Slashdot Mirror
Apache Jumps In Market Share
mshiltonj writes "In case no one has noticed, the lastest Netcraft web server survey showed a marked shift in market share in just one month. Apache gained 2.63% and IIS fell 2.06%.
However, the previous month showed an even larger change in Microsoft's favor, so Apache is (quickly) making up for lost ground, as discussed before. Was this turnaround due to the release of Apache 2.0?
Sadly, in the last 12 months, Apache's market share has noticeably eroded, while IIS has gradually gained ground."
Slashdot's story titles jump in blatant typos.
;)
Way to be trend-whores guys. You know we love you for it.
--Dan
Sun went from 51% to 54% of the Unix server market, largely at the expense of Big Blue: IBM fell from 21% to 17% (and HP passed them, to take second place):
Slashdot Junps ahead getting Apache article posted.
Film at 11
http://www.freebsd.org
...which is why I use TinyWeb Does very little - but does it securely.
The quick brown fox junps over the lazy dog.
I just pooped your party.
It's official - Netcraft confirms: Apache is not dying. Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered non-Apache community when recently IDC confirmed that Apache accounts for more than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Apache has lost less market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Apache isn't collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by not failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Apache's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Apache does not face a bleak future. In fact there will be a future for Apache because Apache isn't dying . Things are not looking very bad for Apache. As many of us are already aware, Apache continues to not lose market share. Red ink doesn't flow like a river of blood. RedHat Apache isn't the most endangered of them all, having not lost 93% of its core developers. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Apache on OpenBSD. How many users of Linux Apache are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Linux Apache users. NetBSD posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Linux posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of NetBSD Apache. A recent article put MS-IIS at about 80 percent of the web server market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 IIS users. This is consistent with the number of IIS Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of OpenBSD, abysmal sales and so on, Apache did not go out of business and wasn't taken over by Linux who sell another troubled OS. Now NetBSD is also not dead, its corpse not turned over to yet another charnel house. All major surveys show that Apache has not steadily declined in market share. Apache isn't very sick and its long term survival prospects aren't very dim. If Apache is to survive at all it won't be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Apache continues to not decay. Anything short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Apache is not dying. Fact: Apache is alive
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
It's official - Netcraft confirms: Apache is not dying.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered non-Apache community when recently IDC confirmed that Apache accounts for more than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Apache has lost less market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Apache isn't collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by not failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Apache's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Apache does not face a bleak future. In fact there will be a future for Apache because Apache isn't dying . Things are not looking very bad for Apache. As many of us are already aware, Apache continues to not lose market share. Red ink doesn't flow like a river of blood. RedHat Apache isn't the most endangered of them all, having not lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Apache on OpenBSD. How many users of Linux Apache are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Linux Apache users. NetBSD posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Linux posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of NetBSD Apache. A recent article put MS-IIS at about 80 percent of the web server market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 IIS users. This is consistent with the number of IIS Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of OpenBSD, abysmal sales and so on, Apache did not go out of business and wasn't taken over by Linux who sell another troubled OS. Now NetBSD is also not dead, its corpse not turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Apache has not steadily declined in market share. Apache isn't very sick and its long term survival prospects aren't very dim. If Apache is to survive at all it won't be among OS hobbyist dabblers. Apache continues to not decay. Anything short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Apache is not dying.
Fact: Apache is alive
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Apparently Slashdot's use of Apache 2 is important according to Netcraft as it is mentioned: several high profile sites, including News.com and slashdot.org have started using it
According to the Netcraft Web Server Survey page, the drop in IIS over the past month was due to a change in Homestead.com's policies:
--Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
Good writeup above, regardless of typos. Almost sounded scientific. But you lost it here:
Sadly,...
Sounds a bit biased to me!
Come on, take an evening course in journalism or something.
Seriously, either Im seeing things, or thats a major mistake.
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com
I would think the release of Apache 2.0, which lacks php or mod_perl, the two most prominent web scripting environments, renders it to be the least useful or relevant apache release ever. Why would an IIS site ever consider switching - security has always been low on the totem pole for IIS admins, they are looking for domain integration, and other windows interfaces. Which, of course, Apache lacks. Other than the fact it now runs better on OS/2 than before, and has a BEOS port, there's little incentive to "upgrade" or switch. And those examples are only partially facetious.
It's probably due to Gartner's recommendation to drop IIS due to all the security holes IIS has had recently. Or more to the point, the holes themselves have caused people to lose faith in IIS and move to Apache.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
The fine print of the netcraft survey points out that most of the Microsoft gains are the result of mass hosting places and hostname expirations (i.e. small numbers of people making decisions). I suggest that the trend is really quite flat. Will Apache sweep thew market... no, but Apache is much better possitioned, and I forsee the gradual errosion of Microsoft's server market...
Hmmm... If a single web hosting company can influence the stats by that much, there is something seriously wrong with the stats.
One approach would be to count unique IP addresses (i.e., vhosted sites would not be counted twice).
But even better, it would be way cool if Google's linking metrics could be brought in. That way, a rough guesstimate of the amount of information served by all the web servers could be established.
There's lies, damn lies and statistics. I remember when a sales droid walked up to me and recommended I switch to IIS because it was the dominant web server. He had brought this list of high profile IIS installations, and on the surface it looked impressive. When I confronted him with how many of those still had Apache or UNIX somewhere in the path (either as a firewall, server for static images or ads), he started mumbling incoherently.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Do these numbers include all the people running IIS who don't realize they're running IIS, or that a web server is running on their machine at all?
Just wondering.
Migrating empty virtual hosts isn't what 95% of the internet will be doing when evaluating a 'new' web server.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
I use Apache 1.3.24 on Windows ME. Works quite well, never tried 2 yet though. I didnt think it seemed tested enough, and WinME doesnt need any more security holes as it is, so im not sure if i trust it yet.
And you crazy linux people can cram it. I have an uptime of 5 days, 14 hours, 23 minutes, 13 seconds. I dont need your MS bashing here. (stupid norton that wanted me to reboot five days ago...)
Could more people be figuring out how to simply flick the switch in OS X to make their computer an Apache server? As Apple's Xserve catches on, as well as more people migrate to OS X, Apache stands to gain ground too. I think that is a good relationship.
today is spelling optional day.
And the award for 'most valuble use of the carriage return' goes to... tps12.
:)
The deft usage of a handful of well placed carriage returns turned a '-1, Troll' post in to a '+4, Funny'.
Congratulations
One thing you will avoid by running apache 2 on win32 is the cancerous penetration of the OS by IIS. If anything, ANYTHING at all is "wrong" with your IIS install, patches installed in the wrong order, your server is doomed, at least to a painful reinstall -- possibly of the whole OS. Most aggravating is the integration of the browser and the webserver -- heaven forbid a browser patch goes awry. At that point you might as well resign and become a mountain man. It is as if MS feels they will solve the problem of discrimination by integrating software. Anyone who has run a lot of IIS boxen has no doubt seen this. IMHO, Apache2 in Win32 will be under serious FUD by MS, but quick. It's just too easy compared to IIS to administer. In time I hope we will see IIS eclipsed by Apache 2.
all those parked domains and vanity sites mean squat. It's the number of large business sites that really matter. Netcraft needs to update how the surveys are taken.