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.
...Duh!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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.
air and light and time and space
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.
that IIS is not so much about raw speed and security as it is web services? That this is what microsoft is really pushing?
"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
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
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.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Downside
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.
"Knowledge makes us accountable." - Che Guevara
...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.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
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..)
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?
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'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*
:-) from XSL:FO, Batik for building dynamic SVGs, and a ton of library code that makes building dynamic websites very easy.
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
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!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
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
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.
should've been Apache 2.0 scalps IIS...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
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.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
slashdot!=valid HTML
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.
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)
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
:-D
So drop a copy on his desk with a little note about "same performance, better security." See how nice that sounds.
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.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
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.
http://www.apache.org/server-status
Instead of "Apache beats IIS at its own game", they could've said "Apache beats IIS at the not-getting-0wned game". :)
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Obviously Apache will beat IIS at Apache's own game.
sic transit gloria mundi
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
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
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.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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!!!
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
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.
Zodiac Survey
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).
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.
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.
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..
.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.
Not only do I find editing xml easier than
[alk]
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
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.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
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?
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.Several? Try two.
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*.
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.
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
KLIK? But I don't use KDE.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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?
POSIX threads. Say it with me: POSIX threads.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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:
I think that's plenty of choice, personally.
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?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
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.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
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
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
> 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.
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.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
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.
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..?
cpeterso
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."