June Netcraft Survey
Andy Cheung writes "http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
The Netcraft Web Server Survey for June is out. Apache market share rises 3.46%; MS down -2.72". Scroll down past the graph on servers and check out the information on current exploits. It makes you wonder why "immediate death of the internet" has not happened.
Come on, somebody, get your code together that takes advantage of all the exploits and eforces your view of the way things should be. There's hardly a better time!
Is a breakdown of how each company's base is growing.
How much comes from switching from another product?
How much comes from new domains starting up?
How much comes from existing domains adding servers?
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
On Mozilla it's not wide.
Although the amount of active sites is certainly important, it should be noted that the drop you state is a (miniscule) drop in the total market share of internet sites, not a drop in usage. There was still a 5% increase (10.4 million to about 11 million) in active sites served by Apache. Also worth noting is the -0.85 drop by MS (also with about 5% increase in total active sites). What is somewhat perplexing is that of the four major developers listed, only iPlanet showed a growth in the market share of active sites, and its growth is not great enough to account for the drop in Apache and MS. Who are the tiny developers that are taking over relatively large amounts of market share, then?
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
"Apache market share rises 3.46%; MS down -2.72."
So... MS is actually UP 2.72%? -(-2.72) = 2.72
Scroll down past the graph on servers and check out the information on current exploits. It makes you wonder why "immediate death of the internet" has not happened.
Well since the only people capable of bringing the world wide web to its knees are l33t Ub3rh4x0rs, it will be with us for quite some time.
>
What is Netcraft using to calculate the uptime? There's just vague explanation of it. Does anybody have details on what they are doing?
Of course you can't put real value into statistics without finding out what the reasons are from people changing their webserver.
But I find it odd that when an expoit, worm or virus comes out for a certain webserver, that webserver rises in marketshare.
Like the rise of Microsoft IIS, after Code red, and now the rise of Apache.
Would it then be true that bad news is even better marketing then no news?
Is that why Microsoft Windows is even so successfull?
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
They are assuming that any apache site out there under 1.3.26 is vulnerable. But that's not true. Redhat back-ports patches into their supported revs when needed. RH 7.3 patched Apache is at 1.3.23 and RH 7.2 patched Apache is at 1.3.22. I'm sure a lot of other distros back port patches as well.
is that although 65% of websites with Apache have not upgraded to version 1.3.26 or greater, that a large number of those have applied vendor patches (like Redhat) that do not reflect the new Apache version, or modified their configuration to not accept chunk uploads, or installed a module to filter for them -- which is almost certainly the majority of admin responses. Considering that 35% *have* upgraded, then well over 70% of Apache servers have probably secured their servers in the first month, and the number of actual compromizes discovered so far is measured in dozens, not millions, it should reflect more positively for Apache
please, no more of this boring shit.
I was going to write something, but I forgot what it was.