weenies vbscript capability that it won't be of interest to them. Coldfusion on the other hand works brilliantly with Apache, and if I could get rid of all the ASP coders using our shared hosting environment I would have no qualms about replacing IIS with Apache there.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[destiney]

If it can handle ASP, there could be a lot of changeover. If not, then most 'hard core' M$ shops won't change.

Then let the bastards be hacked... not my problem..

Who farted anyway?

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[jchristopher]

Jeez, from reading the posts on Slashdot, you'd think the main reason to learn PHP would be so you can mock 'simpler' languages. Look how cool I am, I know Perl DOOD! Well, some of us enjoy writing in a straightforward, yet powerful language that allows us to author web applications much faster than other languages.

What's not to like about ColdFusion? It even runs on your precious Linux, Solaris, NT, and several Unices. Your developers can code once and it will run on any platform.

Would you run Amazon.com on ColdFusion? Probably not. But 99% of people aren't building Amazon.com, are they?

I'd encourage you to:

1. Grow up;

2. Take a look at the evaluation version of ColdFusion server, show it to your HTML people and watch them smile as they realize that there IS a lanaguage you don't have to be a computer science major to understand. Yes, it's $1,200. That's 8-10 hours of billable time for a consulting firm. You'll save that much time on the FIRST job you do.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster also goes by the name "Bitsy Boffin," so the bravery is beyond question.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[revscat]

ColdFusion is certainly functional, but not very robust. Can it do most of the basic things that other server-side languages do? Sure. But with the advent of MVC models such as Struts this need is diminished. Or if Struts is too much, then you can build your own custom tags, or use existing JSP custom tag libraries. This allows for your non-CS HTML people to do things such as:

<table>
<sql:statement id="stmt1" conn="conn1">
<sql:query>
select id, name, description from test_books
order by 1
</sql:query>
<%-- loop through the rows of your query --%>
<sql:resultSet id="rset2">
<tr>
<td><sql:getColumn position="1"/></td>
<td><sql:getColumn position="2"/></td>
<td><sql:getColumn position="3"/>
<sql:wasNull>[no description]</sql:wasNull></td>
</tr>
</sql:resultSet>
</sql:statement>
</table>

The last project I worked on used this, and the designers (HTML people, with some basic JavaScript experience) were able to pick up on it after a single half-day meeting. Very simple, very straightforward, very robust, and you don't have to drop several thousand bucks into a technology that even Macromedia is showing signs of moving away from.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[tshak]

However if your ASP is truly hard-core then it might be more difficult.

I'm not quite sure what this means, but essentially, if your app uses ASP that does more then the simple "Connect to ADO, grab data, and loop over it", then ChiliSoft is not a good solution for serious apps.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[jchristopher]

ColdFusion is certainly functional, but not very robust.

Again, blatant mudslinging with no real facts - "not very robust" in what way?

Put it this way, if they were using ColdFusion, your HTML guys could have written it themselves, rather than relying on an admin (you) to provide them with a custom tag!

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[kson34]

ASP has been available on Apache for quite a while. For Linux, Aix, Solaris and even windows.
Costs a bit, but does have the advantage that you can swap all of your scripts over, for a much more stable platform, and if you run Windows Professional rather than Windows Server you certainly save a few bucks (the $500 for chillisoft asp is a lot less than the $1000 dollar difference between Win2000 Pro and Win2000 Server). Of course you can't actually run a production web server off of Pro due to Eula, but... You can also run asp on Linux, etc, however most real production shops that serve .asp pages have a ton of COM objects that would take forever to port to Java (now I understand why Micro$oft was so keen to do their N-Tier windows DNA with most of the business logic in DCom components on an application server somewhere, they realised that if ASP could be ported then realiance on Windows would be limited...)

I neither work for Chillisoft or Sun (who seem to own Chillisoft now...) Have only used the product once a long time ago, but I would certainly recommend looking into it for shops that are stuck on IIS. Anything to get away from evil IIS (which I am stuck working on now...)

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[tshak]

A) Halcyon's iNET does not (as of yet) run ASP.NET (which is much more important then ASP).

B) They require a seperate runtime that sits ON TOP of your Java Application Server. Double licenses per box (unless you use an Open Source JAS, however, I have yet to find an "enterprise quality" one).

However, it is pretty cool what they've done with the .NET stuff. Talk about a huge undertaking.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[FattMattP]

Apache::ASP provides an Active Server Pages port to the Apache Web Server with Perl scripting only

Then it's not very useful. Apache::ASP only implements the ASP framework. The majority of ASP scripts written are in VBScript. If Apache::ASP only supports Perl then you're going to have to port all of your legacy VBScript based ASP pages to Perl. You might as well rewrite them in PHP or C at that point.

When people ask if it supports ASP, they usually mean, does it execute ASP pages that contain code in VBScript or Microsoft's JScript.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[.havoc]

People who are dependent on ASP are like people who are dependent on VisialBasic or anything else that is inherently Microsoft-centric. I refuse to let myself and my profession get caught in a cycle that is inherently Microsoft. Why would I invest my time and resources to extend the Microsoft Empire?

It appears to me that you have your head up your ASP.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Bitsy Boffin]

Errr, helllo ???? I said, and I quote...

Never mind that ASP sucks (I'm a Coldfusion on Apache developer and that rocks),

I.e I AM a Cold Fusion developer, for years now, and love it, better than ASP or Perl or PHP or any of yer languages that have been munged into a role they are not really suited for (driving a web site). So read the comment before you reply next time.

And BTW, I am a BSC Comp Sci, I do run Linux, and I STILL use CF !

PPS: gven half a chance I would run Amazon on CF.

Sheesh.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the original guy but Coldfusion isn't very robust in that it's engine is flaky as all hell and is slower. I programmed Coldfusion for two years before moving to PHP.

PHP doesn't have much to laugh about over Coldfusion though (it's better but not by much). The OO model is PHP is broken. Any idea when they're going to fix that?

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Bobzibub]

For a quick 'n dirty port to try out Apache, try ASP2PHP. YMMV.

http://asp2php.naken.cc/
http://asp2php.naken.c c/faq.php

Cheers,
-b

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[revscat]

Put it this way, if they were using ColdFusion, your HTML guys could have written it themselves, rather than relying on an admin (you) to provide them with a custom tag!

And who provides them with the ColdFusion tags? An administrator! Look you big dork, if you think that runninng a freaking web site without a web administrator is a desirable thing then you have much bigger problems to worry about. Somebody is going to have to install the software. Jesus!

Look man, I'm being serious: ColdFusion is dying. If you are basing your career upon it I would seriously advise you to at least look into learning other technologies. It's proprietary, doesn't scale well, and is only supported by a single vendor. And Macromedia's energies seem to be increasing steadily over to JRun. I have been involved with over a dozen web applications from design to launch utilizing several different technologies, of which ColdFusion was a part. Very few people in the industry like ColdFusion or even take it seriously, and they have good reasons for that. Trust me.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[crisco]

When people ask if it supports ASP, they usually mean, does it execute ASP pages that contain code in VBScript or Microsoft's JScript.

Don't you go to COM controls when you hit the bounds of ASP performance or when you need a feature and don't have the time to write it in VBScript and nobody has open-sourced something? I don't think it matters what languages the Apache ASP modules support, you're almost going to have to re-do a serious web application from scratch when you change platforms.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Anonymous Coward]

"course you can't actually run a production web server off of Pro due to Eula"

Then its useless to any ms shop isnt it.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[zeptic]

If you really want to use ASP on Apache I'll strongly recommend you take a look at Chili!Soft ASP.

It supports several OS'es including Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows.

Several different databases is supported as well, as severel different webservers are supported.

At work we have used both the Linux and the AIX version. We ported an application from IIS with minor difficulties.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[elefantstn]

I'm not quite sure what this means, but essentially, if your app uses ASP that does more then the simple "Connect to ADO, grab data, and loop over it", then ChiliSoft is not a good solution for serious apps.

I think you can be more general here. Try "If your app does more than the simple 'Connect to ADO, grab data, and loop over it,' then ASP is not a good solution."

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[bobdole34]

First off; Stop writing Microsoft with a dollar sign. Your look like a moron.

You gota love the EULA - its much like the bible - theres lots of midly interesting stuff telling you what you can and can't do... Except for the "you can do..".

I have to laugh everytime I see 500/1000 dollar software for a free operating system.
Not to say that people shouldn't make money with software. (Risking a /. lynching) I'm not even against Microsoft.
But buying a $1000 package for a free OS on a ~$200 computer (what do you run linux on) is like putting a $10,000 cup holder in a pinto.

just my two cents.

ps. I typed this over the course of a week in DVORAK - you better rate it well! Daddy needs some karma.

'Microsoft EULA:
"All your rights are belong to us."'

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Phroggy]

you're almost going to have to re-do a serious web application from scratch when you change platforms.

Well then, that answers that question - switching to Apache is not an option, to many companies.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[Brian Knotts]

switching to Apache is not an option, to many companies

...and neither is staying on IIS a reasonable option.

So, now what?

Well, there's always Chilisoft, which is now owned by Sun.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[rmgrotkierii]

PHP was developed JUST ONE purpose, to drive a web site! You have no fscking clue what you are talking about, so just shut your pie hole, kthanx?

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[mgkimsal2]

So so late, but what the hell... :)

You're comparing PHP and CF in the above post. I don't think CF's object model is anything to write home about. It's not perfect in PHP, but it's improving some. And as a development/web language - sorry - it's still light years ahead of CF in terms of price/performance/scalability.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[ahde]

if it does much more, I would recommend ASP over IIS either. It isn't really meant for stuff like that. You should put anything complex in either an ISAPI module (not recommended) or COM object.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[ahde]

you can get chilisoft for 20 bucks with with a $995 Netra.

Re:How well can it run ASP?

[blue trane]

"should" and "build this under deadline pressure or get fired" often conflict.

File this review under...

[toupsie]

...Duh!

Re:File this review under...

[meshko]

To "duh" and all people saying how bad this article is:
yes, I agree, it ain't no review or comparison. But it is something a lot of people can show to their bosses and say "See, I told you. Let's switch." I mean, and boss which would answer "it's not really a comparison" would prefer running Apache anyway :)

We are currently running a weird mix of ASP through IIS and JSP through Tomcat where I work. I hope this will help me migrate the server to pure Tomcat on FreeBSD soon... I hope last week's 11 patches were last drop.

IIS is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

ZDNet officially confirms: IIS is dying

if only...

Re:IIS is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Earlier tonight, my (now ex) girlfriend looked at me with disgust and asked, "what the fuck crawled up your ass and died?". I guess it was IIS.

Yeah but..

[PopeAlien]

Yeah but, unless you hire an 'expensive expert' you can't write off the investment in apache. Thats the problem with free software.

heh. nevermind.

Re:Yeah but..

[irony nazi]

From the article...

Because of the magnitude of some of these changes, eWEEK Labs recommends that any site planning a move to Apache 2.0 first set up a system on which it can test all its Web applications and specific setups to make sure they work well on the new server.

Come on! It doesn't take an 'expensive expert' to know that *whenever* you upgrade a runtime server, you first set up a sandbox where you can test it... or does it? Did they even need to mention this in the article? Maybe they thought that some MSCE would instantly bring down a corporate website and attempt to install Apache, only to find that it doesn't run ASP.

Re:Yeah but..

[fishebulb]

they did mention at the bottom that anyone wanting to use apache 2.0 should set up a test server.

it should be pretty obvious but it's nice they do state it also

Re:Yeah but..

[RageMachine]

I work on several Linux boxen running PHP at a local ISP. I don't get paid as much as the 'shop techs'. Im living proof that your statement is partialy false.

Re:Yeah but..

[rodgerd]

So, when one of Microsoft's fine products is riddled with security holes, apologists blame the systems admins for not being competent.

When deriding superior, free alternatives, they claim any baboon can administer Microsoft products.

I'm failing to see the value proposition in a range of products which allow idiots to render a business vulnerable to serious damage.

Re:Yeah but..

[bergee]

Come on! It doesn't take an 'expensive expert' to know that *whenever* you upgrade a runtime server, you first set up a sandbox where you can test it... or does it?

I don't know... Why don't you hire me and find out?

Re:Yeah but..

[Anonymous Coward]

they forget to mention that you should wipe your ass after taking a dump.

It should be pretty obvious, but if you've ever seen (or smelled) a linux user, you have to wonder.

Re:Yeah but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Once apache is running, even a retarded MCSE can administer it. Just make sure you create an account on your box called "administrator" with standard user rights just for them.. ;)

(meaning set it and forget it!)

Re:Yeah but..

[SilentReproach]

This reminds me of one gun manuacturer touting their latest sidearm as being "so easy to operate, any idiot could use it".

A media hack replied: "But, do we really want these things in the hands of idiots?"

Re:Yeah but..

[Phroggy]

Yeah but, unless you hire an 'expensive expert' you can't write off the investment in apache. Thats the problem with free software.

Is anyone looking to write off an investment? I can be expensive if necessary!

Performance gains

[HD Webdev]

My only really big complaint about the eweek article is On Unix, don't expect a big performance boost with the new release. In tests of Apache 2.0 vs. Apache 1.3.24 running on Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux 7.2, performance was nearly identical (though still very good).

IMHO, Performance looks much better with 2.0. I wish that eweek did some more stressful testing of the new Apache.

Re:Performance gains

[norwoodites]

You have to use an OS where a thread is not another process like Solaris or Mac OS X, for Mac OS X you have to use Darwin 6.0(or Mac OS X 10.2)

Re:Performance gains

[RFC959]

This got modded "insightful"? A thread is never "another process"; threads exist inside processes. The whole reason threading was invented was so that you wouldn't have to have the overhead of another process.

Re:Performance gains

[norwoodites]

That is the current problem with the Linux threads and some BSD's, they are just another process with shared memory.

With Mac OS X aka Darwin, the threads are just mach threads and processes them selves are just mach threads, the opposite as most OS's.

Ok, but what about linux?

[awptic]

It's nice to see apache beating IIS on windows, but how does IIS compare to apache 2.0 running on linux? I can't find anything with a recent kernel, preferably post-2.4.10. Even an apache on windows vs apache on linux benchmark would be nice.

Re:Ok, but what about linux?

[awptic]

You misread my sentence, or i just wrote it wrong :)
I meant IIS on WINDOWS vs. Apache 2.0 on linux. mmkay?

Have we all forgotten

[madenosine]

that IIS is not so much about raw speed and security as it is web services? That this is what microsoft is really pushing?

Re:Have we all forgotten

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought microsoft was about "monkeys-can-run-it".

so that middle management could show the execs.."hey we didn't have to hire any expensive experts"

Re:Have we all forgotten

[vrmlknight]

well we all know it is not about security

Re:Have we all forgotten

[1010011010]

Yeah, we forgot, because all their ads were about speed. All the benchmarks they paid for/trotted out were about speed. Apache was about "doing it right, no fast" ... now that IIS isn't as fast, IIS is about "services?"

Re:Have we all forgotten

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who think that web services will only run on IIS are having the wool pulled over their eyes by Microsoft. For an open source implementation of the SOAP protocol, try Zope. For a real world example of use of web services, try Google's Web Service-based API. One could argue that the net has more to gain from the advancement of web services than Microsoft.

Re:Have we all forgotten

[madenosine]

Yes, were. You said it in your mindless flame.

Just look at any microsoft ad now. Chances are it is about 1 degree of seperation and .net

As I don't really feel like typing more, I'll provide you with a mindless link

Re:Have we all forgotten

[madenosine]

thats a given...

Re:Have we all forgotten

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. When you find that you're behind in the race, change the destination.

Every time

[SkulkCU]

"unfriendly administration interface"
looks to be the only negative thing they could say about it.

In fact, it seems to be the only bad thing I ever hear these days about most open source programs.
What the hell is going on? Do we need to hire some UI consultants from Microsoft or something?

Applefans: I'm kidding

Re:Every time

[archen]

"unfriendly administration interface"

looks to be the only negative thing they could say about it.

Yeah, and I'd say that's a matter of opinion too. So what if I have to go a (gasp) config file. I mean the apache config files are very well commented, clear, and pretty easy to understand. So I don't have cute buttons and whirly-gigs on my administration interface - trust me I won't cry myself to sleep at night. My main problem with IIS is that the configuration tools never seem to work quite right, or take forever to do _anything_.
Of course I'm pretty biased since I've always had good results with Apache. I've also never been all that impressed with the MS config tools using MS specific terminology which I have to look up in help files to figure out what they're talking about (yeah, my fault for not learning it).

Re:Every time

[shogun]

"unfriendly administration interface"
looks to be the only negative thing they could say about it.

In fact, it seems to be the only bad thing I ever hear these days about most open source programs.
What the hell is going on? Do we need to hire some UI consultants from Microsoft or something?

I would have to say quite the opposite about trying to admin an IIS machine, you want to change a simple setting? Expect to spend half an hour navigating menus till you find the setting hidden in some illogical unexpected location. Meanwhile to change the setting on almost any open source software package, just grep the config file(s) and you'll find where the option you want is within a couple of seconds.

Re:Every time

[flacco]

I don't have cute buttons and whirly-gigs on my administration interface

That's because you're an "expensive expert", donchaknow.

Christ, let's just give them GUI tools for config files and be done with it. It would ease the transition for a lot of IIS "admins" who would like to take a step up in life but have an inertia/familiarity problem. Settings that have a list of valid options to select from, a "help" button next to each item to help them grok the stuff that IIS has been hidig from them...

Point being, don't let your superiority complex get in the way of an effective conversion effort.

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

Point being, don't let your superiority complex get in the way of an effective conversion effort.

It isn't. There are already admin interfaces for Win32 Apache; notably one distributed by IBM. Try reading the article next time.

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have to say quite the opposite about trying to admin an IIS machine, you want to change a simple setting? Expect to spend half an hour navigating menus till you find the setting hidden in some illogical unexpected location. Meanwhile to change the setting on almost any open source software package, just grep the config file(s) and you'll find where the option you want is within a couple of seconds.

He's right. Exchange is the worst for that! Sendmail config files are simple compared to that beast! :)

Re:Every time

[Bitsy Boffin]

There are alredy gui tools for apache configuration - eg Comanche.

And also "over the web" configuration managers ( configure Apache, using Apache :-) )- eg WebMin (screen shot of apache module).

Re:Every time

[the eric conspiracy]

It's only unfriendly to a person that cannot grok the advantages of text file based configuration, such as being able to copy the file to a source repository, grep it for keywords, parse it using a regular expression, etc. etc.

In reality a text file configuration is worth a million GUI config tools.

Re:Every time

[glitch!]

I would have to say quite the opposite about trying to admin an IIS machine, you want to change a simple setting? Expect to spend half an hour navigating menus till you find the setting hidden in some illogical unexpected location.

Well, if you are in a hurry, that might be a real bummer. On the other hand, you could consider the menus like a kind of GUI "adventure" game, trying to find the magic icon to push so that you can go back to the great cavern (sorry, main menu) and activate the special option.

I'm joking of course, but then again I do see a parallel between learning to navigate a GUI and the patient exploration of an adventure-style game. For instance, I learned just about everything I ever needed to know about OS/2 just by exploring all the possible system menus. That - and reading both OS/2 2.11 Unleashed and OS/2 Warp Unleashed :-)

Re:Every time

[Bert64]

Yes a textfile, especially a well commented one like the default shipped with Apache is far easier than a gui. Gui`s work well for relatively simple tasks (eg the controls of a web browser), but when the interface needs to display thousands of possible options it just looks cluttered, and the only way to combat the clutter is to hide the options under sub menus, which destroys the usability aspect. Ofcourse you can search a textfile, how do you find which submenu a particular gui option is under, i have yet to see a gui which you could search for a particular option or an option containing a particular value.
And ofcourse you have more flexibility in configuration files, to type in strange custom configurations that a gui designed would never expect.

Re:Every time

[Bert64]

A two-paned interface, where the gui controls are say on the left, and the text configfile is on the right, and changed made in one are reflected in the other. This would aid those who depend on a gui, and teach them about the configfile and how their gui actions relate to the configuration file, at the same time. The ability to use common editor functions such as search and find+replace in the editor-panel would be very nice too, especially assuming moving to a specific part of the textfile (by searching) would update the gui side too. After a while most people would realise they can achieve faster results by going direct to the config file, but it doesnt force people down that road immediately, and a searchable gui would be a VERY usefull feature in it`s own right.

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only unfriendly to a person that cannot grok the advantages of text file based configuration, such as being able to copy the file to a source repository, grep it for keywords, parse it using a regular expression, etc. etc.

In reality a text file configuration is worth a million GUI config tools.


In reality, people are too lazy to learn how config files are organized. Actually, people are generally too lazy to learn anything. That's why MSCE's are a dime a dozen. They haven't actually learned anything but how the buttons/menu's are organized.

I'm not saying this is the way to go but it seems to be what the people want... no matter how sad it is.

Re:Every time

[cscx]

I've also never been all that impressed with the MS config tools using MS specific terminology which I have to look up in help files to figure out what they're talking about

Yeah, I know the feeling. Here, I'm in the IIS admin applet right now. Let's see if some of these are giving you trouble:

"TCP Port" That's a toughie.

"IP Address" Ouch it's gettin' harder.

"Home Directory" Oooh shiiiit... what was that again?

"Read/Write/Allow Directory Browsing" Directory Browsing? Is that like uh, ls?

"Execute permissions: Scripts/Scripts and Executables/None" Huh? You mean like Apache.exe? What's an executable?

"App Protection: Isolated/Pooled/In-process" Oh man, you like, have to be an uber-geek to figure that one out!

"Default document" What's index.htm do? I forgot. And what's this index.asp stuff anyway? Is it like PHP or perl or something?

"Document footer" Footer? Hah! Sounds like cooter! It must be one of those dirty Easter eggs that MS puts in their programs! Or maybe it has something to do with shoe size.

"IP Address and Domain restrictions" Uhh, what's an IP address again?

"Authentication Control" Who is this "anonymous" person and what does he have to do with IIS? Is he related to that Anonymous Coward guy?

"MIME Types" Heh, I hate mimes too. Reminds me of the good old days in the park.

"Custom error pages" Wots a 404?

Yes, this "MS Specific terminology" is sure a killer, all right. Man, if I got a hold of Bill Gates I'd let him have it with him inventing terms like "IP Address," "MIME type," and "executable." And that "home directory" stuff is just going too far.

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on dude...

someone mod this up!!

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

Another major advantage of .conf files people seem to be forgetting.

You can back 'em up as easy as 'cp'.

Then edit the hell out of whatever.conf.

If something goes wrong revert to the backup while you browse search online for the reason why. The Apache community provide much more informative online support than say Micro$oft.

When you do find the answer online its in the form of "add this to httpd.conf" rather than Microsoft Charades(tm) e.g. click this scroll down to that, check something else, lather, rinse repeat.

I work primarily with Japanese operating systems and don't even know what half the terms Microsoft use for their interface components mean so solutions offered online are pretty much useless.. but something like :

AuthUserFile /usr/local/etc/httpd/users

now that makes sense.

Re:Every time

[Samrobb]

After a while most people would realise they can achieve faster results by going direct to the config file...

Please - don't make the mistake of assuming that every user will eventually become a config file hacking guru. There are plenty of casual users who don't feel the need to grok Yet Another Config File Format just so they can figure out how to enable or disable 'Feature X' in whatever software they're using at the moment.

Any UI - graphical, command-line, or config file - can become an impediment under the right circumstances. If you have 500 servers to administer, a GUI that only works with one server at a time is an impediment. If you only use a tool once in a blue moon, a complex command line interface means essentially having to relearn the tool every time you go to use it. If you don't speak Enlgish, then a lot of "plain text" config file formats are as clear as mud.

IMHO, the best UI's are those that:

1. Start with a clean configuration file format;
2. Build a binary interface that is intended to read/write that format; and
3. Use that library to build command-line and GUI tools for manipulating the config files.

In this case, you get the best of all worlds - a sane config file syntax, a supported and endorsed interface for altering config files, and tools that both CLI and GUI users can feel comfortable with.

Re:Every time

[maxpublic]

Although I favor Apache over IIS for obvious reasons, I also favor GUI interfaces over manually editing config files. When I was young (oh so long ago...) we did that not because it was cool, or because it made us 'ubergeeks', but because *we didn't have any friggin' choice*.

Now we do. Modifying config files is fine; being able to modify multiple files quickly and easily via a GUI interface is even better. I'll take the GUI tools because I'm old and I don't care what any youngin' fresh out of college thinks about me and my quest for the quickest, laziest alternative. I know that someday he too will be old and lazy and looking for the easy road, and then he'll understand.

I still use Apache (laziness aside, it's the better product hands-down), but yeah, I'd *really* like a set of Tools For the Braindead(TM). I'm sure there are a number of Apache administrators who've had the same thought at one time or another, at least in the over-30 crowd.

Max

Re:Every time

[Electrum]

Congratulations, you just described how Zeus' configuration works. It's configuration file format is MUCH saner and nicer than Apaches, and it comes with a great web configuration GUI, that is much nicer than the one that comes with IIS. Their web GUI lets you see exactly what it will be doing to the config file.

Re:Every time

[loconet]

"In reality a text file configuration is worth a million GUI config tools."

.. I like editing .conf files. You are totally right, the control is superior compared to GUI config tools, but wouldnt it be nice to have GUI tools as an option?

Re:Every time

[wdr1]

In reality a text file configuration is worth a million GUI config tools.

Why is this always put in the context of one or the either?

Why can't you have a nice human-parasable text file AND a GUI interface?

Sure, I like the text interface for Apache. If you run multiple servers, it's *awesome*. Being able to rsync or dist one file is a huge timesaver over manually pulling up the config screen on anywhere from a dozen to fifty servers. Providing a base configuration and having machine specific settings in an include files rocks. And some of the slick tricks you can pull off w/ embedded perl (via mod_perl) is a blessing.

However, there are times when I just want to try something out, or setup something special on my dev box and HATE crawling through the apache docs to try to figure out the specific syntax I need. Ugh. It's a total pain in the ass. The distributed documentation is only decent and light on examples. The O'Reilly Apache book is one of the few that suck. I'd love a little gui application I could pop up and get the basics in place. Sure, one I know it, I'll probably do it by hand going forward, but jumpstarting would be a big timesaver.

So why not put this argument to bed and just offer both as built-in support with apache?

-Bill

Re:Every time

[haystor]

Yea, but do they have a slider that you can drag to the right to optimize the web servers performance?

Does IIS still have that? Surely that was a joke that got left in by accident or it was at least mislabelled since there was no reason to have the bar to the left.

Re:Every time

[haystor]

I agree completely. Part of the reason I'd like a GUI is because sometimes I'll go for months without having to change a thing in Apache, then I'll come back and have to remember some directive. After that I'll have to set some overrides so that this directive will actually do something. Every time I look it up in the documentation, the www.apache.org site has changed and I vow to actually save the documentation in a place I can remember next time.

Sure a text file is easier if you're using the stuff frequently and can remember the terms, but a GUI is nice to just pop in, twiddle one setting and pop out.

Re:Every time

[Fweeky]

> So why not put this argument to bed and just offer both as built-in support with apache?

Go write one suitable for production use, give it to the Apache Software Foundation, and I'm sure they'll be more than happy to bundle it, or at least provide it as a seperate subproject.

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has ever written one that didn't end up corrupting your config-files somehow. Probably because the format isn't suitable for automation, or they simply chose to spend energy elsewhere. One other problem is where to store meta-data needed by the GUI-tool (this shouldn't really be needed in a properly designed format).

The net effect is sucky at best. What we need is a simple, standardized human-readable config-file format (not XML, PLEASE!). A sort of DTD that can validate the file, translate it into automatic GUI dialogs and map changes back and forth. Creation of such a standard takes lots of time, people, different goals and money though.

Re:Every time

[afidel]

I believe that slider ajusted the balance between the time that other apps on the box got and what IIS took. Basically it affected how nice IIS played with the OS and other apps, so if all you were running on the box of course you would want it all the way to the right, but if it was also the db, dns, and proxy server then you probably would NOT want it all the way to the right. You could of course do the same manually by setting the priority of the IIS thread and a couple of registry settings, but why??

Re:Every time

[guinsu]

What a load of bullshit, you can be in and out of IIS in about 30 seconds. The only time you need to go looking for something obscure is when you are changing a setting that actually _is_ obscure. All the common stuff like index files, diretory security, 404's are pretty easy to find under the tabs.

Re:Every time

[Phroggy]

You have been eaten by a grue.

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

The more confusing and scary it is, the smarter I look. :)

Considering our apache server gets hammered by nimda probes from compromised IIS servers, I'll take my apache thank you. :)

Come on guys it's not that hard, plus if you make a config mistake you can just grep the config file and find the problem in seconds rather than hunting through IIS's configs...

Re:Every time

[5KVGhost]

Does Webmin support the Win32 version of Apache? Doesn't look like it. Comanche apparently does, however.

Re:Every time

[5KVGhost]

Nonsense. If it takes someone a half-an-hour to change a setting under IIS then I really don't want them messing with my config files, either.

Re:Every time

[daeley]

Why can't you have a nice human-parasable text file AND a GUI interface?

Hmm....

Re:Every time

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO REASON why you CANT HAVE BOTH. Whats with all the black and white thinking around here? "Must be text file". "No, must be GUI". "No, must be text file". "No, must be GUI", etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Yes, you are right, there are advantages to having a text file.

Yes, the GUI crowd is right, there are advantages to having a friendly GUI front-end.

And, yes, you CAN have both. A GUI program is quite capable of parsing and producing text files.

Re:Every time

[j09824]

The "unfriendly" administration interface of Linux programs is one of the main reasons I like to use Linux. You see, I rather prefer editing a text file once than going through endless configuration wizards and dialog boxes on Windows. Let's please not port Windows stupidity to Linux.

Re:Every time

[killmeplease]

I get frustrated as hell!!! I am a computer programmer and I am native in Unix but the world I live in is all Windows 2000. I get really frustrated when I have to complete tasks. To change GUI settings on Win software, where do you go??? You go into the menu lists, try to find one that works FILE-preferences EDIT-options TOOLS-options. The whole thing is silly. In UNIX you go through the .conf file and look through all the options or grep the option you are interested in.

Re:Every time

[Billly Gates]

ugly interfaces are inferior! Go ask any MCSE and they will tell you that gui interfaces are supperior to any text file editing. Geez

Re:Every time

[ahde]

I always got lost in httpd.conf till I piped it through grep -v ^#

windows version

[cdf12345]

After three years of development, Apache 2.0 (or, more accurately, Version 2.035) has finally been released. Unix users will find plenty to like in Version 2.0, but the biggest impact will be on Windows servers, where Apache can now perform as a production-level Web server.

I would hope no one was using the windows version for the last 3 years, this gives little reason to trash their unix to jump to windows.

I like Apache 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Been using it from beta for a month, no complaints.

So Lets See

[Peridriga]

The Upside

• Free
• Runs On
• Windows
• BeOS
• OS/2
• *Nix

No Performance Difference Interchangeable Modules

Downside

• "All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files

HOLY DAMN... Edit A FILE!!!!

Re:So Lets See

[dimator]

Seriously. When did "admins" turn into such pussies? Using text-based configuration is not so bad, especially when you can put the full power of $EDITOR and perl/sh/etc to use grinding on them to get things done quickly, without fumbling with a mouse for 10 minutes.

Re:So Lets See

[Wolfier]

I agree.

Any "sysadmin" who whines about having to edit .conf files deserves to be fired.

Re:So Lets See

[stirfry714]

You forgot the upside "can't be hacked by any script kiddie out there who's downloaded the latest attack script".

Of course, there's always the downsides for Apache- "log files get awfully full of failed attacks from owned IIS servers" and "don't get the amusement value of seeing what's been done to your web server's main page every morning by some cracker from China".

Re:So Lets See

[JordanH]

Not only that, but you can trade:

• Free

For:

• "All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files

If you buy the product your Apache from Covalent. They offer all kinds of Enterprise services to support Apache, too, so there goes the one about Apache not having a support organization behind it like IIS.

Re:So Lets See

[QuodEratDemonstratum]

can't be hacked by any script kiddie out there who's downloaded the latest attack script

It can, obviously. However the scripts come much less frequently.

Re:So Lets See

[danox]

I am at this moment evaluating a web server for a major product. I wanted to go straight for a apache, but management said to consider IIS and give them a comparison. In using both, I have found that the text file interface actually easier to use. I mean you have a file there, and every option has a nice description of what it does above . . . in IIS you get this little tree with . . . stuff in it. and twho the hell knows what these nodes do, you spend all you time right clicking everything, bringing up properties boxes, trying to find what the hell you want to do . . . it sucks. I apache its all laid out in a flat text file and you can just do a keyword search to find what you are looking for. simple. Anyone who can't handle this belongs in the other side of the browser.

Re:So Lets See

[doorbot.com]

Obviously the point-and-click interface is far too limited for configuring. I'd like to present my "think and type" method of input, patent pending of course. If you'd like to license this technology, please type me up an email. Please note that in doing so I will be forced to charge you (retroactively) for previous use of my technology.

But seriously, is editing a file such a big deal? What did people do with DOS and autoexec.bat files? Cower away in fear?

Re:So Lets See

[TaoJones]

Mmm, so editing a well documented text file is hard, while drilling down through a badly documented menu system (which reinstalls Visual Basic Scripting in the background without asking) is easy...

I'll take hard for $200 Alex...

Re:So Lets See

[Peyna]

With apache you can quickly write a shell script to add websites, etc. Run the script, answer a few simple questions, it will set the rest up. Need it a little different? Go in the conf and change it. Or copy and paste the previous entries and change a few things.

I liken configuring IIS to trying to do CSS in VS, it's a real neat tool and all, but I'm better off editing a text file to get it done. I'm also more confident in the security of Apache when I configure it. It's so easy to determine who has access to what, and what rights they have there.

Re:So Lets See

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree that the IIS UI sucks. What's the point of the "MMC", if they were just going to cram all the options into tiny dialog boxes that open more tiny dialog boxes? I've been working with the thing for years, and I still find myself poking around looking for stuff.

Re:So Lets See

[rodgerd]

Especially when it comes to configuring a farm of systems - copying text files around is a lot easier than pointing and clicking again, and again, and again...

Re:So Lets See

[spongman]

there's (at least) 4 different ways to administer the IIS metabase (all of them are more or less orthogonal).

• via the MMC plugin
• via the web interface (if you installed it)
• via COM interfaces (the same ones that the MMC uses) using some COM enabled language, javascript being the easiest
• via LDAP

There's no text file because it's a database.

Has Apache switched to XML conf files yet? There's nothing like a schema to make sure you've typed the right things.

Re:So Lets See

[spongman]

you can write simple a VBScript/JScript script to deploy IIS metabase info. it takes a little time to learn the interfaces, but it's no harder than learning the syntax of .conf files.

Re:So Lets See

[spongman]

any sysadmin that thinks that the only way to administer IIS is through the MMC also deserves to be fired.

Re:So Lets See

[jeffphil]

There are also a few registry entries that are located outside the IIS metabase. IIRC the registry was the location to remove the big print-services security bug of a year ago -- which I also think was the same security bug that nimda and code-red exploited.

Re:So Lets See

[tupps]

editing the .conf file is an advantage as far as I can tell!!!

Eg. If you want to turn caching of pages on the server off they can be in each web sites configuration as well as the configuration for the entire web server. I have to click about 10 different buttons etc to actually get to the page. Finally they cache the output from .ASP pages. I talked to a couple of admins (I much prefer my OSX box) and none of them new about this page hidden away!

Configuration files rule. Easy to work through, all the options are there and there is usually a description of what all the options *actually* do.
Rather than the usual trick of, "lets try this and see what works/doesn't work".

Re:So Lets See

[Sabalon]

you forgot on the plus side:

- can upgrade web server without OS reboot
- uses simple .conf files for config instead of registry or god knows what

Re:So Lets See

[bofkentucky]

Nimda and Red were directory traversals, basically an overflow triggered by the string of N's or X's on the default.ida processor led to the bad code at the end being able to jump out of the document root, edit registry, and install the almighty root.exe, or at least look for it.

Re:So Lets See

[Darth_Burrito]

I use Apache on Debian and I like some of the stuff you can do editting the config files but ...

The config process is overly complicated. When I first started using Apache there was srm.conf, httpd.conf, access.conf. It was sometimes difficult to determine which directives were supposed to go where and what all the files were for. Sometimes I would find myself putting something in one file that got over ridden in another file. Another annoying thing about Text file configuration is the syntatical complexity. If I am setting the server name, and I make a typo, well that is my own stupid fault... but I shouldn't have to worry about making a typo in the syntax for the ServerName directive.

There should be a level of abstraction between a user and whatever files a program accesses to determine its configuration. If properly implemented, a layer of abstraction can protect the user from himself, protect the software from the user, and make configuration easier by including some context to the config options (Eg help). What does UseCanonicalNames mean? Hover the mouse over it to find out.

I have read hundreds of posts by people having config problems with Apache and a good number from IIS/PWS as well. In Apache, it's usually typos or not understanding directives, with IIS/PWS it's often some weird registry hack causing the problem (how do I enable cgi). Both of these issues could be greatly reduced by a good graphical configuration utility with cross referenced help.

Re:So Lets See

[M1m3R]

Actually IIS stores almost nothing in the Registry...is uses the Metabase...

Re:So Lets See

[xtord]

Not at all.. Use Swat for a nice little webinterface if you prefer that..

Re:So Lets See

[EvlG]

I really hope Apache NEVER switches to XML config files. Why? Typing all those tags is a HUGE pain.

Apache config files work just fine now. Why switch? Just to have buzzword compliance, and inconvenience millions of apache users in the process? I think not.

Re:So Lets See

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell.. 6 years ago you still had to edit text files to get a decent Netware server running!
Windows 3.1 was still anchored to the system.ini and win.ini!

Anyone set up a pre renegade/telegard/wwiv bbs before? Yep.. Text files!!

Re:So Lets See

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you meant you could put "Free" as "downside" and "Edit conf files" as "upside"....

I mean, there are some people who think "they say it's better than IIS. how much does it cost? ... FREE?! I don't believe anything thats FREE!!"

and we all know that editing conf files is much more 1337 than using stupid GUI tools....

Re:So Lets See

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\WINDOWS>ping god

Pinging god.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.19] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 9.37.172.19: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 9.37.172.19: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=253
Reply from 9.37.172.19: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 9.37.172.19: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253

Ping statistics for 9.37.172.19:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 8ms

Re:So Lets See

[Sabalon]

That would be the whatever part :)

Either way, it's still not as straightforward as .conf

Re:So Lets See

[ceswiedler]

Using Microsoft's COM interfaces in VBScript is extremely easy. While I wouldn't recommend it for much else, VBScript is certainly no worse than Unix shell scripting.

Of course, around here, where everyone knows Unix and shell scripting, this seems looney. But the examples posted under this article about how "shell scripts make Apache easy to maintain" are easily duplicated with VBScript. The big difference isn't that Windows isn't scriptable, it's that most Windows admins don't bother to learn scripting.

Do you think REALLY big companies who rely on Windows hire admins who point-and-click their way through everything?

FUD goes both ways.

Re:So Lets See

[JordanH]

That was badly worded, wasn't it?

Should have been something like

Trade:

• Free

For no more:

• "All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files."

Oh well...

Re:So Lets See

[coldtone]

The biggest advantage with Text config files is that you can make and leave notes in the file. Like.

## I had to set the buffers to 20 to keep the app running. Crashes when set lower.

Or in some cases. When you need to grab someone attention.

# FOR THE LOVE OF GOD READ THIS!!
# SETTING THE SERVER TO PORT 80 WILL CRASH THE NETWORK
# PORT 80 MUST BE LEFT OPEN FOR THE MAX APPP
#

You can't do this with a gui.

Re:So Lets See

[kruczkowski]

Don't forget when your doing your documetation on your system you can just print your config file, and not have to take screenshots of every window and put them in powerpoint slides.

"Yha, click here, no it's under the 3rd tab... no... wait it's here"

Or

"Line 13"

Re:So Lets See

[Peridriga]

8ms Avg round trip time!!...

God's got more latency than I thought

Re:So Lets See

[morgajel]

I'll take hard for $200 Alex...

um, perhaps you didn't understand the first time... try this...

I'll take hard for $0 Alex...

:)

Re:So Lets See

[ahde]

What happens when you add your own directives though? It's pretty hard to make a typo if you can't type it.

New config files?

[Anonymous Coward]

When migrating to Apache2.0 do I have to use new config files or can I use my own.

Re:New config files?

[Anonymous Coward]

do I have to use new config files or can I use my own.

Yes.

Re:New config files?

[Anonymous Coward]

gee, thanks for clearing that up ;-)

ASP Support

[Fuzion]

Most places use IIS because they want to use ASP as their scripting language, instead of Perl/PHP. What is the performance like with an ASP parser?
I don't think too many people will switchover, if it means having to rewrite all their ASP code, or if using an ASP parser is slower than using IIS, especially since IIS is free (if you have Windows), whereas the chilisoft asp parser costs money.
I don't know of any other free asp parsers. But, if there were ones that offered comparable performance, I'm sure a lot of people would switch over.

Re:ASP Support

[Peyna]

Ha! IIS is only "free" if you have Windows Server, lowly little XP Pro only allows for 1-3 connections I believe. Not very useful for much of anything really.

Re:ASP Support

[mentin]

lowly little XP Pro only allows for 1-3 connections I believe

This is FUD.

Re:ASP Support

[Anonymous Coward]

ASP isn't a scripting language. It's more a container of common libraries and functions. VB and Jscript and C# can run within ASP.

Re:ASP Support

[modecx]

I'm not totally sure on this, as I have never even felt the need to touch IIS, let alone windows (except helping someone with simple stuff) in the last 4 years, but I believe the limitations on IIS's connections are little more than a few registery HKEYs. I'm positive this applies to win2k (the difference between workstation and server are memory allocation, some process stuff and IIS configuration).

But as a whole, I think you have described the entire line of windows OSs quite well, and more especially the latest incarnations.

Re:ASP Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how so? I looked it up, and it's 10 connections, same as Windows 2000 Professional. That isn't FUD. I'm stating the truth about a product.

Re:ASP Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true about the connections, but XP does only allow you one host/website per box.

Re:ASP Support

[div_2n]

As much as I don't like Microsoft, I must make a little correction here. Windows 2000/XP Professional only allows a maximum of 5 inbound CLIENT connections. For inbound TCP/IP connections to an IIS server, the limit is whatever Windows, IIS or the computer can handle. Whichever dies first determines the limit. No one in their right mind would try to run a production webserver on an 2000/XP workstation. If you have a rackmount server you certainly wouldn't install a workstation strength OS on it.

Re:ASP Support

[Anonymous Coward]

1-3 isnt 10 :p

its to stop more lameo scam hosting companies setting up shop with a copy of their friends win2k and a basement of 486's

like they do with apache etc

Re:ASP Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Perl can be used as the scripting language in ASP.

Welcome to 1998.

http://www.fastnetltd.ndirect.co.uk/Perl/perl-wi n3 2-asp.html

Re:ASP Support

[pmc]

Windows 2000/XP Professional only allows a maximum of 5 inbound CLIENT connections.

Wrong. The number is 10. See Q122920 for the details.

Sheesh - maybe if I keep saying it people will learn.

Re:ASP Support

[ethereal]

But that's an artificial limitation - "Professional" is essentially the same as "Server" in terms of the OS; one is just configured a little differently to do client connection limiting, say "Professional" on startup, etc. A while back there was even a registry hack to change one into the other.

You're buying into market differentiation if you think that somehow one of them is "extra strength" and the other one isn't. Microsoft just wants to fool you into spending more for "industrial strength", and they did.

Great

[secondsun]

Ahh a free alternative that performs as fast as and more securely than a competitor. The good hting about this is how Apachae is worth the money and time, however IIS has many dynamic features that people like. Also IIS is easier to manage and maintain for an individual. My quesiton is, what are the pratical ramafications of a company completely moving away from IIS to Apache?

Re:Great

[HD Webdev]

They won't have to keep asking their IT people 'why is our web site down'.

I'm not being a smartass...IIS servers are down much more than Apache .

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

>>My quesiton is, what are the pratical ramafications of a company completely moving away from IIS to Apache?

The practical ramafication is that users will no longer see something like "F*** PoisonBox!" when they visit that company's web site...

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So why has my co. very well hit, 12MB+ PDF-full site have a 99.9% uptime?

Re:Great

[Density_Altitude]

because you serve static content

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

99.9% uptime ain't all that great man.

That means .1% downtime, or almost nine hours a year, which to me is unacceptable for a web server.

.01% I could live with.

I find asp to be better for dynamic content

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a Forune 500 company as a web designer. In the past, we ran a dynamic intraweb for all of the developpers to chat about current projects. We did this at first using Perl under Apache. Performance sucked! Page load times would sometimes top out at 30 seconds. And it had uptimes that were as poor as slashdots. We eventually switched over to asp/iis on NT4. Page load times dropped to approximately 3 seconds, and the uptimes increased tenfold. And to top it all off, asp is not a nightmare to program in! Based off the very easy to use VB, I had the pages ported in a matter of minutes. What's not to like?

Re:I find asp to be better for dynamic content

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT

YHL

FOAD

Re:I find asp to be better for dynamic content

[NewOrder]

Did you bother to use Mod_perl. or are you not educated as to the fact that every request has to load the perl interpeature into memory and execute it and then process compile and run the script for every request.

Re:I find asp to be better for dynamic content

[just4now]

No Problem.
Keep with your Microsoft stuff if it works for your shop.

What do you mean when you say "it had uptimes that were as poor as slashdots"? Do you have trouble accessing Slashdot? Personally, Slashdot is one of the few websites I can always access because they already know how to handle alot of traffic. I've learned that the "slashdot effect" is when a news article is posted here and everyone tries to read it via the link in the article. If Slashdot was as flaky as you imply, there would not be such an effect on other, more robust, websites.

Then again, maybe your just a troll.

Re:I find asp to be better for dynamic content

[Anonymous Coward]

Another moderator missing the point.
Trolling would be "Apache sucks" without providing a reason.

Many companies have had problems with perl, that's why ASP came around so quickly. It's easy to use.

By the way, this post is offtopic, please rate it as such.

Re:I find asp to be better for dynamic content

[afidel]

Slashdot regularly has the db server fall over which is not apache or perl's fault, it's mysql's. Slashdot used to just not come up when the db fell over, but now they just display the last static page that was genenerated for the front page.

Just awful

[rocjoe71]

...What a bad article. Starting off by claiming Apache 2 outperforms IIS in their very own tests, yet making not one iota of these alleged "tests" available. Really an artivle like this does a dis-service to Apache and Linux, smacking of evangelism.

Re:Just awful

[Anonymous Coward]

I did some tests too and I can second that Apache 2 really does outperform IIS. Hope this helps.

ISAPI applictions

[Maddog_Delphi97]

The news blurb doesn't go into any detail as to HOW they benchmarked it (for all I know, they might've tested only static web pages and CGI applications)... does anyone know how well it runs ISAPI applications? And is it easy to set up to be able to run ISAPI applications?

(An ISAPI application is basically a DLL files that is loaded into memory and it stays in memory until it was 'halted' by an administrator, thus giving it a protential performance boost over CGI applications. That's the theory, anyway..)

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Maddog_Delphi97]

And you must be the typical slashdot reader. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion.

At least don't log on as anonymous!!!!!! 8(

Re:ISAPI applictions

[mlk]

And is it easy to set up to be able to run ISAPI applications?
It's very easy to run the java equivalent to a ISAPI, install Tomcat, plock .war in the correct folder. (alas this has a slight overhead with the VM (as with .NET))

And for ISAPI add the line
ISAPICacheFile d:/rive/and/path/to/the.dll

Not quite as easy as IIS, but (alas) very few OS apps are.

mlk

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Apache modules have existed since before IIS was released.

Apache uses the Apache Module API instead of Microsoft's ISAPI, though its not terrible difficult to write modules that work for both with a thin abstraction layer. mod_perl and PHP are implemented this way.

Also, FastCGI is nearly as fast as in-proess modules. You trade a bit of speed for protection from crashes in the dynamic content code. The API is similar to CGI, but the CGI process stays around and handles multiple requests, eliminating the process creation/destruction speed hit.

Re:ISAPI applictions

[squiggleslash]

I evaluated this myself. I can't benchmark the performance, but it seemed adequate, ie I couldn't see the difference (but the DLL we use spends most of its time making TCP connections to another box, so if there's something funky that ISAPI DLLs do that means they're making lots of calls to their caller, then my experience will not be that valuable.)

It works fine, just make sure you use the configuration option (I forget which, but it's on the ISAPI page in the Apache 2.0 docs) to keep the damned thing in memory, and if it still seems slow, double check the errors log as that will contain warnings if it couldn't preload the DLL for some reason (like a typo in the path or summat.) Unlike other configuration options, Apache will blissfully ignore errors with that particular setting.

It's worth checking out.

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Maddog_Delphi97]

Well, the programming language I'm using is Delphi 5.0.. I think I'll stick with that since that's what I know best.

Besides, I've heard that Java performance is not all that great, especially if you use a virtual machine developed by Sun Microsystems... could be because most of the best Java engineers quit working there when Java was brand new..

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Anonymous Coward]

you heard wrong.

Java performs perfectly well for server apps, you should try it some time. If you're not too busy sticking your head up M$'s ass.

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Maddog_Delphi97]

I can honestly say that this is one of the most insightful comments made by an anonymous coward.. at least you've restored my faith in the slashdot community...

Re:ISAPI applictions

[mlk]

I guess a Delphi 5.0 DLL will work fine w/ apache on Win32 (but I've never tried, the idea of developing web apps in anything other than servlets really does not appeal any more[1] ;)

Speed wise, its more than fast enough for me, but I don't use an x86 in a production enveroment, Java on a sparc is nice & fast.

mlk

[1] I've played with all sorts of uglyness in my time, but then one mans poison & all that...

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Maddog_Delphi97]

OOooh, I see... so just because I use a BORLAND programming language, I'm sticking my head up Microsoft's ass.. how mature, that really makes want to Java a chance....

Tell you what, I've got better things to do.. YOU try out Java and keep the results to yourself..

Re:ISAPI applictions

[Maddog_Delphi97]

OOooh, I see... so just because I use a BORLAND programming language, I'm sticking my head up Microsoft's ass.. how mature, that really makes want to Java a chance....

Tell you what, I've got better things to do.. YOU try out Java and keep the results to yourself..

Seriously, you smug little Spac-loving little bastards probably have never really used an intel system, and don't intend to use an intel system..

Re:ISAPI applictions

[TulioSerpio]

Now you can make aa Apache module for linux/Windows in Kylix/delphi.

I don`t know for sure, but I think you can download a free copy of Kylix from Borland.

10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[cjc84]

Apache is the way to go. According to http://www.netcraft.com/, 9,522,954 active sites are running some version of Apache as of March 2002, versus only 3,966,743 active web sites that run some kind of Microsoft web server. Of course Apache is better, easier, faster and secure, but the numbers of active web sites running Apache versus Microsoft's number is just icing on the cake.

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

How come unix zealots are so willing to point out the number of apache sites compared to IIS, but when someone brings up the amount of Windows vs. Unix users overall, you come up with petty excuses?

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

... or maybe its because apache is cheaper

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[cjc84]

Actually, I never used Unix, Linux or the like ever. Only Microsoft Windows and Apple Macintosh OS. And I just like Apache better, but IIS is good to. I am more of a MacOS Zealot who can't afford a new Mac and am stuck with two PCs running XP and one old Mac. so :-P

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

And Linux is cheaper than Windows, so by your logic it should be more popular?

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, most of those Apache servers are running sites like BasementVirgin.com and MomsHouse.com. Apache has a larger market share, BUT IIS has a larger market share among businesses, especially of the Fortune 500 businesses.

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the people implementing the web sites probably don't have much say in the tools they use. Some PHB two or three levels of management made the decision for them after the MS sales rep took him golfing and then to the titty bar.

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, i don't know about you, but i'm much more interested in basement virgins than executive vice presidents

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes this doesn't take into account the number of "parked" domains by verisign that are running as Vhosts on apache.
Hell I could host a few thousand "This site just registered by Verisign!" on one lowly P-233 box with 128 mb ram running *BSD and Apache!

Why would verisign spend money on a bunch of 2k servers when they don't have to?

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Titties goooooood!
Napster baaaaaaad!

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Moonshadow]

This about the average intelligence/skill levels it takes to use a Windows/Linux box. Windows, being easier (And regrettably, less secure) is going to attract your Joe Schmoe users. Linux is a bit less user-friendly (Although the lastest versions of Mandrake are closing the gap). There are a lot more casual users than webserver admins.

However, people who run webservers know things about computers, and security, and speed, and trivial things like that. Therefore, they make an informed decision and choose Apache.

The Apache numbers are higher because the people who actually have computer competency know what to choose. The Windows numbers are higher because people are sheep and take whatever they're fed happily as long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to get their email and write their documents.

It's all about audience.

Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong.....

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Windows comes on 99 percent of new computers.

2. MS Office is still *the* killer app. It does not run on Linux.

3. They'll gladly put up with system instability and gaping security flaws for a friendly GUI. They are *not* interested in their computer other than it's use as a word processor, email device and occasional spreadsheet use. This is what most techs forget - that the vast majority of people view their computer the way they view their toaster.

All most users want is goddam toast, as quickly and easily as possible! This is not a bad thing, per se. Seriously, 80% of users would do fine with win95 (however crashy) running on a p166. They don't need/use computationally intensive apps. They could probably make do with an etch-a-sketch...

Scythe

Eh?

[MisterBlister]

What a crappy 'comparison'. I'm no IIS fan (an understatement), but IIS's 'game' is ease of installation and administration....The headline claims that Apache 'beats IIS at its own game' and then goes on to say how Apache is harder to configure (though better than older versions) but that's ok because many experts believe GUI-based configurations are bad for security?

Also, they don't even bother to publish any real results, all they say is "Apache kept pace with IIS during the entire test"..WTF does that mean in reality? Were they using dynamic pages or static? What were the software and hardware configs like? Numbers please?

If this article were the other way around harping IIS over Apache 2.0, most Slashdotters would (rightly in that case too) be ripping it to shreds for being a flimsy piece of shit..Hopefully we can all see it for the garbage it is, even if in the end it supports our (well the majority of us, anyway) favorite web server.

Re:Eh?

[MisterBlister]

I apologize for responding to my own post, but I forgot to add something...This article smacks of intentional Slashdotting. Someone at zdnet clearly knows that Slashdot will post any article that even hints at (Linux|Apache|OSS|Whatever > Microsoft). Why do the Slashdot editors keep being successfully trolled in this way? Ignore these stupid ass stories. They make me stupider for having read them.

Re:Eh?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Out of curiosity, is this Apache vanilla, with no apache modules plugged in? If so, what's the point of comparing it to IIS?

Re:Eh?

[wickedhobo]

You're comments about ease of use are specious and not very accurate. They didn't say Apache is harder to configure.

They said, "[apache has an] unfriendly administration interface: All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files"
Unfriendly doesn't mean harder.

They didn't say harder. If you say that it's easier with a GUI, you may or may not be correct. But, like I said, it's not what they said.

What's more, is the fact that the average IIS administrator in my experience (and I used to develop web-systems using MS technologies) knows just enough to get it running. Not enough to make it run well. It takes *more* configuration (through said wonderfully easy gui) to get IIS tuned up and secure than it does through editing config files.

I'm a developer, not a sysadmin, and I hate doing sysadmin work. But I'd still rather use config files than GUI's any day of the week. The only one that I've seen that I really liked is JRun (that amazes me too). Even the with the biggies like WebSphere, WebLogic, HPAS you still see SysAdmins tweaking in the config files as often as using the management interfaces.

Re:Eh?

[dimator]

Ignore these stupid ass stories. They make me stupider for having read them.

I are been reeding artichels like this on /. for years, and it dont make hasnt me any stupid!

Re:Eh?

[HaggiZ]

Yeah I agree. I'm employed full-time as a web developer and have to also wear the sysadmin hat for our webservers. We run a Win2000 network, so I didn't have a lot of choice on what I could install OS wise as the gods that be decreed we will use the licences we have paid for. And to be perfectly honest, there isn't much I miss from my linux/apache/php/mysql days.

IIS can be made just as secure as Apache, and those that think it's security is flawed are doing nothing but showing their ignorance of the product. Sure out the box it's going to get reemed, but takes no more 5 mins (or 10secs if you saved a copy of the registry keys ;) to tighten it up.

ASP offers me pretty much everything I'd want from PHP except for easy dynamic image creation (still possible, just not as slick) and cheap and easy dynamic PDG creation.

As for costs... thats a non issue. What possible advantages does running apache on a Win32 box offer me? I've already paid for the OS license, and I get IIS for free with it whether I use it or not. Admittedly it's been a while since I looked at apache on a 2000 server, but it wasn't to easy to tie in with our domain authentication.

So yay... apache realease a product that, according to the article, is just as good as the other one you get for free with the OS but no better. Oh yeah, and it's more difficult to configure and doesn't have an easy to use interface.

A good UI makes for bad security? Rubbish! If you wanna get down and dirty, you can still play with registry settings.

Re:Eh?

[jchawk]

apt-get install apache

Then some minor and I mean minor configuration and you have a webserver that is more robust and secure then IIS.

You need php support?

apt-get install php4

Follow installation script.

Man that's hard!

:-)

Maybe I'm just spoiled because I use debian.

Re:Eh?

[Paradise Pete]

I'd still rather use config files than GUI's any day of the week.

Me too! Except Thursdays. Thursdays seem to work out pretty well for using a GUI. Strange, huh?

Re:Eh?

[jchristopher]

What a crappy 'comparison'. I'm no IIS fan (an understatement), but IIS's 'game' is ease of installation and administration.

Look, the myth that Apache is harder to setup than IIS is simply not true.

And lest you think I'm biased, I'm one of those guys that is usually complaining - "open source tool xyz is great, but why is there no GUI setup tool?" - and even I think Apache is easier to setup and configure than IIS!

Especially on Windows, Apache is SO easy to run. You can download the latest and run the installer and have it running in 10 minutes. It has a GUI setup that takes care of the basics. Afterwards, you can easily edit the .conf file - it's all nice and commented and real straightforward.

After you've got it running, you can start/stop the service via a tray applet or using some shortcuts it puts in the Start menu. Couldn't be easier. IIS on the other hand is a complete maze of dialogs.

Re:Eh?

[Sabalon]

C:\Program Files\Apache> apt-get install apache
'apt-get' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

C:\Program Files\Apache> apt-get install php4
'apt-get' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.


So I now have apache with php support? :)

It really is a shame that tools like that don't just work on Winders. Then again

apt-get install secureMSwebserver

would probably crash the OS.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting the name of your website along with the fact that it's running IIS and then saying that "IIS can be made just as secure as Apache" to Slashdot is a good way to get broken into. Just a friendly warning.

Re:Eh?

[tshak]

What a crappy 'comparison'

Exactly. AFAIK, Apache has always been faster than IIS for static page loading. What's new? However, for dynamic requests (depending on multiple factors) I've seen benchmarks that show IIS bests Apache. The fact that they didn't give us a whole lot of info leave's the claims holding little ground. Also, Apache 2.0 is very new, and IIS 5.0 is not so new. Let's wait and compare it with IIS 6.0 (XML conf files, more security (we'll see), faster performance, and a stainless steel kitchen sink) when it comes out.

Plus, those of you saying that "Apache can run ASP" are forgetting that A) larger apps generally don't port all that well, and B) ASP is dead (or will die soon - hopefully!), as ASP.NET is where a lot of new development is headed.

Re:Eh?

[kson34]

>IIS can be made just as secure as Apache, and those that think it's security is flawed are doing nothing
>but showing their ignorance of the product. Sure out the box it's going to get reemed, but takes no more 5
>mins (or 10secs if you saved a copy of the registry keys ;) to tighten it up.
Hmmm, another Slashdot reader not reading the article and the points like "Just last week, Microsoft announced that 10 new security holes (several of which were serious buffer overruns) had been discovered in IIS." It's not just the incredibly insecure default configuration that is the problem with IIS.

>ASP offers me pretty much everything I'd want from PHP except for easy dynamic image creation
>(still possible, just not as slick) and cheap and easy dynamic PDG creation.
Sure, let's see ASP talk to Corba or Java (PHP can talk to com as well, but..). There are so many built-in functions in PHP that for ASP you have to buy as COM components (Spell checking, PDF creation, Flash creation, Mail manipulation, I18n through gettext, Shared Memory and the simple ability to treal any HTTP or FTP address as a simple file).

Besides which, with Apache 2.0 you get stacked modules, and a control over the entire serving process that you can't even begin to dream of in IIS. Take your mod_ssi output and then pump it through PHP and ram the output through mod_gzip. The kind of power that is available now in Apache is amazing, plus Windows users aren't really second (well maybe fifth or sixth with Apache 1.x) class citizens anymore.

>As for costs... thats a non issue. What possible advantages does running apache on a Win32 box offer
>me? I've already paid for the OS license, and I get IIS for free with it whether I use it or not.

If your running server, otherwise you are running PWS, which, well we won't even go there. With Apache 2.0 you have no real need to buy Server anymore unless you need the SMP features of it.

>If you wanna get down and dirty, you can still play with registry settings.

Yes, the joy of the windows registry. The reason to re-install your operating system every year. And people complain about Apache conf files, which are at least documented...

Re:Eh?

[sydb]

Even the with the biggies like WebSphere, WebLogic, HPAS you still see SysAdmins tweaking in the config files as often as using the management interfaces.

Hehehe that's funny, I've just spent the entire night through to 5 in the morning fucking with Websphere suffering under the sheer inadequacy and instability of the stupid slow crash-promoting java-based stinking pile of shit fucking admin console. Thank fuck for wscp in WAS4. Oh how I wish it didn't take half a minute to start every time I run it.

Did I say fuck?

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. the buffer overflows and other problems are fixed using tools from MS. IIS websites properly configured do not have problems with this sort of thing.

2. With IIS I can use either ASP or PHP, with Apache I can only use PHP.

3. Why would I want to pipe shit thru a bunch of modules when IIS handles all three things you talked about with a checkbox?

4. Win2k Pro comes with IIS, albeit for one web site. Anyone running more than one serious website on a machine should really have more than one cpu in it.

5. I've been running this same install of Win2000 since 1999... I don't install all sorts of shit onto my machine to fuck up my registry.

I'm not making a case that IIS is perfect, but the ignorant linux trolls who constantly bash it on irrelevant points bother me.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason Admins edit config files of WebLogic and the likes because GUI Admin tools are so buggy and crappy that I wonder if anyone tested them. In most of the cases the exist only to put a check on the web site "Easy to use GUI admin tools".

Re:Eh?

[Wyzard]

IIS really isn't easier to configure - it's easier to not configure and just go with the defaults. My Apache logs still regularly show Nimda and even Code Red hits, because people just throw IIS on a box and put it on the 'net and then never mess with it again. When you install Apache, you have to actually open up httpd.conf and look through it, and this keeps you from pretending that everything is already configured appropriately for your use of the server. And most Linux distributions have packge systems - if a major security hole were to be found in Apache, I could just run "apt-get update; apt-get install apache" (or, more likely, "apt-get dist-upgrade") and get the fix. No having to surf to Windows Update and mess with checkboxes and then reboot when I'm done.

I know there are GUI interfaces for configuring Apache, but I've never used any of them because, really, httpd.conf isn't bad. You can read it top to bottom and know everything your server will and won't do. It's not like it's not documented - the default version of the file has explanatory comments for every option. And if you don't know what something means, you open the docs and look up the option in the list of directives, and you notice a bunch of other interesting and useful-looking directives at the same time, so you read about those too. You end up learning, rather than just wanting to get it over with.

Re:Eh?

[um... Lucas]

IIS can be made just as secure as Apache, and those that think it's security is flawed are doing nothing but showing their ignorance of the product.

I think, as others have probably pointed out, you're showing your ignorance. The problems with IIS aren't just the registry settings, that you can fix. They're in the coding, that Microsoft has to fix. Sometimes, hackers are kind enough to give Microsoft notice of the exploit prior to announcing it's existance to the world. Other times they're not. And there's nothing that you, Joe End-User, can do about it.

Yes, holes will probably be found in Apache, but with every mention of a hole will probably be a mentioning of a fix.

IIS just has such a lame security history compared to Apache, that shouldn't be an arguing point. If you like IIS, just say so. But acknowledge the facts.

I've already paid for the OS license, and I get IIS for free with it whether I use it or not.

You can also get Apache for free, whether you purchased an OS license or not... With all the words mentioning it, aren't you in the slightest bit curious as to what all the hype is about? The last version you checked out was a completely experimental release... This one is ready for prime time consumption...

Re:Eh?

[HaggiZ]

I'm yet to have a single box comprimised, so I think the "ignorant" label may be missed place. A simply isapi filter to intercept all addresses and strip any that contain characters appended to the end that you shouldn't be expecting isn't difficult to setup. Granted microsoft should have done it properly in the first place, but they didn't.

Almost every exploit I've seen to date either targets a file extension that you just dont need to support for any legitimate reason I am yet to see (but IIS has enabled as default so you can administer the server through a web interface), or through a long mnagled URL that causes a buffer overflow. Both which can simply be fixed by a sys admin with half a clue. Both of which I believe MS has tools out to assist with now.

You can also get Apache for free, whether you purchased an OS license or not.

Yes you do. But the review was comparing IIS and Apache on win2000, a server you have to pay a licence for whether you like it or not. Alot of people on here seem to be throwing up the "yay! a free alternative to IIS." If you are running a free OS, you dont have IIS as an option to begin with. If IIS is an option, it's already free.

Re:Eh?

[HaggiZ]

Hmmm, another Slashdot reader not reading the article and the points like "Just last week, Microsoft announced that 10 new security holes (several of which were serious buffer overruns) had been discovered in IIS." It's not just the incredibly insecure default configuration that is the problem with IIS.

I read the article. And as I stated in a previous reply, these are trivial to overcome at best. I haven't seen all 10 obviously, and I will service pack the machines regardless within the next 24 hours, but the ones I've seen we aren't susceptible to. Simply blocking extensions you dont need, removing services you dont use, and denying malformed urls or ones that are too long to be legit or contain non-accepted characters prevents almost every "hole" I've seen to date for IIS.

And yes, I agree with you 100% that there is so much stuff PHP can do that ASP can't, but that has nothing to do with the web server, thats a limitation of the language being used. If PHP ran more stable under IIS I'd love it, but alas. But while we are comparing the two ;)

Yeah spell checking is a real bitch in ASP, and PDF creation costs $$. But there are utils out there (free) to do flash, mail comes standard and there other other free components which are more flexible, and http and ftp as a file is possible through a custom COM component quite easily, and if memory recalls is standard in ASP.Net (which was finally released last month).

The kind of power that is available now in Apache is amazing, plus Windows users aren't really second (well maybe fifth or sixth with Apache 1.x) class citizens anymore.

Which is fantastic and to date the only argument I've seen to warrant a second look at the product. But "beats" IIS is a big call. One of the biggest motivators for not running Apache to begin with was once installed you quickly realise, it's not the apache you are used to and love at all, it was a crippled cousin. Makes you feel a little used and deceived at best. But, time to take another look.

Yes, the joy of the windows registry. The reason to re-install your operating system every year

Heh, thank god it's vanishing (well slowly) with .Net

Re:Eh?

[HaggiZ]

pity the box the link points to isn't hosted in my country or maintained by me ;) It's some several thousand kilometers away running BSD and Apache iirc.

I'm not employed full-time by a pr0n site, sadly ;)

Re:Eh?

[HaggiZ]

Besides which, with Apache 2.0 you get stacked modules, and a control over the entire serving process that you can't even begin to dream of in IIS.

Oh yeah... and of course you can. Not many modules freely available that you can just install and run. But personally I'd not want to just "install and run" something that takes this kind of control over my machine. I'm more than happy to churn out a mod in c++ to take control of the process. No dreaming involved :)

Re:Eh?

[Fweeky]

Lucky for you Apache comes with a KLIK install system. There's no particular reason they couldn't extend that to provide a bit more flexibility over the installed config.

Nor is there any particular reason the PHP team couldn't write an MSI that supported Apache. No need for yet another set of tools that don't really fit in with the Windows way of doing things (although I suppose apt works quite like Windows when dependencies get screwed up or the "registry" gets damaged *grin*).

Re:Eh?

[Deusy]

If you can't follow the (very simple) instructions for installing and configuring Apache and PHP on Windows, there's no way you should be allowed in the same room as a web server, let alone administrating one.

Re:Eh?

[dublin]

Maybe I'm just spoiled because I use debian.

Of course, you're leaving out the most hideous, complex, and mine-ridden install of any OS on the planet. I'm convinced the Debian developers do this on purpose so that any Debian users have proven themselves "worthy" simply by virtue of jumping through the endless hoops required the get the piece of dung running. I for one have far better things to do with my time. (And for the record, the only time I have ever totally horked a Linux machine was Debian's fault after doing an apt-get update (yes, from stable): the machine froze instantly and was so botched it would not boot. It was easier to start over with Red Hat or Caldera (I don't recall which I used, now) than try to untangle the damage.)

I like some of the concepts in Debian, but it's really a pain in the butt to get up and running correctly. Somehow the Debian team thinks this situation is OK, as it's been that way for years now. If someone would munge the *concepts* behind e-smith and debian together, we'd really have something...

Re:Eh?

[vircum]

Debian/w32 where are you?

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, IIS's "game" is "whatever-the-marketing-department-decides-sells-t his-week".
Yeah, the article is a standrad business mag fluff pipiece, but it seems to be one of the more honest business mag fluff pieces.

Apache is consistently underrated by the media

[graveyhead]

I've always found it frustrating that the superior products produced by the Apache foundation are so sorely underrated by the mainstream media. Buzzwords like "BroadVision" and "WebSphere" are pounded into the heads of middle management by way of large advertising budgets. The truth is, however, that I can do anything a BroadVision developer can do *with no software cost whatsoever*

Cocoon is a brilliant publishing system which combines many of the Apache projects: Xalan for XSLT transformations of all kinds, FOP for building dynamic PDFs (don't pay Adobe but use their format anyway :-) from XSL:FO, Batik for building dynamic SVGs, and a ton of library code that makes building dynamic websites very easy.

Not to mention, Apache has provided us with solid implementations of *many* w3c and Java specifications, including SOAP for XML based RPC, and JServ and Tomcat Java servlet engines.

My point is only this: appreciate The Apache Foundation because they totally rock!

Re:Apache is consistently underrated by the media

[larien]

Websphere is not equivalent to Apache (in fact, you need a real webserver with Websphere; Apache works for this). Websphere is more like Tomcat/Jakarta/Jserv with bells and whistles. It also supports clustering (both load balancing and failover) as well as various addons.

Re:Apache is consistently underrated by the media

[Anonymous Coward]

Man are you an idiot. Did you even read past the first paragraph of the original post? The author doesn't claim that the Apache web server is equivalent to WebSphere. The point was that the Apache development group has done quite a lot of work in middleware applications that is often overlooked by the middleware development community.

Found this funny..

[mjed]

The article url is here. If you notice, it's asp. Maybe now that they've tested apache they will see the light and switch?

Re:Found this funny..

[Utopia]

There are running Win 2K.
See Netcraft.

In fact, they switched from Apache to IIS.

IIS6

[banky]

I have read a number of things about IIS6: mostly that it is a from-scratch rewrite, with a particular eye on security. Also you can assume it'll perform pretty well.

So, as much as I would like to see the world dump IIS in general, a lot of shops out there will probably just wait and move to IIS6 when .NET Server (or whatever it's called this week) comes out.

They know how much is riding on this release. If IIS6 isn't tight, fast, and secure, then people will start jumping ship.

Re:IIS6

[the eric conspiracy]

mostly that it is a from-scratch rewrite, with a particular eye on security

It will be interesting to see how this "from scratch rewrite" holds up security-wise. History has taught us that it usually takes a long time for a new code base to get the security holes wrung out.

Re:IIS6

[glob]

i hate to say this, but from what i've read of ii6, it looks like microsoft are finially listening to sysadmin.

check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/03/IIS 6/IIS6.asp

the main things that jump out at me are it uses xml as their metabase (finially i can use my perl scripts to *eaisly* maintain iis sties) and ftp *finially* supports chroot.

Re:IIS6

[0x0d0a]

Mmm. Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The Mozilla guys decided to do a complete rewrite to nail IE into the ground...and look what happened to them (not talking about product quality, just market share).

It's going to be interesting, this IIS rewrite.

Re:IIS6

[tshak]

Actually, you have to remember that a lot of security issues have to do with ASP. They are _NOT_ rewriting the ASP ISAPI, so any related security issues will not be affected by the rewrite. They have rewritten IIS6 with a focus on bounds checking due to the ludicrous amounts of buffer overflow holes. Companies will also be moveing away from the clumsy ASP to the not-even-in-the-same-league ASP.NET which is, in theory, a lot more secure.

Re:IIS6

[Dave_bsr]

The Mozilla guys decided to do a complete rewrite to nail IE into the ground...and look what happened to them (not talking about product quality, just market share).

wait. Just...wait.

Re:IIS6

[Bert64]

chroot? is there even such a thing as chroot on NT? hell, is there even a root atall? last i heard drives were named after letters.. assigning single letters to things is what they do at kindergarten when theyre trying to teach you to read/write, it`s the next step from color-coding.
Is there any way from the NT commandline to show the root (ie, which drive letters actually exist and which goto nowhere)

Re:IIS6

[Wakko Warner]

I have read a number of things about IIS6: mostly that it is a from-scratch rewrite, with a particular eye on security. Also you can assume it'll perform pretty well.

Why should we assume this? Given the track record, it's like "expecting" Hulk Hogan to beat The Rock.

- A.P. (christ, i feel so rednecky)

Re:IIS6

[loconet]

"..with a particular eye on security"

ohhh, so thats why iis is so unsecure, it ony has one eye! .. you would think MS would make use of two eyes instead

Re:IIS6

[manaway]

Since the 80's, thanks to Microsoft's PR dept. the 'next' version has become a permanent staple in MS's cupboard. Many individuals and companies (including myself) put off decisions until it comes out. Thanks to people like those in the Apache group, some currently available open source software is as good or better than MS's current and next version software.

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the track record, it's like "expecting" Hulk Hogan to beat The Rock.

IIS has always performed well. No one has ever doubted that.

Except you, apparently.

Re:IIS6

[banky]

IIS has always performed well, and Microsoft knows that benchmarks sell licenses.

In fact, I used to have arguments that went like this all the time:
IIS User: IIS is faster and easier to use!
Me: Apache is more stable, more secure by default, and easier to extend.
IU: But I can handle 20 bazillion hits a nanosecond, your site can't scale.
Me: Whatever.
IU: Ha, I bet you can barely saturate a T1! etc

Microsoft is obsessed with performance because performance benchmarks give "tangible" proof of goodness. They are not obsessed with security, because features are more important. Or were; who knows what it's like there now.

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read a number of things about IIS6: mostly that it is a from-scratch rewrite, with a particular eye on security. Also you can assume it'll perform pretty well.

This sounds like the standard Microsoft apologist "next version will be better - look!" spiel that I've heard many times before, usually from the same people. And they never seem to notice that they said exactly the same thing about the current product.

Re:IIS6

[DavidpFitz]

You'll be waiting a very long time, unfortunately. Moz isn't better for a consumer, maybe for a geek... but the important thing is that for the consumer it works with every site. They don't care about HTML standards, they just want to be able to order their books, and read their hotmail knowing it will work.

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be interesting to see if there is any mention of code licensed BSD-style in this "rewrite from scratch".

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

the above link had a space in it - correct link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02 /03/IIS 6/IIS6.asp

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

try again

Re:IIS6

[ethereal]

What's that sound? Ah yes - Joel Spolsky spinning in his, erm, website.

Re:IIS6

[the eric conspiracy]

You'll be waiting a very long time, unfortunately. Moz isn't better for a consumer, maybe for a geek... but the important thing is that for the consumer it works with every site. They don't care about HTML standards, they just want to be able to order their books, and read their hotmail knowing it will work.

If the rumors are true about AOL moving to Moz(Gecko), we are going to see some interesting times. AOL is still the largest user population, and if they ship Moz, a lot of webmasters are going to be fixing up their pages.

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

good ol' M$ FUD.

With Bill Gates in charge, Microsoft will never make a secure product.

Re:IIS6

[Wakko Warner]

Yeah, it worked really well on wehavethewayout.com.

Fucking retard.

- A.P.

Re:IIS6

[daeley]

ohhh, so thats why iis is so unsecure, it ony has one eye! .. you would think MS would make use of two eyes instead

Well, that would be missing the point, what with Sauron founding the...

Never mind, I've said too much already.

Re:IIS6

[glob]

on nt? no.
on 2k? yes.

2k added several features to ntfs that were long overdue -- disk quotas, encryption and mount points.

mount points allow you to mount a volume as a directory, just like unix.

regardless, in terms of ftp chroot is applicable irrespective of the unlining file system structure, assuming some level of heirachy (sp?) exists.

"is there even a root at all?"
yes. each drive has a root directory.

don't get me wrong on this .. i much prefer unix over windows any day, however i choose be informed about the alternatives, and you're a fool if you ignore what feature exist in the opposing camp.

Re:IIS6

[Anonymous Coward]

That problem could've been any of a million different things. The fact that the server was down has nothing to do with raw page-serving performance.

If you're talking about raw performance, though, ISS has always served pages as fast or faster than the rest of their competition.

Fucking retard.

Re:IIS6

[cpeterso]

Please do not believe that Microsoft would ACTUALLY rewrite IIS 6 from "scratch". They have too much time/money invested in their codebase. This "rewrite" is just a PR scam. They could prevent many IIS security problems if IIS did not run as the user "LocalSystem" (aka full Administrator privleges).

IIS has had plenty of security problems over the years. I don't think this is enough to convince people to "upgrade" to something like Apache 2.0, especially if their existing ASP code must be rewritten for Apache. You must convince both the PHB who owns the budget purse strings and the MSCE who can't read a .conf file that investing time/money in Apache is valuable. Security is invisible, so it's not really a "feature" so in the PHB's eyes, security is not worth money (yet)..

free ASP support would switch small shops

[stego]

I'm half of 2 person IT department. The environment was ASP on NT before I arrived and too much has been developed to switch now. We are small and busy and don't necessarily have 100% to give to keeping up with patches and MS Critical Updates - I would certainly be able to engineer a switch to Apache on Windows away from IIS so very easily if only there was ASP support.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[DavidJA]

I'm half of 2 person IT department...don't necessarily have 100% to give to keeping up with patches and MS Critical Updates

Are you Serious? How fucking difficult is it to to Start => Windows Update => Product Updates => Start Download.

We run 5 public web servers here, and when I get the Microsoft Security Update e-mail, I run windows update, schedule a reboot for 3am the next day and jobs done!

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[Brendan Byrd]

You know...I kinda get tired doing that 3 times a week. Plus, I don't want to even think of how long those SERIOUS security flaws have been lurking in those servers for how many YEARS, and only NOW has MS told me about it!

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[Bert64]

A 3am reboot on a public webserver that may be trying to be viewed by people on the other side of the world isn`t a very good solution. I find it VERY irritating when a website i`m trying to read goes down to reboot for 10 minutes or however long. Moreso, if you delay the reboot then you are still vulnerable for those hours until 3am, assuming you stop work at 5pm, that leaves 10 hours for someone to break in and install backdoors, which wont be removed by your update - plenty of time for even the most stupid of scriptkiddies.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[ozric99]

That's why we have things like load balancing and clusters.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[StoneTear]

The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[crisco]

Dude, that doesn't catch all the updates they issue. They've gotten better after Code Red (IIRC, the Code Red vulnerability fix wasn't on the windowsupdate site when it hit) but if you run that little update check utility they just put out, you'll find a load of stuff that escaped the automated updates.

Now if you're actually tracking down those updates you get in the email and installing each one, you're doing your part to keep my Apache log files a little cleaner.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[pbrammer]

Too bad you have to reboot. That must suck for a production webserver, considering the number of security releases that are sent out by Microsoft. Now, over in my world, it's kinda nice (since I'm a RH user) to execute the up2date command. It'll download everything, and guess what?! No reboot! Hell, I don't even have to wait for a late security e-mail to show up in my mailbox. I can even schedule the thing via cron...

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[Pope Slackman]

We are small and busy and don't necessarily have 100% to give to keeping up with patches and MS Critical Updates

Hey, what's your IP?

C-X C-S

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[greenfly]

Unless up2date requires you to upgrade your kernel (which it would in a stock RH7.1 box at the moment). Then you will have to reboot.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[pbrammer]

Perhaps, but up2date doesn't require you to update your kernel. There are always updated kernel packages out there, it's just a matter of letting up2date update them. But, you are right, after a kernel upgrade, you'll need to reboot.

But, comparing to Microsoft, a kernel upgrade is akin to upgrading the OS, yes? In the Microsoft world, you have to reboot after any patch that's installed - or at least that's what they tell you to do.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reboots are slim to none in the Linux world - which allows a person to run a production webserver with very little non-scheduled downtime due to reboots (if any).

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[DavidJA]

The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them

That is BULLSHIT you have no idea about what you are talking about, and it appears the moderators have no idea either.

The last 10 patches (from MS02-18 to MS02-006) have ALL appeared on Windows Update at the same time or before the Microsoft security update is e-mailed.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[Bert64]

Actually many sites do not have any load balancing or fallover atall. Moreover, if you do have multiple servers supporting a site theres no real need to wait until 3am to reboot.

Re:free ASP support would switch small shops

[Darby]

Unless up2date requires you to upgrade your kernel (which it would in a stock RH7.1 box at the moment). Then you will have to reboot.

This is true, but your example is flawed. No one who isn't a complete idiot would put a stock install up as a public webserver. You do the install, immediately run up2date then configuration then testing, then go live.
Now, granted, when the next security problem is found in the kernel you will need to reboot to fix it. Not for every stinking patch though.

better title....

[bje2]

should've been Apache 2.0 scalps IIS...

Re:better title....

[wadetemp]

should've been Apache 2.0 scalps IIS...

Yeah, it would have been worth being sued over to get in one more jab.

Re:better title....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sued over free speech. Yeah.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

We tried using Apache in a production environment but it didn't really cut it. It might be slightly more secure, but let's face it, you're either secure or your not, and it's just a matter of time until the black hats start looking through the Apache source. Frontpage integrated nicely with IIS, while it doesn't appear to work at all with Apache, and unfortunately this is a must when the secretary is updating the web pages. Apache was a bit faster, but whatever gains were there were eaten up many times over by the amount of time trying to get it into a useful configuration.

So in essence, I agree with you that IIS is a better solution because you can get up and running faster. When you're relied on to get the information to your clients as quickly as you get it, every little bit helps.

Re:I agree

[EugeneK]

MOD PARENT UP!
+1 Funny troll.

Re:I agree

[Brendan Byrd]

Quite frankly, the whole concept of Frontpage is a mistake. I really just have one question about it: WTF IS WRONG WITH FTP?!!? Again, yet another example of MS re-inventing the wheel.

Re:I agree

[M1m3R]

After explaining FTP to the same secretary for the 500th time, you may see a value in some tool that makes your life easier. Unless you make it like Word, many people (the ones who make your life easier by updating the content themselves) will refuse to learn it.

Maybe I'm an idiot for thinking this way...but experience has taught me a few things about non-tech people.

Re:I agree

[JonnyCalcutta]

Please! I work with the same kind of 'stupid' non-techies as you obviously do and I have no problem showing 'secretaries' (and even artists) how to use FTP Explorer. You are either lying or you didn't even try.
"Open FTP Explorer, find your file in Windows Explorer and drag it from one to the other" - if people can't work that out then you need to hire from within the human gene pool.

Re:I agree

[M1m3R]

"You are either lying or you didn't even try."

Why am I lying? What makes you think I did not try? 500th time was an exageration to make a point.

There are some people who refuse to be educated.

Answering one's own questions is lame.

[SkulkCU]

Despite a general disdain for replying to my own post, here's a nifty little list of Why Free Software Usability Tends to Suck that I just noticed. In my experience, numbers 2 and 5, at least, are true.

Disclaimer: I've found the Apache interface on Windows to be far less irritating than IIS.

Re:Answering one's own questions is lame.

[Nehemiah S.]

I would say #4 is the real killer. Microsoft's interface blows, and is only considered good because it is intuitive to people who have been beaten over the head with it for 12 years. When OSS developers try to implement microsoft-looking guis, all they end doing is repeating microsoft's mistakes and then adding their own on top, thus creating an interface that not only blows, but blows even worse than MS.

Neh

Re:Answering one's own questions is lame.

[j09824]

I would ask the opposite question: can companies like Microsoft or IBM ever produce usable software? You see, they are motivated by selling their wares and getting you hooked on their software. Whether their software is actually efficient or well-designed doesn't matter because their users rarely become proficient at any alternative and rarely have a basis for comparison.

It is particularly ironic for people from IBM to comment on free software usability. IBM's usability designers have often produced complete junk. Take a look at the interface hall of shame, for example.

Free software UIs are the way they are because the people who use them like them that way, not because of some hypothetical problems with the open source development process. The open source projects with the worst UIs (from the point of view of many open source users) tend to be the ones that try to duplicate Windows or have "professional" UI designers involved in them.

If "ordinary users" find Windows easy to use, great! Let them pay for it. Open source efforts have no obligation to cater to preferences that their contributors and participants don't share.

Re:newbie?

[Maddog_Delphi97]

And you must be the typical slashdot reader. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion.

At least don't log on as anonymous!!!!!! 8(

Seriously, I don't even know why I even bother to ask even the least technical questions... is there some urge in all Linux users to tell people to RTFM?? Are you really feeling so smug and so suprior about your precious open-source operating system that you can't resist to urge to jump down the thoat of anybody who have questions or criticisms???

Sigh, news for nerds, indeed..

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

ZDNet's eWeek has a very positive review of Apache 2.0, entitled "Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game."

That's right, folks! Apache is now just as insecure as IIS! Use it for all your virus-spreading, bandwidth hogging, easily-hackable website needs! It even comes installed with all of the dangerous features enabled by default!

What's that Mr. Gates? That isn't IIS's game? Well, I dunno... Maybe it should be. IIS is pretty good at it...

Re:newbie?

[GigsVT]

It's trivial to do the same thing in linux. Just use a named pipe and leave the backend running. It's an inherent capability not something that had to be added in later.

Re:newbie?

[zapfie]

Easy there.. that guy was a troll.. keep in mind that the loudest voice doesn't necessarily represent the majority of the population.. most of the Linux users I talk to are pretty friendly folk, but usually the ones who are smug are smug in excess. I wouldn't fret that guy, just ignore him.

Re: IIS Game

[X]

I think what IIS's game is is a matter of perspective. I think this reviewer defined it as running on Windows. No big deal really, but Apache did suck at this until recently.

As for this being a sucker job on Slashdot... if it had said, "IIS whumps Apache's A**", you can bet that they would have gotten at least as much traffic.

.conf files

[lothix]

Dealing with .conf files instead of a GUI interface is an _advantage_ not a disadvantage. If we really needed a GUI frontend for making changes to a conf file there would be a bunch of them floating around. It takes no time to slap one together. In fact, IBM HTTP Server which is a "cutified" apache comes with a web form interface for configuring .conf files. Of course I've never seen anyone use it because it is quicker and easier to edit a text file than dig around in interface panels.

Re:.conf Files

[um... Lucas]

Huh?

What exactly is the difference between an XML file and Apaches .conf files? All i can figure is that the XML file will have a bunch of useless tags laying about.

I don't know, I like their current configuration - text with wordy descriptions of what each setting does.

I also think that XML is the biggest crock to survive the dotcom days... It's just not nearly as wonderous as the world presumes, i don't think. Maybe your experience has been different, but you can basically do anything with good, well formed data, and do nothing with bad data. It doesn't matter the format if the contents are garbage.

\\\

Re:.conf files

[Scooter]

Indeed - and the .conf file that ships with Apache is very well documented (i.e. the documentation is *in* the file - where you want it) with lots of examples.

Re:.conf Files

[Anonymous Coward]

XML is a tool for data representation. Would having conf files in XML format make or break a server? Probably not. Would having support in the server for XML parsing make it work with third party components that speak XML? Yes, in many ways. If you haven't dealt with data interchange for business transaction, that's where XML becomes a huge timesaver. Rather than have 3 months of meetings to iron out a transport mechanism, that time is spent on higher level details like application flow and business logic.

Re:.conf Files

[eples]

why doesn't the apache team use .xml files for the configuration files

Funny, the .conf files look like they are in XML format to me.

Re:.conf files

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed - even Microsoft has gone the config file route in their new ASP.NET, which replaces the IIS Metabase (whatever that is) with a serise of config files. The Machine.config file sets the properties for the entire server, with web.config files for parts of your application.

Re:.conf Files

[swdunlop]

Legacy, she is a mother.. There's a large number of Apache httpd.conf configuration tools out there, and older 1.3.x sites often have large configurations that they aren't particularly eager to migrate to a newer layout.

In my opinion, for human readability, XML lacks something. There's a large amount of redundant syntax that is employed to simplify a task that is very rarely present in configuration files: the markup of textual information with formatting and metadata. XML, like HTML and SGML, is a Markup Language, and is a fairly verbose one at that, and while it does become readable after prolonged exposure and familiarity with each format, to the eye of a casual user, it's a bit burdensome.

An example of the negative aspects of migrating a configuration file from a proprietary format to XML can be seen in the move from OpenStep to Mac OS X's Cocoa. OpenStep's key:value format might not have been the end all and be all, grand unifying format system, but it was very readable, and worked well for its problem domain. It was easy to read, and had a minimal lexical redundancy. Writing parsers for OpenStep's format was relatively simple. Apple, in its lust for buzzwords, moved things to XML proplists, making these files 'well-formed', in the words of the W3C. The size of the files has doubled in most cases, and the amount of redundant information makes it rather annoying to hand-edit proplists, which is the NextStep's BOFH's preferred way of making many changes.

Finally, if you are working with a legacy product, you may find it annoying to perform the unusual acrobatics required by the implementation of expat's callback-based parser, or fighting with an overblown implementation of DOM, which is better suited to the behemoth we call the modern web browser.

In closing, XML's great for markup, but it isn't the end-all, be-all for data representation.

Look for mod_aspnet

[Anonymous Coward]

ASP.NET from the Microsoft.NET SDK is only loosely bound to IIS. There is one .dll (like an Apache module) that fowards all ASP.NET requests from IIS to a seperate HTTP Handler for C#/VB.NET ASP pages. Some people are all ready working on mod_aspnet to do the same forwarding under Apache.

L8ers IIS :)

And the e-week site itself uses...

[mentin]

Nobody notiuced?
The URL of the article ends with ASP with means they use IIS themselves.
NetCraft also tells the same: The site www.eweek.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Just like the recent MS anti-Unix site running BSD :)

Re:And the e-week site itself uses...

[belg4mit]

That is not true. I could tell Apache
that I have files names .asp but they
are actually image/png. Or here's a wild
and wacky thought, I might actually be
serving ASP under Apache? Get a clue.

Re:And the e-week site itself uses...

[Anonymous Coward]

proof
look who really needs the clue.

And i'm an anonymous coward!

ROFLMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

EWeek runs on iis. Netcraft says anyway.

Hypocritical? Nah!

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically:

"unsubstantiated tests say that people we want traffic from our right!"

If this was a pro IIS article the /. crowd would be jumping all over it - but nooooo, it's pro apache so obviously its right!

jeez people.

We run both, and of the two I can sya this - properly administred IIS 5 is pretty damn secure (never had a break in or infection yet) and ASP.NEt is the killer app of the next few years. Nothing under apache comes close.

Re:Hypocritical? Nah!

[Daengbo]

"unsubstantiated tests say that people we want traffic from our right!" Rewrite that to "unsubstantiated tests say that the people we want traffic from are right!" and maybe I'd understand it before the fifth time I read it.

Thats because....

[autopr0n]

*BSD sucked up all the arrogant assholes. Everyone knows the 'l33tist of the l33t use FreeBSD.

PHP 4.X support.

[shri]

One of these days PHP will support Apache 2.0 and then we can revisit these benchmarks. Until then I'll write this off as a Zdnet troll for Slashdot attention.

Re:PHP 4.X support.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these days

Yes ... last Saturday

Re:PHP 4.X support.

[shri]

Unfortunately, that an 'RC'. That would be equivalent of running an RC from Microsoft and expecting it to work in a production environment.

I'll hold off till Apache 2.1 and a later build of PHP before I move my websites to it. Again, I'll only do that if there is a major performance increase. The bottle necks I have right now on my website are related to mod_gzip and php ( generating dynamic content ), NOT related to Apache serving the content once its generated.

I've not researched Apache 2.0 well enough and there arent enough articles which document the performance increases in dynamic environments with Apache 2.0.

Re:PHP 4.X support.

[shri]

As the article says. If you're running a 1.current release of Apache on Linux, there is no significant reason to switch over.

On Unix, don't expect a big performance boost with the new release. In tests of Apache 2.0 vs. Apache 1.3.24 running on Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux 7.2, performance was nearly identical (though still very good). However, platforms such as Solaris and AIX, where a process switch is relatively slower than it is on Linux, will benefit much more from Apache 2.0's hybrid process/thread design.

Link: mod_asp.net

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-list/ 2001-July/000233.html

This article is just reverse-FUD...

[coupland]

I'm a big fan of Apache too, but this article is a piece of crap. They assert Apache 2.0 is as fast as IIS 5.0 on Windows but offer no benchmarks. They acknowledge that IIS had 10 security alerts this past week but offer no equivalent stat for Apache. (A thousand? Zero?) They don't even acknowledge that moving from IIS to Apache is a potentially career-ending chore. I love good reviews of OSS as much as the rest but this was more of a videobit than an actual article...

Re:This article is just reverse-FUD...

[coupland]

For example, if this article had been about the superiority of IIS the /. crowd would have had a great hairy fit over the lack of objectivity. Similar critical thought should be given to articles praising OSS...

Re:This article is just reverse-FUD...

[cscx]

They acknowledge that IIS had 10 security alerts this past week but offer no equivalent stat for Apache.

I believe this might be alluding to "Q319733: Internet Information Services Security Roll-up Package" which in a nutshell is a cumulative hotfix for all the exploits in IIS up to date. But then again, this guy is just a technical writer; he's probably never seen a server in his life.

Re:This article is just reverse-FUD...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Apache itself has not had a security alerts in years....

Anyone folliwing it knows that!

Some external plug-ins had have problems but not Apache itself.

Re:This article is just reverse-FUD...

[HeinJan]

If you look at the links under the actual article you find this one.

"A study of Apache security advisories dating back to Apache 1.0 shows the server's last serious problem (one where remote attackers could run arbitrary code on the server) was announced in January 1997. This problem was a buffer overflow in Apache's cookie module that was fixed in Apache 1.1.3.

A group of less serious problems (including a buffer overflow in the server's logresolve utility) was announced and fixed in January 1998 with Apache 1.2.5. In the three and a half years since then, Apache's only remote security problems have been a handful of denial-of-service and information leakage problems (where attackers can see files or directory listings they shouldn't)."

There are your numbers :)

Re:This article is just reverse-FUD...

[ClosedSource]

According to the article, the Windows version of 2.0 has been rewritten as a native Windows application. To the extent that this implies new code, the security issues of Apache 2.0 for Windows are not yet known.

Re:This article is just reverse-FUD...

[cpeterso]

good point. For example, is Apache 2.0 on Windows vulnerable to the ::$DATA filename bug? That bug was not an IIS bug as much as a stupid "feature" of NTFS, so it could also affect Apache!

This fits perfectly into..

[e2d2]

my preconcieved ideas. I will mark it as fact and cite it at meetings.

As to not reveal my idiocy...

[Anonymous Coward]

this post will remain anon.

But what game did they get beaten in with XP. Its a decent product. In fact the only problems I've had with it have been from Nvidia drivers.

Re:As to not reveal my idiocy...

[xerph]

Well, that, and the fact that IE6 which it shipped with had a security hole big enough for the Titanic to fit through. Not to mention the numerous major holes like one found in the remote access feature and any number of others which don't come to mind right now.

Book?

[Micah]

You're right -- when one browses the Apache sites, it's AMAZING how much stuff they've done, most of which few people know about or appreciate.

Does anyone know of a good complete book on Apache, preferrably Apache 2 now that it's out, that covers most or all of these tools and puts it all together?

The ONLY problem is that it seems as though most Apache projects now use Java, which I could personally live without.

Re:Book?

[jilles]

Most of the stuff apache has done in Java would be very hard to replicate in other languages because Java has some features most other languages do not have: classloaders, reflection, an extremely flexible security model, garbage collection, tons of other functionality...

This has nothing to do with the language but it has all to do with the execution environment. Only because these features are there was it possible to create something like tomcat. It's simply a case of the best tool for the best job.

The only problem with apache and most other OSS projects is the throw it over the fence release policy. Most OSS projects develop and test pretty effectively. However when it comes to releasing a product it's different. Apache for windows comes with a nice installer. However it doesn't integrate very well with the OS in the sense that the management interface provided in that OS is simply not used. This is defended from a point of view of security but my feeling is that this argument is as valid as this post's parent gut feeling arguments regarding the suitability of Java for implementing network applications.

The main reason UNIX sysadmins are so expensive is the backwards way of configuring it. It doesn't take a genious to get apache configured, just a monkey who's memorized all the parameters and can do the VI voodoo thing. It takes years to memorize all relevant settings of relevant services under linux, hence the overrated price of what could only be seen as the plumbers of the IT world (no offense).

Re:Book?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. When I configure something like apache I tend to use the documentation for reference, and use my editor. Oh and you get a fairly decent sample configuration file to start with.

The GUI interfaces tend to remind you of all the options in the place where you're changing them, and can give context sensitive help. It's not really much of a stretch to just create the config file while following in a seperate window a configuration guide, and then search for any advanced options in the manual.

If I do a new install and want to base the config on an existing install, I can just copy the config file and tweak it. Or if, for example, I have a server where I have my own perl app for managing sites on it, I can just get the app to tweak the config file for me.

I think the other class of 'monkey' that can follow a GUI could easily cope with the configuration file and find some benefits to it, if only they spent the extra 5 minutes actually giving the follow-the-configuration-guide-and-modify-the-defa ult-config-file
lark a go.

You can get cheap UNIX sysadmins just like you can get cheap Microsoft experts. Your mileage in both may vary with regards to expertise, and ability to cope with situations that aren't exactly the same as ones they've dealt with before.

Managers not Admins

[BurritoWarrior]

Yeah, the article is weak and has no details whatsover, but the average management schmo has little to no knowledge about how a product works anyway. They read mags like eWeek and base their decisions on just these kinds of articles.

So drop a copy on his desk with a little note about "same performance, better security." See how nice that sounds. :-D

Security...

[Veramocor]

I wonder if open source programs are more secure then their microsoft cousins because open source actually helps weed out more bugs or if hacker community just has so much disdain fo microsoft that they concentrate all their energies on M$ products.

Re:Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've thought about that before. Are there less viruses for *NIX because windows is much more vulnerable, or because the people who write them don't want them comming back to them on thier own OS? Also, it seems like RedHat has had the most security problems out of any Linux distro, and they also happen to be the most popular (not the best, I don't like RH personally). Maybe there is some correlation there. Thats one of the reasons I stick to Distro's that are less popular, but still rock like SuSE. Yast is the best admin tool ever, they have great support, and are not often in the lime light for people to dig into for security holes.

Native Apache Version

[Anonymous Coward]

They recommend the native Apache version... Of course it's native - it's Apache!

Re:Native Apache Version

[zer0*ryok0]

[reply moderation: +1 funny]

moderating the only way i know how

2 words:

[modecx]

Oranges, Apples.

Oranges because unix heads are generally bitter-that their infinitely superior operating system is often looked over as antiquated and requires "eXPensive eXPerts", and being hard to use, among other things.

Apples because the serpent (oops, I really meant salesperson--not) pitching Windows makes users expect to have a sweet eXPerience, flying over luscious green meadows, but in all reality do little that's actually useful.

In case you missed my point: Servers (oh the shiny pretty oranges) are not meant to be home or office computers (apples being too sweet to actually be good for you, damn those serpents.)

When you want do get work done, choose the right tool. Sometimes it's Windows, sometimes it's a Mac, and sometimes it's a 64 processor Sun, or IBM, or SGI, or what have you.

IMHO, Oranges are better tasting anyway.

Hard to Configure

[cgreuter]

I think it says something about the state of IT when they consider it
a downside that Apache doesn't have a point-and-click web-based
configuration tool.

The only advantage of such interfaces is that they're friendly to
novices, which is all well and good when you're dealing with a word
processor or e-mail client, but this is a web server. Anyone
who uses one for anything other than a toy needs to be (or to hire) a
skilled professional just to keep the thing running and up to date.
Anyone who finds editing a text file intimidating has no business
administrating any kind of server.

Heck--I wouldn't hire a web administrator who couldn't write
their own point-and-click configuration tool.

Re:Hard to Configure

[loconet]

"...(or to hire) a skilled professional just to keep the thing running and up to date."

Haven't you heard they're expensive?!!?

Re:Hard to Configure

[5KVGhost]

I think it says something about the state of IT when they consider it
a downside that Apache doesn't have a point-and-click web-based
configuration tool.

And I think it says something about the state of open source development when people actually believe that making an application more difficult to configure properly is somehow advantageous.

I don't find text files "intimidating" at all. I do find GUI tools convenient and useful. To maintain that such interfaces are "toys" is just plain silly.

The fact of the matter is that many developers really suck at UI design. They have no interest in it, and therefore, they maintain, it must not be important. That's a narrow minded and shortsighted attitude.

There are people who are good at UI design, documentation, and other non-coding stuff, of course, but when they get no respect (such as when you call fruit of their profession a "toy") they have little incentive to contribute their skills.

Re:Hard to Configure

[cgreuter]

>And I think it says something about the state of open source
>development when people actually believe that making an application
>more difficult to configure properly is somehow advantageous.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that GUI-based
interfaces were easier to use. I said they were easier to
learn to use. Big difference.

I maintain that any reasonably sane configuration file format, once
you've learned it, is less work to maintain than the equivalent
proprietary binary format with a GUI configuration tool.

Why? Because there are thousands of tools out there for manipulating
text files. You can use the text editor of your choice on a config
file, or run it through a macro preprocessor, store it in a version
control system, write scripts to automate the customization or even
write a GUI configuration program for it. The sky's the limit.

Whereas all you can do with a GUI is what the configuration tool lets
you do. There are cases where that's actually a worthwhile trade-off
but a web server isn't one of them.

Relative Security

[jjohnson]

One of the reasons that Apache is so much more secure than IIS is that it's much more mature (version numbers aside). Does anyone have any figures on absolute number of security flaws to date?

What I really want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

...is the performance of Apache on UNIX compared to IIS running under WINE!!!!!

Re:What I really want to know

[Daengbo]

That would bring another meaning to "Apache beats IIS at its own game." I know, the predicate for "it" should be "IIS", but, in spoken language, it's more likely to be "Apache". Anyway....

Watch the slashdot effect in action!

[awptic]

http://www.apache.org/server-status

In other words...

[kirkb]

Instead of "Apache beats IIS at its own game", they could've said "Apache beats IIS at the not-getting-0wned game". :)

But what about FP support?

[gato_mato]

I know how to compile Apache to have FrontPage support in Linux (all be it Apache 1.3.19) but can Apache for Win32 support FP Extensions? Yeah I know drop FP alltogether but I have customers that know nothing other than FP for their sites.

If you have img tags, 3 == 10

[yerricde]

1-3 isnt 10

If every HTML page view brings with it an average of 2 to 9 images, then yes, 10 simultaneous connections will serve only 1-3 simultaneous clients.

Re:If you have img tags, 3 == 10

[pmc]

10 simultaneous connections will serve only 1-3 simultaneous clients.

It can simultaneously service 10 different IP addresses - that's what it means by clients. See Q122920 for chapter and verse.

Who cares?

[lostchicken]

If I'm going to run Apache, why would I go through the hell of NT?

Most people who run NT/Server do so because of IIS, and it's ease of config. (let's not start a flame war here...) If you want Apache, use UNIX. There's no point is using a had to config OS (nt/5.0) if you aren't trying to use an easy to config HTTP server (iis/5.0).

Re:Who cares?

[jchristopher]

Most people who run NT/Server do so because of IIS, and it's ease of config. (let's not start a flame war here...) If you want Apache, use UNIX. There's no point is using a had to config OS (nt/5.0) if you aren't trying to use an easy to config HTTP server (iis/5.0).

Uh-uh. I run Apache on Windows 2000. It allow me to have a "mini server" on my laptop with Apache, PHP, ColdFusion and various databases, AS WELL AS my favorite development tools like Homesite, Dreamweaver, and Photoshop, not to mention the browser (IE) that 90% of people will be using to access the sites I develop.

I cannot do this on Unix.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

os x

Re:Who cares?

[jchristopher]

Oh, I tried OS X. I was very impressed, BUT: For one thing, ColdFusion does not run on OS X right now. It was also PAINFULLY SLOW. (I had a 500mhz iBook). Too bad because I actually liked it alot, but I ended up selling the computer. Maybe 10.2 will fix some of those issues, but I just couldn't wait anymore.

I doubt OS X will get much faster on existing hardware, anyway. Apple's "slowness" problem will just be solved when new, faster hardware comes out, not by better programming.

Re:Who cares?

[nitehorse]

Well, like the other guy pointed out, there IS MacOS X.

However, you really shouldn't judge it until you do try it out on the latest hardware. The Titanium PowerBook is expensive, yes, but it's also a perfect OS X machine.

(says the owner of an iBook and an iMac LCD edition. the iMac is perfectly usable. the iBook... trust me, I understand your concerns.)

-clee

The Ultmate Security Patch for Microsoft IIS

[joesklein]

I understand that the best security patch available for the Microsoft IIS server is only available at www.apache.org.

So with all of the patches to Microsoft IIS, doesn't that make it an A Patchy Server?

Well of course...

[glwtta]

Obviously Apache will beat IIS at Apache's own game.

You got it backwards...

[alexhmit01]

I figure this is a joke, but far too many slashdot posters seem to think they understand accounting.

When you purchase software licenses, you are making a capital purchase, that will take at least 3 (and often 5) to depreciate. So the cash all flows out at once, but you have to write it out over 3 years.

Money spent on consultants look great on the balancesheet because they are expenses (and therefore written off immediately), plus they are considered one-time costs for public companies, and don't count as operating expenses. By creating permenant one-time costs (each one one-time of course), they are able to make their financials look better than they are.

With free software, your costs may be the same, but they are billed as consulting fees or maintenance agreements. All of those costs are easily considered either one-time costs or as regular costs. There are no capital expenses that need to be depreciated.

Alex

Re:You got it backwards...

[um... Lucas]

When you purchase software licenses, you are making a capital purchase, that will take at least 3 (and often 5) to depreciate. So the cash all flows out at once, but you have to write it out over 3 years.

It's been a while since i took accounting (in high school), but i'm a little confused, none the less. You make it sound as though purchasing assets is a bad thing to do. The don't, assets increase the networth of your company.

The depreciation expense, again, isn't so bad... This isn't the dotcom days... it might be best to have your assets depreciate over 5 years rather than finagle a way into creating a much larger 1 time expense. That was part of the dotcom downfall, after all.

I know this isn't an accounting site... But you make it seem as though it's intristically bad for business to purchase commercial software licenses, for accounting reasons, and i just wanted to say i don't think it's all that bad a decision to make. Better spend the money and have an asset to show for it, than spend the money and have nothing but a receipt in the end...

All other things being equal, of course (software quality not being the least of those things :)

Re:You got it backwards...

[giberti]

While I agree with your accounting analysis... if the place is going to run Win2K servers though, there is no additional cost in running IIS (its part of the OS distro) and so unless they make the switch to an open OS such as Linux, they still have to captialize the OS and server cost. So they get hit twice.

That said, for 90% of places running web servers out there, there are only about a dozen lines in httpd.conf that need to be edited to get the site up and running in a configuration that will suit their needs!

There are also ton's of great application servers that plug right into it (if they aren't bundled to begin with) and only require minor tweeks. If your developers writing the code can't figure this simple stuff out, they shouldn't call themselves developers.

Re:You got it backwards...

[guisar]

Software is NOT an asset. It depreciates MUCH faster than five years and thus you are nearly always better off taking the expense as soon as possible. Same of course with computers.

Re:You got it backwards...

[Tony-A]

Disclaimer: I hate accounting, I do not believe in it, but they (accountants) do try and sometimes succeed in doing things right.
Easiest way to see what's going on is to look at the expenditures as before tax dollars and after tax dollars. Depending on such as cash position and tax status, one after tax dollar can be worth two before tax dollars. Capital assets are bought with after tax dollars. Expenses are paid with before tax dollars.
Essentially the difference is that if you buy an asset, you pay income tax on the asset until it has been depreciated. The total dollar effect is essentially a wash, but you pay now and get back later.

Please pay on "your way out"!

[gd23ka]

Get IIS and hire awfully cheap MCSE help? Let's see... that's $1500 in license fees, $36,000 salary and $13,000,000 lost profits - That'll be $13,037,500 on "your way out"!

Windows XP Home Edition

[cooperj72]

Well I just bought a laptop with Windows XP Home
Edition (no choice) and apparently I can't get IIS for it.
Took me about 2 seconds to head over to
Apache.org and try out v2.0 and so far it looks great.

Does anyone know if you can get IIS for Windows XP Home?
If not then tell me what MS is smoking.
Cause I don't care one way or another if it's IIS or Apache.
I'll use whatever I can download
and install quickly.

DISCLAIMER: I apologize for using Windows XP Home Edition.
Please don't reply to this email as I will be having myself taken outback
and shot.

Re:Windows XP Home Edition

[alyandon]

For XP, IIS is only available for the XP Professional and upcoming XP/.NET/Whatever-the-hell-M$-will-eventually-call- it Server editions.

Re:Windows XP Home Edition

[Utopia]

I have never tried this (I use XP Professional).
Here is a newsgroup post which might help you.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c3c9b9d.51 86 63173%40news

Re:Windows XP Home Edition

[Inthewire]

I tried the remedy offered in the other guy's link this past weekend.
It appeared to work, but when I was in the Add/Remove windows component applet, it wouldn't let me check the selection boxes for the various Internet Service components (FTP, Common, HTTP, etc)
I recommend trying it, because if it works then you'll be set.

Re:Windows XP Home Edition

[Utopia]

Just realized the URL was not working.
Try this IIS on XP Home.

Apache lovin'

[carpe_noctem]

Kinda weird that this website gave such a stunning review of Apache. Especially given that they switched their webserver from apache to IIS. Hrm.

Re:Apache lovin'

[Anonymous Coward]

ZDNET uses asp across the board.

The only problem

[billcopc]

Apache is eons ahead of IIS in terms of usability and reliability, but the big fat problem is that IIS natively runs VBScript/ASP, while Apache does not (and Chilisoft doesn't always cut the mustard). Lots of companies are somewhat locked-in to IIS because of their existing VBScript code which they're not willing to port to PHP or Perl, either because of ignorance or lack of resources (time, money, brains). If we could somehow create a 99.9% functional VBScript parser for Apache, then Apache could swallow up a very large bunch of IIS users in one quick bite.

Re:The only problem

[Tk_Coder]

That's what you get when you choose to code in a proprietary language....

Re:The only problem

[morgajel]

any company who can't find the "time, money or brains" to convert ASP to php as never fully reaped the benefits of "the Intern."

I've worked for two companies converting Access Databases to SQLserver databases and writing webpage frontends- while this doesn't directly apply to the topic, it should be mentioned that they were paying me $8/hour, and it woulda cost ALOT MORE for a pro to come in and do it.

I write php in my spare time on my website, and if I ever get the chance, I'll reccomend php all the way because I personally find it easier, quicker, and more intuitive than ASP. that's my opinion tho, and I know someone will disagree with me.

Re:The only problem

[billcopc]

You know what ? I share the same opinion. I tried to push PHP here at my workplace. I actually had my own little box running PHP over IIS (yucky, but better than nothing). Eventually the webmaster (a good friend of mine) decided to convert everything to ASP. Why ? Because I'm the only competent PHP coder within a 50km radius.

ASP coders are a dime a dozen. They generally worth only a dime, but that's a different problem. PHP coders are few and far between, because they're either already working for some OSS-related shop, or just building personal blogs on their linux router at home. PHP doesn't have that large of a corporate presence at this time.

Didja ever notice...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Didja ever notice that the MS-controlled press always has some nice things to say about open source whenever Microsoft has a court date coming up?

It's more than a little suspicious.

You have to know how to talk to clients.

[Shiny Metal S.]

Yeah but, unless you hire an 'expensive expert' you can't write off the investment in apache. Thats the problem with free software.

This is how I talk to my clients:

- You see? You will save 500 bucks because we're using free-as-in-beer software! Of course it is very, very difficult and normal people wouldn't even understand all the magical things which need to be done in order to set it up, but fortunately I'm a super hacker guru so this is your lucky day. My rates are only 300 bucks per hour, and this is not much for super hackers, so you'll pay much less than you'd pay for a more expensive super hacker for, say, 400 bucks per hour, so you already saved 200 bucks while we speak and you're gonna save another 50 grands in my rates netto...
- Wait a minute! But I can have a sixpack of MCSE's for $9.95 per hour!
- Too late! You signed the contract! SUCKER!!!

$1200 question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see...$1200 or a custom tag...hmm....

jesus lordy christ almighty

[zer0*ryok0]

the guy who keeps putting in these buffer exploits seriously needs to be fired.

it was funny the first 27 times

This Article Is Rather Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the flames start, I want to mention that I am a Unix-head. However in the interests of fairness, I would like to point out that whenever one introduces a new architecture, holes are bound occur. This article mentions Apache's track record on security. In my book thats a bunch of hoopla, especially when you do a massive rewrite. Apache 2.0's merits should be based on the software, not it's past record. It's a whole new slate ppl.

Please send flames to root@localhost :-)

I smell horseshit in this article

[cscx]

This article is filled with misinformation.

Somehow... the numbers don't add up.

Traditionally, IIS on Windows was the leader of the pack on static web serving, beating Apache on Linux by a factor of about 4.5 to 1, Windows (5500 req/s vs ~1200 req/s). Apache on Windows scrubbed the bottom of the graph at a measly 500 (yes, five hundred) req/s. Now, suddenly, Apache 2 for Windows is beating/matching IIS? That would effectively place it in the lead of every other web server on the market, free and commercial. Yet at the same time Apache for Linux and other Unicies is retaining "approximately the same performance." (~1200 req/s). So, what's the moral of the story here? Everyone running a unix box should throw it out, install a copy of NT or 2k and install Apache and be home free?

Of course not. The attitude of the journalist is evidently anti-MS.

Which would mean, if these numbers were in fact true (I don't remember reading any numbers in the article anyway), that Apache on Windows is about 4.5 times faster than it is on Linux and Unix.

Once again, it doesn't make sense. This guy is tying two granny knots with a loop, and it ain't happenin'.

I'd really like some information on these tests that they ran. What, did they run an ASP database call on IIS and compare it to a print "Hello, world\n"; perl script on Apache? Come on, there is obviously something fishy going on here.

I trust this article like I trust The Register... about as far as I can throw the box it's running on (and that, my geeky friends, is not very far at all).

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, Bill, it's been a while since you last posted on /.

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[johnnyb]

Now, suddenly, Apache 2 for Windows is beating/matching IIS? That would effectively place it in the lead of every other web server on the market, free and commercial.

******

The problem, originally, was that Apache's design was entirely process-based. That means that every request needed it's own process. On Windows, this is very, very, slow, as it has trouble switching between proceses quickly, but is very fast at switching between threads. Apache redesigned it to be threads-based (actually, you can choose threads, processes, or hybrid), and thus the performance bottleneck went away. Process-switching and thread switching are about the same amount of time on Linux boxes, so that's why the performance didn't change much.

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[cscx]

I understand that. But, if you look at what he says, it just doesn't correlate to the hard core benchmark data. If what he says is true, than Apache on Windows should have more than triple the performance of Apache on *nix. Cause, if it is equal to IIS, and Apache on *nix hasn't really changed, then the data still specifies that Windows based servers in this case are a ton faster than *nix web servers. If that was true no one would be running *nix anymore.

But maybe it is true and everyone should move to Windows 200 Adv server. 8-)

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[Anonymous Coward]

I just ran some quick-N-dirty benchmarks using ab (the benchmark tool that comes with Apache) and see some interesting results.
All tests were 1000 requests, 10 concurrent connections, with small html file (51 bytes).

Apache 1.3.22 on Linux 2.4.14 Dual PIII Xeon 550 w/ 1MB cache
On this setup, I saw requests/second in the 1500-2100 range, always with 0% failed requests, no matter how many times I re-ran the test

Apache 2.0.35 on Linux 2.4.14 Dual PIII Xeon 550 w/ 1MB cache
On this setup, I saw requests/second in the 1700-2500 range, (again always 0% failed requests)

Apache 2.0.35 on Windows 2000 SP2 PIII 400
Here I saw requests range wildly, from over 7700 requests/sec to as low as 350 req/sec. When I ran 'ab' multiple times in a row, the percentage of failed connections jumped radically from 0% to over 90%! It seemed that perhaps Win2000 TCP sockets were getting filled up (in TIME_WAIT) and this was causing the problems.

IIS 5.0 on Windows 2000 SP2 PIII 400
Very weird here. I only saw the req/sec go as high as 500-900 and still saw the large amount amount of failed requests after I re-ran the tests again and again.

Please keep in mind the Windows 2000 box is pretty much stock, so I haven't tweaked any of the TCP/IP stack stuff at all (and I have done this on the Linux box) Despite this it appears that Apache 2 on Win32 can seriously outperform Apache 2 on Linux. (Which sucks, but the truth hurts) Maybe someone can prove my results wrong, or at least explain what I need to do to stop the connection failures w/ Win2000.

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[Billly Gates]

I believe the tests by both articles may be accurate. The pcmag review just copied the Microsoft sponsored Mindcraft benchmark that ran on 30k worth of hardware. I have no idea what the server was in this new article on apache 2.0. I bet it probably wasn't a 30k machine because it would be too expensive to test for just a small news article. The other one was sponsored by Microsoft and Compaq and was front page.

Basically the old test was not 1 but 4 gigabit ethernet connections with 4cpu's using an unsupported alpha Microsoft i/o bounding utility that would allow each cpu to process the i/o for each device. Under this setup Linux performed slow because only 1 cpu processed the i/o of all 4 nics. As you can imagine the requests per second were Huge and quite astonding at 5,00k/sec.

This guy probably had a one or perhaps 2 cpu boxen with a single gigabit ethernet card which would explain the lower requests per second. Remember that the nic can be a performance bottleneck more then the web server daemon.

Also I agree on the ASP test. I have no idea what this guy did but keep in mind its just a short article and not a scientific study or a major cover story.

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[ahde]

In the original benchmark you're quoting, the biggest bottleneck was linux on SMP. Linux has gotten a lot better in that respect, but on more modest hardware, Apache (and Linux) have always smoked IIS and windows. On a relatively low end system, Apache on Windows beat IIS too. Of course, nowadays a dual or quad processor webserver with a big hunk of memory isn't as uncommon as it was then. Which comes full circle to speed isn't as important as stability these days.

Re:I smell horseshit in this article

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust this article like I trust The Register... about as far as I can throw the box it's running on (and that, my geeky friends, is not very far at all).

What if I gave you 10 hours. a junkyard and an expert in mechanical throwing? How far would it be then? Qualitativly of course.

Finally

[pclinger]

Finally, results from an unbiased source - not endorsed/sponsored by a linux company, or Microsoft. This is when you can truly say, "Hey, look. Apache beat IIS in a fair contest." and no one can complain otherwise.

ASP.NET w/ SQL Srv 7 Punks the hell out of Comp

[visionsofmcskill]

Great article... no stats.. no numbers... no data... just an opinion of un-published results... REAL concrete... thanx for convincing me to switch.

I use IIS because i like satan, and i also like setting up and modeling client websites within minutes... if not less. I like that with ASP.NET i can run a huge hunk of languages with nearly zilch time spent configuring... i like knowing that when i remotly develop someones site and all i have is a name/password, i wont have to know how to set the servers default .conf file to whatever....

People SEVERLY underesitimate how important ease of use in ALL fields is... The easier to use.. the quicker to produce.. the quicker to produce the less money wasted and the more time working... I was gonna go completly anti-MS, but once .NET with SQL 7 specs came out i swallowed my foot (which was in my mouth) and said screw it... im sticking with bezlebud as long as hes got the good shit.

My number one thing... When Apache supports as many languages NATIVLY without a quigillion config changes / additional installs... ill be hopping the fence... But right now .NET alone allows J# (a J++ implementation), C#, VB, JS, and an unlimited amount of other languages (provided you get the pack necesary).

.NET scares the hell out of me, cause it may actualy be Java done right, except with unlimited languages....

Re:ASP.NET w/ SQL Srv 7 Punks the hell out of Comp

[octogen]

People SEVERLY underesitimate how important ease of use in ALL fields is... The easier to use.. the quicker to produce.. the quicker to produce the less money wasted and the more time working...

No. People SEVERLY underestimate the damage caused by insecure and unreliable products such as IIS on Windows Servers.

Many downtimes and/or viruses, worms and hackers can cause loss of more money than you could ever save by rapid application/web development.

I was gonna go completly anti-MS, but once .NET with SQL 7 specs came out [...]

.NET may be an interessting development tool.

But I would not use it as a part of a production environment as long as .NET runs on unreliable Windows-PC-Servers.

SQL Server can be replaced by Oracle or DB2. No need to use Microsoft platforms for servers.

regards, octogen

Re:ASP.NET w/ SQL Srv 7 Punks the hell out of Comp

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, .net is java done right. Like active directory is NDS done right. sure....

Use PHP instead

[ejaw5]

Use PHP instead of ASP. I've programmed in both, and frankly PHP works better. It integrates seemlessly with MySQL, compared to ASP-MSSQL/Access where I had to define a dsn connection with several lines of code. There are reports taht PHP runs faster than ASP, but I haven't ran my own tests. PHP isn't hard to learn. The good folks at www.php.net give a full documentation of the language, as well as a tutorial. Try finding that on M$ website

Re:Use PHP instead

[sheldon]

How does PHP compare to ASP.NET?

As far as full documentation of the language and tutorials... that's what msdn.microsoft.com is all about.

Re:Use PHP instead

[Anonymous Coward]

The mere fact that ASP was designed to be single-platform, and that PHP was designed to be cross-platform, is convincing enough for me to want to pick PHP over ASP any day. I wouldn't want to be locked into a platform that turns out to be less than stellar. Besides, although I don't have any ASP experience, I have had quite a lot of PHP experience, and it was all very kick-ass.

well..

[Anonymous Coward]

if you get alot of shitty smaller sites youll likely get windows(or linux) . so there will be more windows servers.
to the next extreme when you are using a mainframe,
you only need one and its worth thousands of PC's.

unix is in between.

anybody notice?

[Herr_Nightingale]

I wonder how many noticed the slashdot effect in the poll sidebar .. a pretty handy *cough.damn.near.everybody* percentage of sampled readers appear to be migrating to Linux and Apache 2.0?

ASP Portability Question..

[steppin_razor_LA]

I think ASP is a pretty good framework for developing web based applications. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* PERL, but there are a lot of times when ASP is a good tool for the job.

While I enjoy the admin interface to IIS, I'm not intimidated by .CONF files. I hate the fact that IIS is so insecure (the amount of various IIS automated exploit attacks that my SNORT detects is amazing). I would love to migrate from IIS to Apache *IF* I could be able to port the ASP code with a minimum of changes.

I've heard a few people make some generalized comments about this -- the general gist of which seem to be that it works for small and simple pages but not more complicated applications. Can anyone provide me with some more specific examples?

For example, what about a fictitious VBscript O.O. (i.e. using VBscript classes) application that uses ADO to call stored procedures on a SQL server?

Another example, what about a VBscript-based application that made use of COM objects?

What sort of caveats have you ran into when porting?

Re:ASP Portability Question..

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell does your incoherent rambling have to do with anything at all?

Re:ASP Portability Question..

[steppin_razor_LA]

The relavance is simple -- I'd like to know more about the specific issues involved in porting ASP from IIS to Apache.

The other comments about ASP in general were meant to deflect anyone from "helpfully" suggesting that I use PHP/PERL or some other language instead of answering the portability question.

Or to put it more simply...

Suck my nut, troll.

let's not get completely outlandish

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing in human experience compared to which a sendmail config file could be considered simple. Thank god for the oreilly reference.

Re:let's not get completely outlandish

[shogun]

There's nothing in human experience compared to which a sendmail config file could be considered simple.

Heh love that, its going in my sig now ;]

Re:let's not get completely outlandish

[dublin]

There's nothing in human experience compared to which a sendmail config file could be considered simple.

You've not been around long enough to have tried uucp, I can tell. I've mostly stopped having bad dreams that begin "tip cua0", and involve serial breakout boxes... ;-)

wrong way around

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS was faster serving static content, Apache was faster serving dynamic content.

I wouldn't expect IIS 6 to be that much faster. More secure, probably, given the attention that this aspect of the product has received in the past. The central flaw in the app has almost always been in ISAPI filters. Unicode escaping bugs are mildly nasty, but they've seldom been the showstoppers that the buffer overflows in various filters have been.

Also disastrous for them has been the fact that the overflows generally tend to be in the context of the system user (for the unfamiliar, it's a [usually] non interactive account with privledges ABOVE that of the Administrator account [can kill any process, for instance]). I particularly wonder if they'll be able to address this issue with IIS6. I suspect that changing this will have negative consequences for performance (just a guess; I don't have one of those shared source licenses so I could tell for sure).

The ASP.NET web.config files are already XML based; I guess it's nice. There's lots of options, you can tell they're trying to seem like there's more to their server products than simple admin interfaces for morons.

reply moderation

[zer0*ryok0]

[reply moderation: +1 funny +1 pun]

moderating the only way i know how

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, you sorry ass idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1 learn how to spell.
Step 2 learn learn learn

www.gentoo.org

[Anonymous Coward]

www.gentoo.org

Lack of features

[MicroBerto]

I think Apache is a very good free program... But it does lack some of IIS's features. For example, it just doesn't support the Nimda or Code Red worms, at all.

Re:Lack of features

[Anonymous Coward]

your right, you just can't fuck shit up, and it isn't fair

.conf Files

[loconet]

One question that popped up in my mind while reading the article is: why doesn't the apache team use .xml files for the configuration files like almost every other server these days? ie: weblogic,tomcat,etc..

Not only do I find editing xml easier than .conf 's, but also to keep the mainstream masses happy... I'm sure it'll be easier for us oss developers to come up with nice gui interfaces to manage the server by reading xml files rather than parsing the .conf files.

mcse=cheap???

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone seems to be talking about linux/unix requiring expensive experts. What about mcses? How much does the average msce make? The figures I have seen indicate 40K-60K or more just in Ohio alone. Microsoft seems to be telling everyone what they want to hear, hopefully, people stop and think about what they are saying. Microsoft requires expensive people too. So you pay 1 expensive unix expert to maintain a server pool or 5 msces to maintain all the extra servers, apply service packs, tweak servers, etc. What's the difference? Where's the tco? And if msces make in the same range as most of the expensive unix experts, where is the savings? Let's say you switch from unix to ms on servers. You will save on licensing costs compared to unix. Now you hire 5 msces x 40000/yr = 200000/yr. If anyone needs a unix expert, I will work for 1/4 of that. Microsoft tells mcses, "if you get certified, you will make great money $40-60K+." While at the same time, they tell cfos, "if you use our solution, you can hire an mcse and pay him next to nothing to maintain our solution." ms seems to spew pr double-talk. Hopefully cios/cfos are aware enough to see past it. Death to buzzwords! Remember, no one ever got fired for buying microsoft. But they never found a way to lower there tco either.

GUIs the hard way

[SgtChaireBourne]

You can't get much clearer than well commented text. However, text is more comfortable for some, GUIs for others. GUIs do need to be well thought out and have the same functionality as the underlying tools they are shielding.

I've had to learn Linux administration the hard way -- no comp sci background -- but I find Apache one of the easier programs to configure and understand. Though many linux programs are starting to get GUIs, I find the speed and flexibility of the text files unbeatable. You can't get much clearer than well commented text. However, text is more comfortable for some, GUIs for others.

If GUI based configuration tools can serve as a transitory step to allow users the option of learning more about the underlying tools, that would be a good thing. But even if that transition isn't made, both interfaces need to stay up to date with all functionality.

straying into OT, but oh well.

[Golias]

it might be best to have your assets depreciate over 5 years rather than finagle a way into creating a much larger 1 time expense. That was part of the dotcom downfall, after all.

Not really. The dotcom crash had less to do with to do with the internal accounting of various companies, and a lot more do to with the world no longer getting suckered by the investment banks that created the dotcom craze in the first place.

When the Netscape IPO shocked Wall Street by going through the roof in only one day, investment groups scrambled to be the ones to bring forward the next "promising high-tech IPO" in hopes of getting rich off all the speculations. When the next few high-tech IPO's also had big opening days, the miracle became a business plan, and soon there were individuals and organizations who depended entirely on the machine they had collectively created of churning out new high-tech companies. Often times, options on the soon-to-be-released companies were used to buy favors (i.e., talk up a few other companies we will be releasing soon on various financial talk shows, etc).

When the findings of fact came out against Microsoft, Microsoft's share value slipped a little. Since Microsoft is considered a bell-weather stock on the vast majority of tech indexes, this slippage lowered confidence in the whole industry, which in turn led to a lot of day traders and speculators to cool on the emerging IPO's. Soon, the lame new companies like pets.com were gone, and few new lame companies were capturing VC's interest.

Now, if you want to make money in a tech startup, you have to actually sell something people would want to buy. In the long run, we all knew it would come to this anyway. Its probably better for everybody that the bandage was torn from our collective hairy chests quickly rather than slowly, dontcha think?

Apache doesn't run ASP.NET - EOD

[Otis_INF]

I'm a Microsoft-product-user, sue me, and IIS' design is IMHO ok, however if I could switch this minute, why wouldn't I? Well... I can't run an ASP.NET application on Apache. (shouldn't be that hard to implement however, the ASP.NET runtime is a separate process) So there is no WAY I can switch to apache.

'same performance, better security'... Hot air to me, sorry. 'Same performance', I have to see that first, and 'better security'... people who have locked down their IIS webservers the way it should be and the way Unix admins do normally, don't have to worry. Sure, you have to patch the webserver sometimes. Like you have to patch other software as well. Don't kid yourself with the idea that Apache is 'total secure'. You don't have proof of that.

Re:Apache doesn't run ASP.NET - EOD

[Anonymous Coward]

You should get more information before claiming that ASP.NET can't run with something else than IIS.
I read a couple of articles that gave me the impression that we will see quite soon ASP.Net running on other web servers.
Also, I downloaded a leaked ASP.Net tool from Microsoft and believe what, you can develop ASP.Net pages *without* IIS running (the tool dynamically creates a web server for you).
Also on http://www.csharphelp.com some guy posted some code to "execute" any .aspx (ASP.Net page) without having IIS in the middle.
So basically yes, we will have a mod_asp.net at some point.

What is ZDNet trying to pull?

[--daz--]

I mean, it'd be nice if ZDNet at least TRIED to hide it's bias against MS and it's agend to ebarass them.

For example, the comment/article about the "10 new security vulnerabilities in IIS!"

What ZDNet fails to tell you, the obvious, is that what MS released was a "Cumulative Patch for IIS" which is all the patches released since IIS 4 was released.

Rather than installing a Win2K server and then having to track down the dozen or so patches, you can just apply this.

There have not been any new vulnerabilities in IIS since May 2001. Almost a year ago!

(Note: there has been a 1 or 2 vulns. found in Index Server and one or two in SMTP, both optional components of IIS, and not related to the web-serving W3SVC portion).

Why does ZDNet lie so flat-out like this?

Re:What is ZDNet trying to pull?

[jfp51]

That is totally wrong. The MS Security bulletin clearly states that these are 10 NEW vulnerabilities in IIS that this rollup sixes, as well as all the previous ones. Learn to read the bulletins next time.

Re:What is ZDNet trying to pull?

[--daz--]

Perhaps you are the one who needs to read them.

If you look, the "ten new vulnerabilities" are actually the ones they released back in 2000 and 2001. For example, the HTR buffer overflow, and the ISAPI buffer overflow.

IIRC, the HTR overflow was the one Code Red exploited, and if you remember, that was in 2000 and early 2001 (ant to some extent, today).

The fact of the matter is, this is a convenience roll-up patch that captures all IIS patches for all platforms (NT4SP6/IIS4, Win2K/IIS5, WinXP/IIS5.1) to date.

Before, you used to have install all the patches seperately which was a pain. Now it's just one patch.

It's long overdue, but I'm glad it's finally here.

Perhaps by "new" Microsoft means "since IIS was released".

great mod dudes

[Anonymous Coward]

What contest would that be smart guy? They don't even mention how they compared the two servers.

Did anyone read this artical?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apache kept pace with IIS during the entire test, which means that sites that move from IIS to Apache 2.0 on Windows won't have to worry about taking a performance hit."

Kept pace, not better performance, just because its apache dosent mean its better, deal with it.

Re:Did anyone read this artical?

[skunkeh]

Same performance, better security. Which is the better web server?

wowowi...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure /.ers will have a field day with this topic.

Are you high??

[nobodyman]

Funny, I've also worked with both, and have come to the opposite conclusion.
PHP is cryptic and slow. Just check out the stats on the shootout pages. PHP routinely gets stomped in the tests by perl, Java, Ruby and Python. Seeing as how you can write an ASP in perl, vbScript, or ECMAScript, I dare say an ASP solution would win as well.

It integrates seemlessly with MySQL, compared to ASP-MSSQL/Access where I had to define a dsn connection with several lines of code

Several? Try two.

set myConnection = server.createobject("adodb.connection")
myConnect ion.open "dsn_name"

There are reports taht PHP runs faster than ASP, but I haven't ran my own tests.

Sorry. ASP is a framework, PHP is a language. I seriously doubt that PHP has that much of an edge over vbscript, but if I decide to write an ASP with C#, your PHP script is *doomed*.

The good folks at www.php.net give a full documentation of the language, as well as a tutorial. Try finding that on M$ website
Gee, okay. Try the microsoft scripting page. Wow, full docs and tutorials.

If you are going to migrate over to the non-microsoft side of web development, go with Ruby or Python. They are faster and more robust than PHP (and VBScript, for that matter), and are far easier on the eyes (call me crazy, I like my variables names to resemble actual words... whats wrong with you php/perl people?).

Re:Are you high??

[JLester]

As a PHP developer, I don't agree with many of your points. The only one that really got me though was variable names. That's a function of coding style, not the language. All my PHP apps have full descriptive variable names.

Jason

Re:Are you high??

[Cee]

PHP, slow?

According to this page, PHP is faster than ASP.

And even at ZDNet, PHP is a bit faster...

Re:Are you high??

[nobodyman]

Once again, PHP is a language and ASP is a framework. The ASP you mention in the sloppycode article is implemented in VBScript. Never did I say that VBScript is faster than PHP. I'm only saying that you can use faster languages and still have it be an ASP. And yeah, PHP is slow.

Re:Are you high??

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been an ASP developer for the last 4-5 years, mostly with VBScript. Last summer, after getting fed up with repeatedly patching IIS, I dumped MS products entirely as a platform for our external sites. In less than a month, I re-wrote our entire web site, including the underlying db functions, using PHP running on Apache. I'm not sure why you say PHP is cryptic, I found it's "style" to be much like VBScript.

I'm also not sure about the performance issues. You claim PHP is slow, but everyone who helped test our site during the rewrite commented on how "snappy" it was. Granted, the language wasn't the only thing that changed, but OVERALL, the site runs faster on PHP/Apache than it did with VB/IIS.

I guess everyone has an opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, I will never again put IIS on a public-facing server.

Re:Are you high??

[ahde]

PHP is a runtime or webserver module -- just the same as ASP. Ruby and Python are the slowest (execution) of the common interpreted languages, but they make up for it in design (more oo features, faster dev times, clarity)

PHP is the fastest, execution wise, unless you start caching and JIT. General usage speed goes something like:
Compiled C or whatever
good JIT JAVA
php
perl
ASP (there are only a few parser constructs to differentiate vbscript/jscript/perlscript --they aren't really different languages)
lisp
JSP
python
bad compiled JAVA

Give me a ASP.NET for Apache 2

[Anonymous Coward]

According to several articles I read a while ago it should be fairly straightforward to have ASP.Net running on any web server.
If that happen then it's likely that Apache 2.0 will be taken far more seriously my MS only shops because you will be able to combine the best of both worlds.

If .conf files are such a bad thing...

[jlanng]

Why does Microsoft's ASP.Net use web.config text files for its settings? Let's face facts, they're both pretty good and Apache seems to be more secure. If you're an MS shop though, IIS is almost certainly the way to go because it would easier to integrate

Re:PHP 4.X support. (OT: Support is there)

[yem]

I'm running Apache 2.0.35 and php 4.3.0-dev (CVS checkout from last night) right now. Flawless install. I've setup apache from source many many times and Apache 2.0.x leaves 1.3.x for dead. Very Cool.

http://home.y3m.net/ if you want to bang on it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

mod_perl

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize there is a development version of mod_perl for this version of apache. Has anybody heard about when it will be released as "production" quality code?

Won't Matter if MS New License Won't Let it Run

[g8orade]

See the other story about MS's patents that are licensed to prohibit interaction with GPL and LGPL software.

XML is not crap

[Jules]

There's a couple of reasons. First is you don't have to write your own parser. Many fine XML parsers exist and can be plugged into just about any language. Secondly, the idea of XML is to produce well-formed, structurally correct documents. Kind of important for configuration files I think. Sure, you can still screw up the config itself with your Apache front-end program but having to worry about writing the correct format back is one less thing to program around.

Microsoft, The Creator

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, everything is in relation to Microsoft.

KLIK?

[jelle]

KLIK? But I don't use KDE.

what good is it if it's not a MS product though?

[MrDingDong]

We've been running Apache with Perl scripts against a Sybase database quite successfully now for the past three years or so. The Perl scripts are robust and (for Perl) - easy to understand and maintain. They were well written and designed in the first place.

But now, management has decided that it is worth the effort to convert from Apache -> IIS and from Perl -> ASP/VB and from Sybase -> MS SQL Server.

The reason seems to be that this company has decided that a 100% pure Microsoft setup is better than a free, well written, more secure system. They're already having problems accomplishing some of what we already do with the existing code, and are bringing in MS consultants to help reinvent the wheel!

Best of luck Apache - it was great working with ya!

Re:The only problem -- very true

[Anonymous Coward]

I came into a job last year that has one main app using ASP. Since I got there I've built everything with PHP. So, until I get time to port this ASP app to PHP, I'm stuck with IIS 5.0 and downloading security updates every week.

Raiding the treasure chest

[hey!]

On a recent project meeting so many requirements begain by visiting the Apache web sites and CPAN that we came up with a catch phrase for this: "time to raid the treasure chest."

It's a bit giddy, digging through all the free and excellent software.

If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[reallocate]

This kind of troglodytic ignorance of the value of a good interface is all too typical. Why shouldn't this stuff be easy to use? Why should soneone need to know how to construct regular expressions in order to run a web server? Why maintain the quarter-century old text-based UNIX interface as some kind of rite of passage that the Chosen Ones use to ward off the Heathen?

If open source is really about giving people choices, then give them more than one option.

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[the eric conspiracy]

This kind of troglodytic ignorance of the value of a good interface is all too typical. Why shouldn't this stuff be easy to use? Why should soneone need to know how to construct regular expressions in order to run a web server?

I am sorry, but a good user interface accomodates users with advanced skill levels just as well as it does novices. The ZDNet article is in fact doing people a disservice when it states that the Apache configuration is hard to use. Hard to use for whom? Some paper MSCE? Or somebody who is facile with a text editor with a regular expression tool set? It is a falacy of arrogance to assume that users do not appreciate the ability to interact with their software in powerful ways. It is even more idiotic to design a tool that ultimately limits the productivity of the user far below what is possible with the mistaken design goal of making the product 'easy to use' for a novice.

The problem with these simplistic GUI interfaces is that they exclude the use of powerful tools. It is not acceptable UI design to build a UI that is easier for a novice, but when that novice gains expertise he finds that the UI is a burden or cannot accomodate his level of expertise.

Anyone who has studied OOD knows the facade design pattern MUST be accompanied by access to the underlying flexibility of the entire application. Evisceration of functionality via GUI is an NOT acceptable design.

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[Fweeky]

> This kind of troglodytic ignorance of the value of a good interface is all too typical.

Since when is "write one and submit it" classed as ignoance? I understand the problem domain, I know how a good interface can improve matters. it just so happens the text file + vim + docs is a pretty optimal solution for me.

> Why shouldn't this stuff be easy to use?

Apache's config is very user friendly for it's target demographic. Concidering how flexible and complex Apache is, it's remarkably simple to set up.

> Why should soneone need to know how to construct regular expressions in order to run a web server?

They don't. If they want to do pattern matching to transform URI's or whatever, though, regexp is the only way to go. If you can think of a more user friendly way of matching arbitary strings, then quick! patent it!

> Why maintain the quarter-century old text-based UNIX interface as some kind of rite of passage that the Chosen Ones use to ward off the Heathen?

I'll be impressed if you can come up with a non-cluttered, stable, secure, lightweight config tool that can match even the standard Apache config, never mind the power of being able to bring any text processing language to bear on any problem.

> If open source is really about giving people choices, then give them more than one option.

Your choices:

• Write your own. If you know so much about interface design, put it to use, even if you just come up with an interface design paper.
  
• Find one of the many currently available interfaces; a quick freshmeat search finds Comanche, Mohawk and TkApache.
  
• Buy Covalent, which is Apache + GUI + support.
  

I think that's plenty of choice, personally.

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[reallocate]

Frankly, I don't know anything at all about interface design. I'm just a bit tired of the cultish "don't like it? build your own" thread that seems to permeate much of the open source community. I'm also disappointed by the lack of original ideas, as reflected in the EMACS vs VI and Apache vs IIS wars. Surely, it is possible that someone, someday, might build a better editor that either EMACS or vi, and surely it is possible that neither Apache or IIS represent the ultimate in web server technology.

Why can't the open source community generate sone truly innovative, easy to use, ideas, instead of rewriting the same old stuff and castigating as "not terribly bright outsiders" those with the temerity to suggest that Computers Are Supposed To Be East To Use??

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[The_Sock]

It is easy to use. At least for me, and from the sounds of it, almost everyone else who's used it and learned it. Once I learned the syntax and how to use the config file to set up everything, I found it 1000 times better then any gui could provide. So I never bothered writing a GUI. It looks like almost all people who have done the same have found the same, hence the low number of GUI config programs for Apache. I'm sure you'll find a few on freshmeat, but I can't tell you for sure. Maybe you should look.

It's not ignorance, it's need. And once I knew the syntax for the config file, I never ever needed/wanted a gui.

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[reallocate]

Yes, getting around a config file is pretty easy, once you learn the syntax. But that's the point -- you have to learn the syntax. If you are just an average person -- not a developer or an admin type --who wants to use some piece of software, why should you ever need to worry about "syntax", or even know that there is such a thing? Learning the "power" of the command line isn't worth the effort if you never have a reason to drop to the command line.

Most every "user" I know could care less how software works, and, in fact, it all seems pretty boring to them. Their judgments about "good" vs "bad" software are primarly based on ease-of-use and visual attractiveness.

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[Fweeky]

> I'm just a bit tired of the cultish "don't like it? build your own" thread that seems to permeate much of the open source community

That is the way it works. The fact of the matter is that most people with the skills to actually develop such an interface don't have that particular itch to scratch.

> I'm also disappointed by the lack of original ideas, as reflected in the EMACS vs VI and Apache vs IIS wars

Ah, well, original ideas are few and far between everywhere in computing, not just open source. And a lot of those new ideas are in techy stuff most people couldn't care less about, and even most of THOSE aren't particularly new, just nobody bothered implimenting them :)

Apache used to have a pure prefork scheme for handling requests. Now it's a mix and match with various schemes, including one that allows seperate Apache processes to run as the user id of whoever owns a particular virtual host ([sound of 100,000 PHP weenies wetting their pants]). Does that count as an original idea? Probably not, but that's the sort of level that impresses most Apache users.

> Surely, it is possible that someone, someday, might build a better editor that either EMACS or vi

Sure. JEdit, NEdit, etc. I still prefer vim, but for a lot of people they would count, no?

Anyway, Emacs isn't an editor, it's a LISP interpreter with a bundled editor :)

> and surely it is possible that neither Apache or IIS represent the ultimate in web server technology.

There are plenty of alternatives (Roxen, thttpd, Jigsaw, Webrick, etc), and IIS and Apache are obviously still making big advances in their own scheme of things.

> Why can't the open source community generate sone truly innovative, easy to use, ideas

You might ask the same of any development community (websites, architecture, car design, commercial software vendors, etc). Finding one or the other may be fairly easy, finding both (aside from being doubly subjective) may prove more difficult. And finding one that's truely new will probably cut that down even more :)

> instead of rewriting the same old stuff

This is what humans are about. Get an idea, mix it about with other ideas, occasionally come up with a new idea. Repeat.

It just happens that the open source side of things tends to be from the perspective of a programmer, so..

> and castigating as "not terribly bright outsiders" those with the temerity to suggest that Computers Are Supposed To Be East To Use??

What's easy to use for you may not be easy to use for a programmer. What's easy for a sysadmin may not be easy for you either. Well, that's where most open source is targetted; if you dislike it, find something that is aimed at you, alter other software (or pay someone to do it) to make it more like what you want, or try commercial software which by and large is aimed at you.

Certainly, getting upset over the interface for various open source stuff not meeting your expectations won't get you very far unless you can make suggestions on how to change them in a way everyone can live with.

Re:If Open Source is Really About Choice....

[ahde]

here's an algorithm for converting a config file to a gui:

Make the option name a label.
Enter the option value in a field.
Have a shiny red button next to it labelled "help" that brings up the comments in the config file directly above it.
Have another button (this one blue) at the bottom labelled "done."

Somebody should whip up a Java application.

[emil]

Seriously, Oracle seems to get a lot of mileage with a single codebase for their "Universal Installer" and "Enterprise Manager" which are cross-platform Java Applets/Applications.

Apache should take a page from this book and silence this UI debate forever.

The only problem is that Apache is then condemned to including a JRE with their distribution forever, just like Oracle.

Or maybe we should just convince Oracle to do it for us?

Are the iis admins lazy or morons?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked on both iis and apache systems web server for the same reason. I am only 18 years old, but, yet, somehow i was able to edit a config file w00t!

Really, how hard is it to edit the config file, all you have to do is read and have basic knowledge in linux. For gods sake their are 14 year old kids running unix

one man's downside is...

[wickline]

> administration is done by editing .conf files

IIS:
all config done by GUI
migrating a site is Very Hard
migration tools miss things
like multiple host headers,
IP-based access restrictions
no .htaccess files means that
you have to right-click on
every dir that *might* have
special IP/user restrictions
then click on properties, jot
down what you see so you can
right-click, click, type on
the other server.

Apache:
all config done by text files
migrating is as easy as cp
or (worst case copy/paste)

-matt

Pre v2.0 wasn't POSIX compliant?

[Tokerat]

From The Article:Companies with Unix versions of Apache will find that the server has been completely redesigned and can take advantage of POSIX support to run in a multiprocess, multithreaded mode that provides much greater scalability than before.

cd /usr/bin/apache
./httpd
ps -aux

Hmmm... I see a few Apache processes here, and this is 1.3... is ZDNet still as dumb as they have always been or am I missing something here? Has Apache perviously been missing some features that would be required to qualify it as POSIX compliant? It sounds like this sentence is trying to "lie without lying". Or, since IANAUE (*Unix Expert), there may be something about POSIX I missed.

Things like this are the reason the only time I ever use C|Net/ZDNet is for downoad.com.

Re:Pre v2.0 wasn't POSIX compliant?

[SuiteSisterMary]

POSIX threads. Say it with me: POSIX threads.

Why ASP....

[ManicGiraffe]

Because a brain-damaged monkey (read: anybody) could learn and use ASP in about 2 weeks of effort. I learned all I really use in ASP in less than a week. There's low cost fo training your people: "ASP for Dummies" is usally sufficient. I've had the (dis)pleasure of using Chilisoft before to build an app on a linux box (and yes, I lobbied for PHP but management said no). I did enjoy that it ran the whole app with only a little tweaking, but it was a pain to install. And COM components I wanted to use? Forget it. Chilisoft provides an ADO interface and I think a FileScriptingObject; anything else you're SOL. Until Apache has a way to implement a COM interface (OMG that's a nasty thought) so random components some company has dreamed up can be used, a lot of existing installs will stay with IIS so they don't have to rewrite things a JavaBeans. It's a matter of inertia, not security.

Dunno about Ruby...but Python?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww....
Whitespace is not a syntactical element.

Bad for Linux

[wytcld]

On Unix, don't expect a big performance boost with the new release. In tests of Apache 2.0 vs. Apache 1.3.24 running on Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux 7.2, performance was nearly identical (though still very good). However, platforms such as Solaris and AIX, where a process switch is relatively slower than it is on Linux, will benefit much more from Apache 2.0's hybrid process/thread design.

So because Linux was already better tuned as an OS for Web serving, the new Apache, which compensates for less capable OS's such as Solaris, AIX and Windows, takes away performance advantage of Linux. This will result in a fragmenting of the Web OS market, and less Linux innovation, hindering the world economy. Do the Apache developers have no shame?

The REAL question

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is always saying that apache is difficult to configure and that IIS is a piece of cake.
But the true question is: Do you want a lamer that can't read a manual and edit a configfile appropriately, to administer your dear webserver???
I mean I'm not against usability this or that,
but for god's sake. You only have to edit a config file. If the admins are too stupid for that then they shouldn't be administering something...
True or not?

Comanche!

[Lxy]

Comanche anyone? I remember using this tool to configure my Apache boxen long ago. I since got used to editing .conf files in vi. Still, the article makes mention that there's no GUI. I beg to differ! I don't know if it supports Apache 2.0 yet, but there's a windows binary for 1.3. Just wait, and the GUI will come.

Re:Damn you O'Reilly!

[lugonn]

Well this sucks. I'm not even finished with 'Apache the Definitive Guide for 1.3.3, 2nd ed', and now I have to buy a WHOLE NEW book! If they weren't $35 bucks apiece, I wouldn't bitch. But $35 bucks for a 350 page book is a little much. that's $.10 a page! I wonder how many of the directives I had to learn are still in use. Oh, and good thing I haven't learned the API yet. Feel sorry for you poor MOD authors.


#ifndef NEW_VER
#define NEW_VER "damn/you/oreilly/:wtf/.?:heres/my/35/you/bastard"
#endif

MS reducing reboots

[Mr 44]

Actually, more and more of the patches from MS don't require reboots. They've started listing whether a reboot is required under the "Additional Information" section of the security bulletins... See ms02-018 for an example. No reboot needed on IIS 5.

Re:Damn you O'Reilly!

[Darth_brooks]

$35 bucks? somebody get that man a waaaahmbulance and tell him to stay out of a 4 year college.

I'd love to pay 35 bucks per book. Even better, I'd like to pay 35 bucks for a book that would be as useful as an o'reilly book.

Proxy!

[yerricde]

[Win2k/XP Pro's IIS] can simultaneously service 10 different IP addresses

In that case, it can be trivially circumvented with a cheap proxy.

Corporations *DO* embrace OSS (some of them)

[chris_7d0h]

I hear what you are saying.. and you are right.
Having worked many years with a certain brand you mentioned in your post (at the company developing the product), I've become rather indoctrinated when it comes to my company's tools and solutions. To be honest, these products are no better or worse than anything else you might be able to find in the OSS community, just as complex or even more so than OSS counter parts when you look past pretty UIs and start planning or implementing whatever it was you wanted the product for in the first place. That the "industry" is engaged in the "feature game" at the expense of other areas of improvements doesn't help much either other than sales.

The main difference between an OSS solution and one from a large company is A) management at a customer *knows* they will be able to get support for the product in the future, B) They have someone to nag at if they are not satisfied with whatever it may be and C) the product cost an insanely amount of money (and some draw a false conclusion that expense at purchase == quality).
FYI: We have been using ALOT of OSS software during customer engagements (especially from the Apache foundation) due to their high quality, speedy enhancements and FULL SOURCE (which we don't always get even from our laboratories which develop our "cutting edge" software).
I can only echo what you say by agreeing that anything we can do with most any commercial software out there (including our own), we can do just as well with OSS software. On the other hand, there is quite a gap between "being able to run" a product and fully exploiting a products strengths. This takes knowledge and experience and most companies don't possess that. This all lead to "OSS is excellent to top-of-the-crop people", but the same is also true for expensive commercial products. The difference is probably that commercial sw is quicker than an OSS counterpart, to get up doing *anything* (i.e. the invested cost in learning "hello world" is cheaper with commercial products), but when you actually set out to do more advanced stuff, the intellectual investment is probably about the same.

To conclude, the more I see the world, the more companies I visit and the more engagements I'm at, the more I stand puzzled about our customer's corporate decisions. They purchase expensive hw and sw from us, but they still need many many consulting hours, which we are more than happy to provide, to get the most (or at times, *anything*) out of their acquisitions. Our products have a life span, meaning that if the customers want any kind of support from us, after 1 - 2 versions, it's upgrade time or an expensive service agreement since we won't (and economically can't) support older products. In the end, If you have the skills, OSS is by far the most bang for the bucks and probably the lesser headache during upgr. cycles. If you have swelling pockets instead, sure you can contract the vendors' consultants getting their products buzzing. It's all about skills, ambition, money and marketing.

Re:Corporations *DO* embrace OSS (some of them)

[graveyhead]

Hmm. Big blue? :-)

The only problem I see with your point is this: how, exactly does management *know* they will be able to get support for your products in the future? If I'm right, and you are talking about big blue, you are correct to an extent. Any other company, however, could fold tomorrow. Where does the ex-customer go for support in that case? Although it wouldn't come "straight from the horses mouth", popular OSS projects will continue to be supported potentially even after the original author or development group is long gone.

Case in point, Loki developed a neat audio API called "OpenAL". Although they are now defunct, the API lives on, and you could pay me to support your OpenAL based project. The project and support for it will continue to remain alive as long as it remains useful.

you know

[Anonymous Coward]

ASP.NET really isn't all that great. I've built several applications using it, and it's good for people like my boss who last did simple asp programming, don't rememeber anything about coding, and are scared of anything without a gui. The object oriented page stuff is nice, I guess, event driven and all. Grave doubts about the scallability.

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

You can program with ASP.Net any way you want.
You are not *required* to use these rich controls if performance is a big issue. And ASP.Net provides enough tools for you to tune it and to see what's going on inside so scalability should be able to be achieved with fine tuning.

you are an idiot for thinking that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the secretary fuck with the website if she can't grasp the concept of files on the webserver being at a remote site, not on her computer, and requiring you go get a copy, change it, then put back where you got it from. What's wrong with the concept of "Being able to understand what the fuck you're doing before doing it publically?" Is it too much to ask that the website get updated by someone who understands what they're doing, just a little?

Re:you are an idiot for thinking that way

[M1m3R]

In some companies, you are forced to give people access to do things that are beyone their comprehension/education. Some people refuse to be educated...and thus require continual training/help.

In the case of a (large) website, it really does make a lot of sense to decentralize the content creation and or deployment. This is why "we" (not me specifically, but the reason they exist) have content management systems...so non tech people can do some of the "tech stuff" themselves. It's knid of nice not having to go back and fix/change things on a regular basis...

and people called me crazy...

[morgajel]

for using phpTriad last year.

I swear, I just can't get it right. I must be a visionary or something.

and I agree with alot of the people here- I had a heck of a time trying to configure sql server 2k- I'm guessing IIS configures much the same way.

I'll take a config file over that mess any day.

Accountingdot...

[alexhmit01]

Most of my accounting is in Quickbooks and somewhat self learned. There are two parts to my comment, which I believe is what confused you.

If you buy software, you acquire assets. That's fine on the balance sheet, cash goes down, assets go up. This is neat in that it doesn't show a cost, but bad in that you lost cash. Companies can show profits each quarter and go bankrupt, or lose money each quarter and do fine. All that really matters is the cash. The rest of that statement is for figuring out what is going on. The depreciation issue is mostly a tax issue. If I spend $20k on software licenses that I need to depreciate over 5 years, I lose $4k in assets each year and get to reduce them from my tax burden. This is fine, except that the $20k is gone now, but I pay taxes on it. This can create a situation where a company is paying taxes on cash that is gone, and if you don't have the cash for the tax bill... again, cash is king. Capital expenditures are bad from a cash and tax perspective, they aren't fundamentally evil. :)

The reason you that you mess with these issues is a desire to minimize your tax burden. Getting a tax writeoff in the same year that you spent the money isn't dot-com accounting, its trying to minimize the tax burden.

The whole asset accounting is relatively worthless. It makes sense in certain industrial applications where the assets are machinery where there REALLY IS a market for second-hand equipment (unlike computers that lose 50% when you drive them off the lot), or land which doesn't depreciate, even though you write off the building over 10 years.

Keep in mind with software licenses, you can't really sell them, so you make your balance sheets look artificial when you show these terrific assets...

Alex

Re:Accountingdot...

[um... Lucas]

I guess we come from 2 different schools of thought on this one...

If you buy software, you acquire assets. That's fine on the balance sheet, cash goes down, assets go up. This is neat in that it doesn't show a cost, but bad in that you lost cash.

Cash is not the all powerful thing... IF you have the extra cash, it's perfectly reasonable to use it for capital investments, which is what acquiring assets is.

It's my sense from all that, that your primary goal is to pay as little taxes as possible... And hoard as much cash as possible at the same time. I don't think that's appropriate for most businesses.

Spend the cash, you end up with assets on your balance sheet which will look good if you need to solicit credit or investment to grow your business. If all your company has to show for anything is a fat bank balance, no one will think that you have much staying power, and hence will be much more wary of giving out money in one form or another.

And if you're concerned with taxes, then the depreciation expense could be seen as a "bonus", in that it's (in your theory), $4000 a year more business you can do without having to pay tax on... Short term vs. Long Term, i guess... If you don't feel comfortable having you cash tied up in licenses, and you arent' using them, you can always turn around and sell them down the line (see below).

Keep in mind with software licenses, you can't really sell them, so you make your balance sheets look artificial when you show these terrific assets...

i've had no problems selling software licenses across the years... If i don't use a particular program, or any program which ownership of that program is mandatory (upgrades and/or competitive upgrades), i have found absolutely no issue i selling a license to someone who wants it. There hasn't seemed to have been any clauses against it in any of the EULA's i've read.

We just differ... I've worked for a company for instance in the past that needed to turn over it's balance sheets to a potential client, so that they could determine if we'd have the staying power to support a project we were bidding on...

It's all 2 schools of thought. I'm sure if we asked the rest of slashdot we'd get 250,000 more schools of thought to add to the pool...

:-)

Re:Accountingdot...

[ahde]

Right.

Accounting is the business of obfuscation and there are certain known phraseologies that are generally accepted. Any idiot with a calculator can balance books. Its making them look balanced when their not that makes accounting.

And of course there's the buddy system where certain accounting companies are "in" with the IRS and are almost never audited. The same goes for financials. They are assumed to be competent and low risk. Which is why everyone is dropping Arthur Anderson. It's not that they don't think they can do the job, it's that they know they are much more likely to get audited, because they are no longer in with them, to mangle a pronoun.

Of course part of an accountant's reputation is build on honesty, but a larger part is made on watertight obfuscation.

Re:Accountingdot...

[ahde]

If a company spent $20,000 on software licenses that depreciates in value over 5 years, they pay taxes on a portion of it. If they use free software and pay $20,000 on consulting fees, they don't pay taxes on a penny of it. Is that clear enough?

exhausting...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, these anti-ms/anti-linux bickering is so exhausting. What is the point really? I've seen less conviction at a Jehovah's Witness convention.

Re:Damn you O'Reilly!

[lugonn]

Send the waaahmbulance over to Borders Book Store. I did the college thing years ago, and got the $27,000 dollar t-shirt.


WILL RENDER FOR FOOD!

(-1, Offtopic)

[cjpez]

"It's part of our three pronged attack; subliminal, liminal, and superliminal" -- L.T. Smash

Lisa: Superliminal?
L.T. Smash: I'll show you. (opens window) HEY YOU! JOIN THE NAVY!
Carl: Uh, yeah, alright.
Lenny: I'm in!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

i've always said apache is better.

[tcmardoc]

in fact, i'm developing a new management system to the micro$oft win32 platform. such as HPOV\Webmin all apache 1.3.20 mod_perl 1.25 mod_jk based! works fine for me.. daahh..

No benchmarks?

[cpeterso]

Did you read the entire article? There was a link near the end that said "Click here for the test results" and it pointed directly to some nice graphs.

VBScript?

[cpeterso]

If we could somehow create a 99.9% functional VBScript parser for Apache, then Apache could swallow up a very large bunch of IIS users in one quick bite.


If someone wrote a GPL'd VBScript interpreter, I wonder what Microsoft would do. That would be a huge affront to IIS lock-in and a big win for Apache! Perhaps Microsoft has some VBScript patent to protect their proprietary language..?

Re:VBScript?

[billcopc]

Exactly. How about a VBScript workalike called Web-Basic, with a run-time translator called VB2WB, that runs ActiveX crap through Wine. Something that delicately prances around the patent issues.

HOLD UP.

[Dave_bsr]

wait a second. Whats wrong with Mozilla and rendering? The only pages that don't run right are Popup ads that i turn off! i've had none, nada, zilch rendering errors in Moz since about 9.7. I use Hotmail and browse msn and see no errors. I don't know what pages you're talking about, but as far as i'm concerned Mozilla is _there_ .

Re:Things To Do Today

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, what happened to honor among trolls?