Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
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.
.NET Server (or whatever it's called this week) comes out.
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
They know how much is riding on this release. If IIS6 isn't tight, fast, and secure, then people will start jumping ship.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"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.
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.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?"
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.
-Billco, Fnarg.com