Slashdot Mirror
Netcraft Claims Apache Now Runs 2/3rds Of The Web
Mr Bill writes "According to NetCraft the Apache web server now owns over 2/3rds of the web. The jump of 2.8% since last month is mostly due to a number of large domain parking sites switching back to Apache from IIS. 'During 2001 and the first half of 2002 several companies hosting very large numbers of hostnames including Webjump, Namezero, Homestead, register.com and Network Solutions migrated to Microsoft-IIS. Subsequently these businesses have either failed, significantly changed their business model, or reverted to their previous platform, and Microsoft-IIS share is now in line with its long term pre-summer 2001 level of around 20%.' See the full report here."
and it's likely to remain so for years to come
hopefully this will cut down on the number of easily infected web servers. don't want to see another run of iis worms spewing bogus access requests at my apache server.
Who would've believed that a non-proprietary and free webserver would be so popular when Microsoft gives you the opportunity to lock yourself into monopoly driven endless licensing upgrade cycle?
What the hell is this world coming to?
from Magnus at netcraft dot com
Numbers that are much harder to get but would be significantly more valuable would be the fraction of web traffic handled by the type of server. Just because I have a hosting company that has 3 sites doesn't mean that I'm getting traffic in the same amount that some other individuals. And MS(make that M$ so I don't get modded down) would tell you that there servers are deployed on the larger installations, the ones that need to higher performance.
(And, I'd expect that if we looked at a graph of traffic, you'd see the GWS getting a significant share.)
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Netcraft really needs to drop the NCSA line on the charts that don't stretch back before 2000.
The only thing that straight orange line at 0 does is give the Sun ONE guys something to point and laugh at. And it looks like they need it.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
...and great for Apache. The underlying message seems to be that switching from Apache to IIS will either cause your company to fail outright, or at best cost you a huge chunk of resources while you switch to and from. That fact that Network Solutions is on the list is even better, because for many managers and users NetSol is *the* .com company, and if they can't make IIS work...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Netcraft seems to show every site that I've looked at running Apache 1.3.x, and none of them running Apache 2.0.x. Is this just Netcraft being weird in attempting to determine what version of Apache a server is running (or perhaps an equivalence in transmitted data between 1.3.x and 2.0.x), or a more significant sign of the "stability" that major servers require?
If only ...
that many large companies started using IIS.
I got a bit nervous, but looks like using IIS is the best cure.
It's like pi**ing against electric fences.
You'll never do it again.
Luckily many people use different Apache versions or even platforms and certainly different modules, i.e., mod-perl or php so this isn't as bad for a risk factor. I would still like to see more variety and thus hopefully better security.
See my journal, I write things there
Take a look at the article below. It's incredibly worrying how many sites are still using vulnerable versions of OpenSSL.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.mi
This purple scheme hurts my eyes. At least it isn't as bad as bsd. or [shudder] games.slashdot.org. Still, whoever came up with the colors should be shot.
They could do a lot with the numbers they already have that could be more insightful: - Show statistics by type of domain (.org, .com, .net, etc.)
- Show statistics about known companies/orgnisations that would be of interest to users (Forbes 500 companies, IT companies)
Maybe some kind of statistical tool can be added to Apache (perhaps as a module) that can be optionally loaded that allows netcraft and similar sites to poll Apache and get interesting information like: hits, max load, throughput, type of machine it's running on...
When are those dolts at PHP going to stop saying "Dudes don't use PHP and Apache 2 in a production environment neither on unix or windows. Nope. none. neither. nyet." It's supposedly due to possible thread safetly issues with some of the libraries PHP uses. BUT IF YOU USE APACHE 2'S PREFORK MPM THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER!! So I say again, WTF PHP?
It would have been interesting to know which platform these webservers were running on, and if the host OS has been replaced too.
Which brings up the question why they are replacing their systems. Is it because IIS has a security history? If so, they did it for the wrong reasons, because the same can be said about Apache (go check bugtraq if you think i'm a troll). OTOH, if they replaced IIS to get rid of Windows, I can only be happy about. And so will the rest of the Slashdot crowd.
Btw, can someone explain to me the uprise in ISS use between May 2001 and August 2001 (or even till Feb 2002)?
It seems odd that the two largest parking hosts switched away from IIS at roughly the same time, when they also changed to IIS around the same time too. Maybe Microsoft made them an IIS offer they couldn't refuse, but have since changed that policy.
... that this article appears directly above the article "Lies, Damned Lies, And [Gaming] Statistics"?
The yarn goes that MS products are not so badly written, that IS II is no worse that apache, that outlook is no worse than XXXX, its just that windows runs on 95% of the worlds computers so its a target and when its infected it gets noticed.
this apache story sort of gives a lie to this. if it runs 80% of the web servers it is the largest target by definition. Of course it does get attacked but you dont hear about this being a viral thing, spreading throught the mono crop.
I guess one can counter this argument by saying that bussinesses that run web servers maintain their patches better thsn the devil spawned endusers. But this doesn't really wash. If bussinesses had to patch as often as Windows users did they would be screaming bloody murder since while it only costs the end user free time, it cost the bussinesses actual operating expesnes.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Microsoft-PWS is listed as part of "Microsoft." That made me laugh. I have no idea why.
With Apaches controlling this much of the internet and damn near all of the U.S. casinos, what the hell are they still bitching about?
Who cares if you don't have the land anymore, you're filthy fucking rich!
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
From netcraft: The site www.microsoft.com is running Microsoft-IIS/6.0 on Linux.
Is it correct? Is it even possible to run IIS on Linux?
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
Our company has to run IIS for some propeitery bespoke ASP applications that don't currently work on any ASP emulators for linux. So we run IIS under wine for our backend which gets tunnelled through our J2EE Database (that uses mysql) that gets turned into PHP code that is served though our netbeans interface running on Apache.
Yes, ASP can be annoying, but for lots of companies, ASP is essential for the enterprise features J2EE and PHP currently lack.
How did we do it? Well we did what NERO corporation did (the people who make NERO burning rom), they have a howto on their site
When I hosted some of my earlier sites, web hosting resellers were advocating Windows hosting. They charged more for it, and also most of the technical help they had was for Windows and IIS ...
... Finally one of the ladies confided ... "My techies are going nuts just keeping up with the patches after patches .. so please, go for Linux .... please .."
... .but I think very widespread ..
After the worm season of Microsoft, I actually had the same resellers begging me not to buy Windows hosting but go for Linux, even though it was cheaper (and hence their margins lower). Most of them were putting forward the reasoning that it was cheaper (but that was never a selling point earlier) and they said that there are so many free goodies available with it
It's anecdotal
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Whether this makes Apache's percentage larger or smaller, I have no idea there either. I think that the claim as written is inaccurate.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
...apache will spread even farther. i do a lot of web service programming myself, and i have to say that the axis project maintained by a fraction of the apache group made my life a whole lot easier. i don't think that a similar framework exists in the microsoft world (yeah, i know there is .NET, but i mean in the "real" java web service world that is truly portable cross platform)
".Sig Stealer" was here
is how many of the major ISP, financial companies and large corporations use a particular server. For example, Fleet used to use IIS and ASP, but the performance was horrible. Recently they switched to Netscape running JSP pages and now homelink is fast and reliable. When it was on IIS, homelink was erratic and frequently I would have a hard time logging in, or the response time for pages were minutes. If anything the whole webservices movement is helping Java camp far more than Microsoft where it matters, the enterprise world.
since they are measuring websites including the ones that are just parked or inactive, is there any figures that relate to an active site?
the parked domains just distorts the results to a certain degree.
maybe a good monthly metric would be a web server survey of actual web sites. this will allow us to learn trends that companies use.
one thing for sure, it just measures the sites to the server. is there a metric to measure hits per server type?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
This popularity is the ONLY reason for the TERRIBLE security track record of Apache compared to, say, IIS.
Oh, wait..
IIS is so superior to Apache that 20% of sites are willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for it (with windows server) when the alternative is absolutely free? The fact that Apache doesnt have 99% of the market share when it costs $0 amazes me. Microsofts consistant developer friendly attitude (COM+, ASP.NET, VB integration, etc.) is why people choose it.
I bet you anything that what happened was those companies bought the XP hype about how the new Windows would never crash again and now that we're well into the XP life cycle they've woken up to the fact that it was just more hype. Gave IIS a nice a little bump for a bit though.
I've seen a lot of the same thing at the consumer level where people who used to ask me for help all the time went ahead and bought XP despite my forewarnings and ended up getting bit as soon as the RPC bugs started flying. It turned out to be a good thing though because this more recent round of failed hype seems to have made people more willing to try a non-Windows alternatives to applications like Explorer if not moving them all the way to a Linux desktop.
I bet the estimates on the numbers of people using Firebird in place of IE are way too low.
It seems a bit silly to count by the number of domains hosted - this means that domain parking services (as mentioned in the report) inflate the numbers. Would it be possible to have a rough guess at how popular a site is (eg from Google rankings, or from traffic statistics gathered by snooping on traffic crossing some major ISP) and weight the results by that?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
For somewhat guessable reasons.
several companies hosting very large numbers of hostnames including Webjump, Namezero, Homestead, register.com and Network Solutions migrated to Microsoft-IIS. Subsequently these businesses have either failed, significantly changed their business model, or reverted to their previous platform
1) Move your business to IIS
2) See your company crumbling to its death
3) End of profits!
Maybe we deserve this world ?
check out the stability of apache too among the top sites list
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
the OS choice is interesting too
According to their platform groupings, they lump Apache Coyote together with Apache httpd.
Since Coyote is the Connector component that allows Tomcat to function as a standalone webserver, I wonder how many of "Apache" sites are running Tomcat versus httpd.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Perhaps it is the greatest victory since the open source community began fighting against Microsoft. Even Linux does not gain so much.
Thinking of things around SCO and Red hat these days, it's an inspiring news indeed.
-- forgive me my poor Engl...
We should think how many of them moved from MS OS to *nix systems.
Apache doesn't RUN the Web, and it certainly doesn't OWN anything. It's Web server software. That's all. It's like saying that Sony OWNS 30% of television. They just make the gizmo that shows the pictures. Apache could vanish tomorrow and the Web would be exactly the same (for those who matter: the users).
I find the article kind of strange saying that since Netcraft itself claims that NetSol's entire netblock is running Solaris...
just kidding. it only looks that way, what with folks afraid & angry, failing to click for fear of getting some unpatriotic payper liesense virot, &/or their personal inf. stolen by/sold to, the most gangsterious of FraUDsters.
pateNTdead eyecon0meter readings indicate that most of US are way past being simply annoyed buy the phonIE ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys of known corepirate felons.
you know where to look/who to trust? get ready to see the light.
can we get a measurement of distinct ip's running servers vs hostnames running servers?
Domain name registrars just fuck it up for everyone when they switch back and forth with their hosting solutions. It's not as if there was choice on by the user to what hosting service they were using for their parked page. It is an important when choosing a final hosting service, apache or IIS...
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
In other news: 2/3rds of IIS servers are 0wn3d!
I think this trend is mainly linked to the stange name that IIS has - its hard to pronounce two I's together where as 'Apache' is not only easy to say but sounds cool: Apache Indian, Apache Helicopter, A Patchy Web Server. Ok forget the last one.
Also IIS is for windows only while Apache runs on a matchbox. And IIS had that little drugs problem in its past (code red), still that didnt stop bush winning. Oh and Apache is free, and open source, and not too hard to set-up.
Sorry why does IIS run 1/3 of webservers again?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This valuable informative post got modded down to -1 even though it is nothing but 100% informative, and I rarely ever post it. Therefore I will post it three times in case the apache-fanboy mods it down to -1 again
:
I in 400 SECURE servers is still a classic Mac Os host even cccording to netcraft !
Because no mac in the history of the internet hosting a web server has ever been rooted or defaced remotely.
Why?
Because not one version of Mac OS has ever had a single exploitable hole ever discovered. (classic mac os now up to version 9.2.2 on currenlty sold g4 tolwers). OpenBSD has had no less than 5 holes (not one) in the default install in the last two years. Mac OS has had ZERO in over 7 years, even when paired up with its preferred web server app.
The Army (www.army.mil) has used Webstar for years on macs for security.
In fact in the entire SecurityFocus (BugTraq) database history there has never been a Mac exploited over the internet remotely. Scan it yourself.
For years, except, for a couple months ago, the army has always used MacOS and has never had a break-in on a Mac. Unlike their other MS defacements.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.arm y. mil
That is why the US Army gave up on MS IIS and got a Mac for a web server, sometimes it is a honeypot for OSX testing, and US ARmy use regular Mac OS on other internal servers
I am not talking about FreeBSD derived MacOS X (which already had a more than a 50 exploits and potential exploits in BugTraq database) I am talking about current Mac OS 9.x and earlier which are highly sophisticated abstract-OS models.
Why is is hack proof? These reasons
1> No command shell. No shell means no way to hook or intercept the flow of control with many various shell oriented tricks found in Unix or NT. Apple uses an object model for procces to process communication that is heavily typed and "pipe-less"
2> No Root user. All mac developers know their code is always running at root. Nothing is higher (except undocumented microkernel stufff where you pass Gary Davidian's birthday into certain registers and make a special call). By always being root there is no false sense of security, and programming is done carefully.
3> Pascal strings. ANSI C Strings are the number one way people exploit Linux and Wintel boxes. The mac avoids C strings historically in most of all of its OS. In fact even its roms originally used Pascal strings. As you know pascal strings are faster than C (because they have the length delimiter in the front and do not have to endlessly hunt for NULL), but the side effect is less buffer exploits. Individual 3rd party products may use C stings and bind to ANSI libraries, but many do not. In case you are not aware of what a "pascal string" is, it usually has no null byte terminator.
4> Macs running Webstar have ability to only run CGI placed in correct directory location and correctly file "typed" (not mere file name extension). File types on Macs are not easily settable by users, expecially remotely. Apache as you know has had many problems in earlier years preventing wayward execution.
5> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing! For example the file type is 4 characters of user-invisible attributes, along with many other invisible attributes, but these 4 bytes cannot be set by most tool oriented utilities that work with data files. For example file copy utilities preserve launchable file-types, but JPEG MPEG HTML TXT etc oriented tools are physically incapable by designof creating an executable file. The file type is not set to executable for hte hackers needs. In fact its even more secure than that. A mac cannot run a program unless it has TWO files. The second file is an invisible file associated with the data fork file and is called a resource fork. EVERY mac program has a resource fork file containing launch information. It needs t
I guess the numbers have some interest, but I'd be far more interested in what they're doing with their web servers. On the assumption that serving flat HTML is a minority interest, what, more significantly, are they using for their application development? Perl? PHP? Java? C?
One of the main problems with IIS is that its single-process, multi-threaded operation makes it very vulnerable to threadlocks and memory leakage by various ancillary software components (database drivers, Active X stuff, etc). Debugging these problems is next-to-impossible, particularly for someone who's chosen to use IIS largely because of a familiarity with Visual Basic.
I would not *a priori* expect threading in Apache 2.0 to work any better than IIS if it's working with, say, PHP into which you can build a myriad of library functions many of which have a single-threaded heritage.
So, if users are moving to Apache in droves because they've found a reliable rapid development environment for multi-threaded web applications, then I'd be interested to know what (apart from Apache) was involved.
After all, Apache (like IIS) is fundamentally no more than a dispatcher for HTTP requests. It's producing the responses that causes the trouble!
I thought the more homogeneous a network of computers becomes, the easier it would be to hit them with exploits. Think 100% of the world running Apache, and a new exploit being discovered. Though I guess you would get a bit of safety by the fact that everyone is running slightly different versions.
Funnily enough I don't see venerable Tomcat out there, the most-used Java web server out there... it must have been collapsed into the Apache group because I'm not going to believe SunONE has any real users. ;-p
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
This is why I don't agree with the Windows monopoly concept. We all know there are easily a hundred other free operating systems out there.
Windows is a monopoly until Aunt Tillie can easily find hardware devices at Best Buy with alternative OS drivers on the included CD.
Windows is the operating system most people in the world would choose.
If most people would informedly choose Windows for the OS on their home machines, I'm guessing this is because of the lack of driver support in, say, FreeBSD. That's certainly why I stay on Windows, because I don't have enough money to buy a new scanner that Linux supports nor enough time to spend dozens of hours with my unsupported scanner (a Microtek ScanMaker 4850) trying in vain to reverse-engineer it. Mandrake Linux 9.2 RC1 had problems configuring my inkjet printer as well; it thinks a Canon S520 prints at 360 DPI natively when it actually prints 600 DPI, and everything on the page appears 40 percent smaller than it should be. And though Mandrake advertises support for the latest ATI Radeon video cards, it failed to configure and start accelerated X on my Radeon 9000.
Will I retire or break 10K?
But nobody does it because Windows "already ships with a webserver".
I run WinApache 2.0.recent on my desktop machine so that I can send files to people on networks to which Gaim doesn't support sending files. I don't run IIS because 1. my machine runs Windows 2000 Professional not the more expensive Server, and 2. though Apache is just as written in C as IIS and just as vulnerable to buffer overflows, most web server worms seen in the wild attack IIS on Windows rather than Apache on Windows.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The MS graph looked steady until May of 2002 them something drastic happened. MS took a sharp drop. Apachie at the same time to a jump up. What time did the rash of worms start again?
The truth shall set you free!
I think that it's more significant to note that even though it already has the majority share, Apache use is growing faster than any other server. This means that when somebody decides on a new server, more often than not, it's Apache that is chosen. Microsoft seems to be fighting a losing battle here. It's also interesting to note that they group a number of different Microsoft web servers together, whilst they separate the Apache users into different groups.
Kids today.
The Law of Falling Bodies
I presume you're joking, right?... I mean, given the amount of people that use Macs as webservers, why bother trying to find exploits in them? :)
Maybe Microsoft should stick to the desktop? They have most of the market share of home users and most of the hardware support:
3 of the most important applications to home users are web/net, office and games and Microsoft has the biggest share with all of them: IE, MS Office, Outlook - Microsoft has it all and every major game on their platform.
Then there are the security and stability issues: most home users believe that crashing twice a day is normal and that VB script worms or NetBIOS security issues have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also they will accept that windows messaging pop-up windows with spam will appear from time to time while an admin would go ape!
DRM is also a selling point: the RIAA/MPAA etc want it and the only way it can happen is with closed source software integrated with controlled hardware: home users won't even know or care about it but bussiness users will flat out refuse to have their machines controlled by a 3rd party.
In short, Microsoft: stick to making windows with pretty colours and naming disks after the alphabet.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Those unknown apaches are probably just commercially modified versions...
M$ is cross-subsidising from it's monopoly software and also trying to create technical dependencies. Enough said.
--
Astroturfers are scum.
Netcraft is also reporting that all of the web is running WebSite/3.1.13 on NT4/Windows 98.
Just because many don't complain doesn't mean they're not being disadvantaged. I could steal 10 pence a day from you and you probably wouldn't notice. Does that mean my theft would be permissible?
Impartial, informed observers have been saying for a very long time that Microsoft are a monopoly and illegally maintain this. That a major customer of theirs (HP, I believe) felt strongly enough that they disliked dealing with Microsoft sufficiently to go on record as stating that if they had alternative suppliers, they would deal with them instead, is surely a strong indication of Microsoft's nature. As is Microsoft feeling able to pressure IBM into dropping OS/2 and later SmartSuite through preferential pricing on Windows. Surely if there existed a sufficiently realistic competitive market in computer software, such tactics would have merely driven up sales of OS/2? It's not like it wasn't getting good reviews at the time.
Microsoft are a monopoly in the legal sense, and there can be no doubt that they have significantly abused this to the detriment of both consumers and the industry as a whole to anyone who followed the trial. That users are too apathetic and uninformed to understand they have lost out is not a defence against the monopoly charge, merely and indictment of the popular media and Microsoft's few remaining competitors.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
What's interesting about this one is that results can be viewed by domain. The highest proportion, and highest growth, of IIS seemed to be in the gov domain, where Apache is actually decreasing. IIS usage in education was also pretty high.
Use of Apache was particularly high in Germany .
I have been here from singularity to boom to burst to today's lukewarm recovery, and Apache has been running 2/3 of the Web since there is a Web. Year after year /. publishes this same Netcraft announcement, give or take a percent point.
Apache is like Gillete: you know there are other brands, you even know a few people use those other brands but when push comes to shove and you girlfriend order you shopping for shaving tools, Gillete is always the way...
maybe your mum's doing it.
like she did me last night
That doesnt even make sense since IIS comes bundled and free with 2k and .net server. There are no separate licensing deals, contracts or anything else for that matter. Your suggestion that their are shows your ignorance for the Microsoft platform and IIS. If you have nothing intelligent to say then keep it shut.
Sure, sure... Two thirds of people may be using that little Apache web server, but... hang on, new patch for IIS, gotta apply it... but I still use IIS. IIS is the best web server by far because... Oh wait, another patch, give me sec... OK... because it is much easier to.. Darn it, critical security patch, gotta install this one... what was I saying? Oh yeah, because it is much easier to administer and far more secure than that open source Apache.
Wouldn't a breakup by a measure of the size in bytes of content served by the various web servers make a much more realistic figure?
I mean, if the traffic logs and stats are not available for all the sites around, surely, a measure of the size of the content would give one a fair idea of where the heavy weights really lie?
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Don't believe me? Well, check what netcraft tells you about www.winbeta.org. However if you manage winbeta.com to reply with a database error, you get a PHP/MySQL error in a file in
...Apache wanks as high as any in Wome, but IITH may be of thome aththithtanthe.
Now nobody has any excuse for getting p0rn which has been tainted by M$.
sorry, I would call this that flaimbait. But since it is well argumented i will reply...
1> No command shell.
Absence of features is not always a good thing. now you will have to add scripting in the webserver.
2> No Root user
Like windows 95?.. see 1.
3> pascal strings
but you can have buffer overflows with pascal strings if you fail to allocate enough memory for the string.
4>..only run CGI placed in correct directory location..
And if you get a script in there you have the same problem. And it is not easy to remotely administer....
5> Macs never run code ever merely based on how a file is named. ".exe" suffixes mean nothing!
You mean like the unix "x" attribute that was in the very first unix? This is a thing that windows has badly affected. But is this a thing that affects web servers or clients......
4> Stack return address positioned in safer location than some intel OSes
There are 3 kind of people.. that that can count and those who cannot 8-).
But a better solution would be not to have the stack in memory that can be executed.
7> There are less macs, though there are huge cash prizes for cracking into a
The fact that there are huge cash prices would
not be a ood advertisement for safety. And generally they are set on well protected servers that are doing nothing.
8> MacOS source not available traditionally,
same argument goes for ISS
no mac web server has ever been rooted,defaced,owned,scanned,exploited, etc.
I am 100% sure that they get scanned all the time. which makes me doubt all the other points. But then you can always blaim the user.
Rumours of M$ II$ demise are not exaggerated after all!
an ill wind that blows no good
I wonder why Slashdot never post link to THIS survey:
b se rvers/
http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000we
Microsoft IIS is the Top 1000 Corporations' Web Server Leader with 53.7%.
You are correct that the graph is misleading. It only shows total percentages, not specific numbers, and not who is changing to what. The article claims that part of the big gain was from large registrars and hosting sites switching back to Apache from IIS ( for over one million domains ). One Million is a rather large part of the 9.4million IIS servers online (not 4mill as you state), a -10.6% change . IIS's numbers did change a good bit, going from 10.2 to 9.4 million (-8.5%), 1Million+ from servers switching to Apache according to the article. From those numbers, and assuming no one else switched, you can infer that 2.1% new servers were brought online, or 0.19million. As these NEW servers were brought online, yet still could not make up for the ones that switched, it shows that IIS is losing ground (-1% gain). The graph shows total %, meaning who has the larger market share when it comes to web servers. Total numbers are always going to be going up or staying the same for the foreseeable future. Looking at total numbers means nothing if you cant reference it to something. If you are losing %, you are falling out of the game as the other options are taking over your positions. Its quite obvious on the graph, IIS has been declining in % for a while. This graph shows data for SEVERAL YEARS (since back around when stuff first started up on the web), IIS has been declining % for over a year now. A few more months of data is not needed to see this trend. Its true that it is because Apache is being used for more new servers, but isnt that the whole point in the first place???
TM
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Still no decent admin GUI though...
My thoughts, are that there are a lot of people out there running their own sites be it for blogs or business or whatnot. I've been using Apache for years. With highspeed lines becoming more prevalent it's even easier now to serve up your site from home.
Apache makes it easy and free! It would be interesting to see the breakdown of Apache from the perspective of Private or Corporate usage.
Difference is
1) You don't have to pay for it.
2) You can change the product source code if you like.
3) If you don't like it you can go with something else.
Open Source done right is always a win-win situation. Oh and Apache is a better quality product than IIS. Why would you go with something else I really don't know.
Now if the Apache foundation starts acting up and making demands, everyone will eventually dump Apache HTTP server and go with a fork.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Actually, I know of over a dozen companies that moved to apache in the last year, but modified it to emit IIS rather than apache. They basically did the Walmart route. So, no, those numbers represent a ceiling and almost certainly the real number is much lower than it.
BTW, this is the same trick as desktop linux. When I help move companies over to Linux, I change konqueror's browser ID to be MSIE. I have found that the browser works just fine, but needs to be able to get in the front door.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
even if a company got a monopoly from being popular or good, it is irrelivant. Once a company gets that powerful, the bloat and greed set in---because after all its run by humans.
Its no different that putting term limits on politians. Eventually things turn sour, and something needs to change.
term limits == monopoly breakup
Take apache, it breaks the pattern, because unlike the company or political rep, people can change it and fork off their own branches. That characteristic is unique to open source.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Porn is far from dead.
Rank Presidents by th
Who ever said open source software is usually horrible obviously thought wrong. I've used apache for over 2 years and loving it.
This is horrible. With Apache being such a dominate web server this means that Apache will be the most attacked (and broken) web server out there!
Gotta love that argument.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
I wonder if the upcoming (or is it recently passed by now?) end of support for NT 4.0 is a factor. I would guess that some of the parked domains could be running on NT. With the end of support, these registrars would face either a paid upgrade to W2K/2003 or a free upgrade to Apache on Linux (or whatever) - or I guess they could stay with NT, and live without new security patches...
OK, Kreskin. What's it going to be next month?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
The survey should probably discard "parked" and "redirect" pages. To be counted, a site should have to link to at least one other page in the same domain. That would count the sites actually serving content.
Step 1: Please read article.
Step 2: Learn about Active Sites.
Step 3: Profit.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
-
It can be compiled for multiple architectures. (Opteron, PPC, MIPS, etc.)
-
It can be compiled with different configuration settings.
-
It can be compiled using different compilers.
-
It can be compiled using different compiler options.
-
It can be compiled on different operating systems. (Solaris, BSD, Linux, OS X, etc.)
While in some sense Apache may be a monoculture, you can clearly see from what I've just stated that in another sense it is far from a monoculture. At least in the sense that matters, in the sense of biological diversity. It is unlikely that one single virus is going to wipe out all Apache installations.On the other hand, a sophisticated virus could be written based on some as yet undiscovered exploit that tries the attack for each binary variation of Apache. Using platform X, Y, and Z binary code. Compiled using P or Q compiler with A, B or C option settings.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Because Apache is not a monoculture. Think of not only how many versions of Apache there are, but how many different commercial products there are built out of Apache. Custom configurations, custom compiles. With IIS you use the thing MS tells you to use, when somebody uses Apache, who knows what they're running.
Now, an Open Source system gains an overwhelming market share, and this is considered a good thing???
Probably one of the reasons Apache is getting so large market shares is, that it never had the problems seen with other products with too large market shares. If major problems ever turns up with Apache, we will probably quickly see a fork. Until that happens just be happy with one free product with an excelent record.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
SCO considers millions of lines of Linux to be "theirs", so in SCO's mind they are running their own OS on their webservers.
Don't you read Slashdot?
What's with you fucking retards and your sensitivity to banner ads? With a radio or television commercial, it interrupts whatever you're listening to/watching (unless you have Tivo, of course). With banner ads, whether they're on the top, side or bottom, YOU CAN STILL READ THE ARTICLE!!
Why do you even fucking care? Grow up, go outside, get a date. Jeebus cripes...
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that. In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this. I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server. Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.
I believe that most IIS installations are used for intranets and some semi-obscure extranets. IIS cannot compete as a cheap mass production e-hotel for hosting the masses. But, they leverage existing MS infrastructure for intranets, which are less vunerable to public attacks and thus need less constant patching and tweaking. IIS also has a click-and-play interface that makes it easy to at least get up and running for somebody fairly new to web servers.
I am not promoting IIS here, only saying that its reasons for shrinkage as a public hoster apply less to internal stuff, which is not counted by Netcraft.
Table-ized A.I.
However as the wosurce is available, it is easier to make exploits that work against different targets.
Another point is simply competition amongst open source projects. One of the best things for Linux is BSD and vice-versa and the same can be said for KDE and Gnome. They are different appraches to a common solution, and each can give the other ideas.
See my journal, I write things there
Good point. So I ran some numbers for the top 100 English, and top 500 global, sites identified by Alexa
After collecting the list of sites, I ran them through the Netcraft What's That Site Running query page.
I normalized OS for all Windows systems, and trimmed the variants for webservers.
Results (partial as Netcraft query is still running):
Top 100 English Language Sites - OS
Total sites: 100
44 GNU/Linux | 25 Microsoft Windows (NT, 2K, XP, 2K3) | 13 Sun Solaris 8 | 7 Sun Solaris | 4 unknown operating system | 4 FreeBSD | 1 Sun Solaris 9 | 1 Apple MacOSX | 1 HP-UX
Top 100 English Language Sites - Webserver
Total sites: 100
43 Apache | 26 Microsoft-IIS | 13 Netscape-Enterprise | 3 GWS | 3 AOLserver | 2 Zeus | 1 unknown | 1 thttpd | 1 Stronghold | 1 Squeegit | 1 Roxen | 1 Resin | 1 Rediff | 1 Bellsouth PWP server V1.0(4) | 1 AV | 1 Apache Tomcat
Top 500 Global Sites - OS
Total sites: 418
154 GNU/Linux | 101 Microsoft Windows (NT, 2K, XP, 2K3) | 43 Sun Solaris | 30 FreeBSD | 27 Sun Solaris 8 | 25 unknown | 3 Solaris 9 | 3 IBM AIX | 2 NetApp NetCache | 2 Compaq Tru64 | 1 Apple MacOSX | 1 HP-UX
Top 500 Global Sites - Webserver
Total sites: 421
177 Apache | 111 Microsoft-IIS | 43 Netscape-Enterprise | 12 GWS | 8 Zeus | 6 unknown | 4 thttpd | 4 Stronghold | 3 Resin | 3 AOLserver | 2 IBM_HTTP_SERVER | 2 AV | 2 Apache Tomcat | 2 Apache Coyote | 2 Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer | 1 Y.G.Apache-SSLv3 | 1 Virgilio (c) WebServer | 1 .V08 Apache
| 1 T-httpd
| 1 Squeegit
| 1 Roxen
| 1 Rediff
| 1 Oracle9iAS (1.0.2.2) Containers for J2EE
| 1 Jetty
| 1 IIS
| 1 IBM_HTTP_Server
| 1 Bellsouth PWP server V1.0(4)
| 1 AkamaiGHost
I would have posted a nicely formatted quasi-tabular post, but Slash is dinking me for short lines and syntactic sugar. So you get pipe-delimited. Bitch to Malda.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
I'm not sure I agree that having source makes exploits any easier.
Exploits are still in binary. For a particular processor. For a particular compiler, it's calling conventions, stack layout, etc.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!