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.
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.
"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
Downside
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
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
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.
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.
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