Microsoft IIS v7 Details Emerge

Apache by The+Snowman · 2005-05-30 00:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

...and turn many core features into optional modules in order to provide a smaller security footprint for hackers to attack.

In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software and making IIS more like Apache httpd.

--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!

Re:Apache by markild · 2005-05-30 01:00 · Score: 1

In other words.. Still no reason to go for IIS over apache?

--
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:02 · Score: 0

Hmm, well that's hard to tell at this early stage. It's not even out yet.
Re:Apache by KingSkippus · 2005-05-30 01:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft is learning lessons

That's not new, Microsoft has made a pretty profitable business from learning lessons (or stealing ideas, one could also argue) from its competitors. That is, after all, how we got Windows in the first place.

And as long as some people are dead-set on using IIS, it seems that making it more Apache-like in ways that Apache is superior to IIS is a good idea. Let's just hope that they continue to learn the more useful lessons and scrapping bad ideas.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:04 · Score: 0

The mere fact that apache did all this years ago indicates that it's a waste of time to look for a stable solution at MS. Do we have to wait for a 2.0 it to be useful of these new features while apache is already tested?
Re:Apache by CastrTroy · 2005-05-30 01:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they started to give out modules that provided certain functionality, is it possible, that apache, through Wine, or some other interface, could make use of these components? Imagine having apache run .Net or ASP web applications. It may make the switch to Apache, and maybe eventually Linux cheaper and easier for many companies. Many companies have lots of money invested in .Net and ASP web applications.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Apache by markild · 2005-05-30 01:10 · Score: 1

Well.. IIS isn't _bad_ as in "WindowsME-bad", but it still sucks. Maybe not at all things, but not overall.

The only reason they (read:M$) developed it, and still do, is that they needed to have their own webserver. It's not like they had a product to cover the needs that apache couldn't...

Offtopic: The "confirm you're not a script" really sucks. I have to put on my glasses. Even then my chances to get it right is like 1 to 42...

--
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
Re:Apache by j-pimp · 2005-05-30 01:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software and making IIS more like Apache httpd.

For better or for worse, Microsoft has definatly become a better company because of open source. Open source has definatly gotten better because of Microsoft too. Open source has harped on Microsoft because of security, and Microsoft has made itself more secure. Microsoft has bosted ease of use and a good office suite and as a result we get KDE, Gnome nad open office.

Competition is good.

--
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
Re:Apache by Begemot · 2005-05-30 01:18 · Score: 1

...or stealing ideas, one could also argue...

One that would should see this first.

AFAIC, that's inspiration, not stealing.
Re:Apache by tom17 · 2005-05-30 01:28 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Bloody hell.. Just posting this to see how hard this "prove you are not a script" thing is as I havent seen it yet.

Pretty non-trivial to glance and read.. almost tricky even when trying.. x y m umm.. i?? e.. a i think and w (or v, not sure)
Re:Apache by cpghost · 2005-05-30 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft has bosted ease of use and a good office suite and as a result we get KDE, Gnome nad open office.

Agreed! It's just tood bad that KDE, Gnome and OO are getting so much bloated, that they won't (decently) run on small solid state devices or low-end, power saving slow or embedded CPUs. Of course there's xfce, fluxbox etc..., but it's sad that userfriendliness still attracts bloatedness so much.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:Apache by /ASCII · 2005-05-30 01:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

According to this ASP will be integrated into IIS. Exectly what that will mean is not very clear to me, but it is interesting to note that this is the opposite direction of what Apache is doing with PHP, mod_perl , etc.

Perhaps this is like when MS decided to mode the graphics subsystem into the kernel, a way to gain performance at the cost of security and stability.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Apache by molnarcs · 2005-05-30 01:33 · Score: 4, Informative

...If they started to give out modules that provided certain functionality ...
I was looking for help on url_rewrite on google, when I bumped into some threads where users complained about $company's url_rewrite module not working as expected. He said that he regrets paying for it now. Others suggested him to try out isapi rewrite ... another pay for module that only provides freaking rewrite functionality. When I read those, I was soooo glad I never had to deal with IIS - I would have never thought that IIS users must go out hunting on google and actually pay for new modules for IIS that are compeletely free (and immediately available) for apache...
Re:Apache by adolfojp · 2005-05-30 01:39 · Score: 4, Informative

"Imagine having apache run .Net or ASP web applications."

In my experience Mono http://www.mono-project.com/ has done a wonderfull job at runing ASP.NET apps and web services.

To run clasic ASP get this.
http://www.apache-asp.org/

If you are concerned with their legality go check Tomcat and JBoss ;-)

Cheers,
Adolfo
Re:Apache by drunkennewfiemidget · 2005-05-30 01:59 · Score: 1

...that IIS users must go out hunting on google and actually pay for new modules for IIS that are compeletely free...

And stupidly trivial to write. (At least in its simplest form; I understand that mod_rewrite is infinitely powerful.)
Re:Apache by gregorio · 2005-05-30 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
If they started to give out modules that provided certain functionality, is it possible, that apache, through Wine, or some other interface, could make use of these components? Imagine having apache run .Net or ASP web applications. It may make the switch to Apache, and maybe eventually Linux cheaper and easier for many companies. Many companies have lots of money invested in .Net and ASP web applications.
This article (mostly because of the submitter's text) is a great disservice to technical information:
- This kind of modularity is a part of IIS since its first version.
- ASP.NET is already implemented as a module, in all ASP.NET-supporting IIS versions.
About your question: I'm not sure if ASP.NET can run on mod_isapi without too much trouble, but you can always try it, if you want to: ISAPI Apache module.

Anyway, Covalent already provides us with a .NET-ready version of Apache 2.0 for Linux.
Re:Apache by gregmac · 2005-05-30 02:20 · Score: 2, Informative

I would have never thought that IIS users must go out hunting on google and actually pay for new modules for IIS that are compeletely free (and immediately available) for apache...

I noticed the same thing a few years ago (5) with ASP. My roommate in university was an ASP developer, and I had been doing PHP for a couple years at that point. He was working on some application that required DNS lookups, and actually ended up paying for an ASP module/script/whatever to do them. I was totally surprised at this (since it's one of the core functions of php) and he started telling me how there were many many 3rd party modules you had to pay for. I showed him all the built-in stuff that PHP had, and then some of the places on the web you can get thousands of scripts, and he was amazed. Not sure if he ever converted ;)

--
Speak before you think
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:39 · Score: 0

Well, yes there is.. ASP.Net 2.0 - and whether you like ASP.Net or not, people still use it and it'll not run on Apache. So yes, there is a reason to run IIS7 (or even 6 or 5)
Re:Apache by PsychicX · 2005-05-30 03:00 · Score: 1

What's this "prove you are not a script" thing all about?
Re:Apache by PsychicX · 2005-05-30 03:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, on a Linux/Apache system with Mono installed, a lot of ASP.NET web apps run just fine...this was actually a major goal of Mono, iirc.
Re:Apache by blue_adept · 2005-05-30 03:05 · Score: 0, Troll

Difinitely is definitely spelled 'definitely', not defiantly spelled 'definately'.

--

"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
Re:Apache by RichM · 2005-05-30 03:26 · Score: 1

In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software and making IIS more like Apache httpd.
That's exactly what I was thinking recently when I had to start learning ASP.NET/C#.
In ASP.NET you have to put your security instructions into a text file called "web.config" - .htaccess anyone?
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 03:34 · Score: 0

It was the same with ASP when I was working with it a few years ago.

You install PHP, and you've got all sorts of cool functionality. You've got image manipulation, PDF generation, spelling checkers, etc.

ASP? It came with practically nothing beyond session management out of the box, and you had to pay for shareware extras like file upload capabilities FFS!

Granted, that was three or four years ago, so hopefully it's vastly improved. But coming from a PHP background and constantly hearing that PHP simply "wasn't ready for the enterprise", it was absolutely shocking how non-functional ASP was. Maybe an IISer will chime in and tell us about all the extra functionality that has since been added to it?
Re:Apache by ThJ · 2005-05-30 03:35 · Score: 0

Apparently, you only have to do it if you're a bad person.
Re:Apache by ookaze · 2005-05-30 03:39 · Score: 1

I disagree that MS has become a better company, it has become a worse company in my eyes. But they do some products better, of course, as there are open source programs kicking the butt of some of their 'best' expensive ones (Apache against IIS for example).
I don't know what you mean when you say that MS has boosted ease of use and a good office suite, I hope you are kidding.
KDE came because of the availability of Qt for free, and because the Qt API was so great, look at the initial KDE announcement (http://www.kde.org/announcements/announcement.php ), this is the major reason, not Windows 95/NT.
MS Office Suite arguably was not the better office suite at the time (or today), and was not even good, until Mac developers made it better, and then MS killed all competitors.
Gnome followed because of KDE, which was not Free Software, not because of MS.
And OpenOffice is there because it is Open Source, I don't know what would have been the fate of StarOffice, but given the fate of Word Perfect, I bet it would not have lasted long.

MS surely boosted some things in Linux desktops (KParts, Bonobo), but surely not usability. Most of the most powerful usability features of Linux desktop are not even available in Windows (but MS is quickly trying to add them) !!! :
- Powerful out-of-the-box (and sometimes on-the-fly) i18n and l10n
- Powerful integrated accessibility
- Virtual desktops (that work) !
- Lots of integrated apps, for nearly any day to day task (that was one of the initial goals of KDE and Gnome 2)
- Looks good (with optional anti-aliasing, adapts to your monitor, themes, SVG icons, translucency, ...)
- Reliable and consistent (the main goal of KDE and Gnome 2): no 3 different printer dialogs, no 4 different widget sets, no 3 mix of icon sets (4 bits, 256 bits, ...), no disappearing menus, no reverse order selection, no different behaviours between reboots, no 1-3 minutes locks, sessions that work, no slowing after 5 days of running, ...
Re:Apache by rainman_bc · 2005-05-30 03:41 · Score: 1

Uhm no. Big difference. .htaccess is handled by the web server. Web.config is not parsed by IIS. It is handled by the dll that handles aspx (et all) pages. Big difference. Different layer all together.

Web.config would be closer to something like php.ini, although that's not even correct. I recon the closest would be something like a Smarty config file or something under php.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 03:51 · Score: 0

...and actually pay for new modules for IIS

So you're paying for IIS modules out of your own pocket? Doesn't your company have a budget for your project?
Re:Apache by NutscrapeSucks · 2005-05-30 04:14 · Score: 1

ASP will be integrated into IIS

My reading of that is that parts of IIS will be written in mangaged .NET code. The impression is that IIS will become more modular, not more integrated.

But I don't know enough about the internals to really compare the "pipelines" with Apache modules -- and apparently, neither does anyone else here.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 04:23 · Score: 0

Instead of ASP.NET living "outside" of the IIS core, it's been merged into the server's core -- this means the ability to perform patch mangagement at the modular level (instead of server level), improved performance, and better .NET managed code options (in theory, all IIS extensions can now be written in managed code).

Performance at the cost of security and stability, eh? Only time will tell...
Re:Apache by penix1 · 2005-05-30 04:43 · Score: 1

Heh...

"Performance at the cost of security and stability, eh? Only time will tell..."

That is assuming said $VAPORWARE ever makes it out the gate...

B.

--
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Re:Apache by Cromac · 2005-05-30 04:44 · Score: 1

The mere fact that apache did all this years ago indicates that it's a waste of time to look for a stable solution at MS.
That is totally faulty logic. Just because Apache did something years ago has zero impact on the stability of anything from MS.

Do we have to wait for a 2.0 it to be useful of these new features while apache is already tested?

That may well be true, MS isn't exactly known for stable 1.0 anything releases.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 04:45 · Score: 0

It cuts both ways. ASP caches compiled bytecode (tokens), while with PHP you have to pay extra for that functionality. Most of the work on PHP is being done by Zend, which very much has a commercial business model.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 05:09 · Score: 0

Right, we all know Apache invented dynamic linking, and that it was written for Linux first...

Face it, you are all bitching because they finally made a good product.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 05:11 · Score: 0

ASP caches compiled bytecode (tokens), while with PHP you have to pay extra for that functionality.

No you don't.

Most of the work on PHP is being done by Zend, which very much has a commercial business model.

So? The same can be said for Linux, Apache, MySQL, Sendmail, Qt, BIND, pretty much all high-profile open-source software. As a software package becomes more important, it either gives the original developers a chance to make money, or it becomes important enough to an existing company that they pay people to improve it. This is nothing new or out of the ordinary, and the possibility of forking discourages the commercial interests from not acting in the best interests of the users.
Re:Apache by Captain+Scurvy · 2005-05-30 07:54 · Score: 1

In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software...
Microsoft does, indeed, implement features from open source projects. Sort of like how open source projects will implement features contained in commercial software. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of where it comes from, and when good ideas become 'the norm,' we all benefit.
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 08:39 · Score: 0

That is, after all, how we got Windows in the first place.

That is also how we got Google, OS X, iPod, etc. All based heavily on existing products, not really innovating anything, just finally getting an implementation right/better. I really wish we lay the "not invented here" thing to rest, very much of the progress we like is based on others work - not "innovative" in the sense "entirely new". And when MS gets the same thing right, all the better for everyone.
Re:Apache by sangreal66 · 2005-05-30 09:24 · Score: 1

ASP.NET offers the complete functionality of the .NET class library.
Re:Apache by mrselfdestrukt · 2005-05-30 09:44 · Score: 1

Apparently, you only have to do it if you're a bad person.
What ? You guys get characters to type?
I get calculus formulas and hieroglyphic symbols that I have to decipher to prove I'm not a script.
Lucky bastards! Maybe I've been real bad.
I swear they're making it harder and harder every day.

And on-topic: Oooooohh!! IIS 7 !!! Yay!!!!
*runs around the room with hands in the air*

--
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."
Re:Apache by adolfojp · 2005-05-30 10:13 · Score: 1

I said that to run ASP on apache you could use apache asp. It is a lie.

I made a mistake. My quick googling confused Chilisoft with the link that I posted.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Adolfo
Re:Apache by paranoidgeek · 2005-05-30 10:41 · Score: 1

And on-topic: Oooooohh!! IIS 7 !!! Yay!!!! *runs around the room with hands in the air*
Yes, as a fellow hacker this news of the many new exploits also makes me excited.

--
Lima India November Uniform X-ray
Re:Apache by NanoGator · 2005-05-30 11:18 · Score: 1

"In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software and making IIS more like Apache httpd."

Ready pitchforks!!

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Apache by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 11:34 · Score: 0

So does the complete functionality of the .NET class library include things like PDF generation and image manipulation? Honest question, I know it comes with basic language stuff like XML parsers etc, but little more beyond that. What useful stuff comes with .NET?
Re:Apache by shmlco · 2005-05-30 11:51 · Score: 1

I showed him all the built-in stuff that PHP had...
So, just to make sure I understand this, in this case bloated software with hundreds of built-in features and functions only a few people will ever use is a GOOD thing... ;)

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Apache by strikethree · 2005-05-31 05:26 · Score: 1

Open Source would not exist at the level that it is at if it were not for the astonishing greed and lust for control exhibited by Microsoft and the early Unix vendors.

strike

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:Apache by el_gordo101 · 2005-05-31 08:44 · Score: 1

No PDF generation libraries out of the box, but there are classes for image manipulation (system.drawing). They are comparable to the GD libraries for Perl. If you would like more info on all of the goodies, try the MSDN site (works best with IE, unfortunately).

--
TODO: Insert witty sig
Re:Apache by j-pimp · 2005-06-01 23:53 · Score: 1

I don't know what you mean when you say that MS has boosted ease of use and a good office suite, I hope you are kidding. Well I can remember a time when there was no open source office suite. Sure there was free as in beer star office and commerical alternatives such as the port of Word perfect 5.1 to SCO run via SCO binaryy emulation on Linux, but none of this came from the open source community.

Also, while open office is a great product that has some innovation in it, most of its features were inspired by Microsoft office. Microsoft office may have copied its features from elsewhere, but open office never made an attempt to be a Lotus-123 killer.

I'm not saying microsoft makes really great innovative products. I am saying microsoft made decent products that got the job done for tasks like word processing and spreadsheeting before the open source community did, and continues to. Also the open source communit gets alot of is inspiration for features of such products from Microsoft.

--
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.

oxymoronic? by Kr3m3Puff · 2005-05-30 00:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

"...provide a smaller security footprint for hackers to attack."

"Web-based remote administration utilising SSL."

Is it just me, or doesn't that sound contradictory. Opening up your application, let alone your OS for remote hacking. Also, why would Microsoft even blink at enabling remote monitoring/logging of the websites your visit for government agencies? Tell me that that isn't going to be exploited...

--
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.

Re:oxymoronic? by blowdart · 2005-05-30 01:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

is it just me, or doesn't that sound contradictory
No. If everything is modular and you have to enable things by default then it will be off at install time, and won't have any footprint until you enable it. They started the "off by default" route with 2003, it just looks like Longhorn Server is taking it further.
Re:oxymoronic? by Crimson+Dragon · 2005-05-30 01:13 · Score: 1

I think the point is while "off by default" is understood, the average administrator is more likely to go "OOOOO CONVENIENT" and enable it without thinking of the potential security risks.

I would choose to disagree with that analogy, however, because a person who doesn't know the potential security risks of doing this probably isn't fit to serve in that capacity. You can't idiot-proof network administration. The administrator must know how one thing interacts with the other, or he won't be a very successful network administrator.

The changes in IIS 7 seem otherwise welcome to me.

--
The Crimson Dragon
Re:oxymoronic? by Zocalo · 2005-05-30 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is it just me, or doesn't that sound contradictory.
Not really, it depends upon the implementation and how Microsoft sets the defaults. The remote administration part is almost certainly going to be apart from the main server as one of the modular components mentioned in the article. I suspect what we will see is that the IIS admin tool will be an MMC snap-in, and that it will be MMC that will gain the remote HTTPS accessibility, which would make it little different from a remote access enabled install of WebMin.

If they are taking security as seriously as they like to make out, then they will be designing the thing with the possibilty of a remote exploit in mind. That means, having remote access disabled by default, warning the user of the security implications when they try and enable remote access, and making it easy for the user to lock down the remote access by IP as well as HTTPS authentication. Asking for some IP ranges right after the remote access functionality is enabled would be good, or better yet restricting to the local IP anyway and *forcing* the user to enter additional IPs. This data could then be passed to the Windows Firewall as well as used as a "double check" by the MMC console, for an additional layer of protection.

Regardless of the method and security of any implementation, that doesn't stop the usual bunch of losers with out a clue on security enabling global remote access of course. Nor, I suspect, will it stop Microsoft taking a good deal of the blame if and when a load of IIS7 servers get rooted by some future worm that exploits the remote mangement feature because some lunatics enabled it with minimal security.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:oxymoronic? by lgw · 2005-05-30 01:19 · Score: 1

Is it just me, or doesn't that sound contradictory.

I don't see your point. I think the point is: limit the exposure of your server to things you actually need. If you take your web server off the internet it will be quite secure, after all, but that's not a very useful definition of security.

It's nice to see that MS is slowly starting to "get it". It will be nicer still if this means fewer rooted IIS-bots attacking *my* server. One can only hope.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:oxymoronic? by nocotigo · 2005-05-30 01:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Mod parent up, that's what I was about to say.
Re:oxymoronic? by ergo98 · 2005-05-30 01:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Opening up your application, let alone your OS for remote hacking.

Well most servers have remote desktop enabled, and web administration of IIS has existed since IIS 5. I think the point was moreso that you'll be able to fully configure your site. One of the issues, mentioned in the article, that IIS currently has is that there is a disconnect, and overlap, between the settings necessary in IIS and ASP.NET to configure a site properly, and it would be nice if they merged them (which really would be mapping some of the IIS metabase XML into the Web.Config).

Reading this article, I'm still not sure what the real message is- You can already create fully managed handlers and modules for IIS, and the idea of it being pulled "into" IIS is frightening, actually (IIS 6 is a gorgeous design because it is like a microkernel web architecture, with an extremely minimalist server module and cache that communicates to external modules to handle things like ASP.NET processing). I suspect some information was misunderstood.
Re:oxymoronic? by dioscaido · 2005-05-30 01:35 · Score: 1

They aren't contradictory. I'm assuming remote web administration will not be turned on by default, thereby following the creed established in the first sentence. Remote administration is already possible, anyway, if the feature is turned on. Run IIS manager and point it at a remote server with the service enabled.

I would think this would be a good thing for Open Source enthusiasts. It means that if a company wants IIS, you can keep those servers at a bare minimum, and maintain them from linux/unix/osx servers through the web interface.
Re:oxymoronic? by dioscaido · 2005-05-30 01:45 · Score: 3, Informative

It is not an oxymoron. The feature would be turned off by default. You are confusing the point you are trying to make, which is that this remote admin feature would be a good target for exploits. It is a valid comment.

But common sense would dictate that the web admin tool would not be turned on to connections from the general internet. Instead, it would be limited to the intranet. If it is turned on to the general internet, then they better be sure there aren't any exploits around. But the same is true of any outward facing service, isn't it? IIS v5 was a travesty in security, but IIS6 has had very little problems where vulnerabilities are concerned (check out http://secunia.com/product/1438/). One would hope IIS7 would be even better, given the draconian protocol we have to follow now within Microsoft when it comes to security in code.

Remote GUI administration is already available, by the way. Run IIS manager, choose 'connect' and point it to a remote IIS server with the service turned on, and you'll be able to admin it just as you do your local IIS server.

I would think this is a good thing for OSS enthusiasts. It means that if a corporation absolutely insists on running IIS, then all the other support servers could be Linux/OSX and you could admin the machine through the web interface. Now you still need MS machines running for support, so you can either Remote Desktop to the IIS box, or use IIS Manager.
Re:oxymoronic? by brianmf · 2005-05-30 01:57 · Score: 1

There are similar "off by default" changes in Yukon (aka SQL server 2005).

I attended a talk by Microsoft during the week and the speaker claimed that a "click-OK-and-nothing-else" install of SQL server 2005 would not actually install anything! You have to manually select all the features to be installed.

That might be taking it a bit far, but at least they are trying to reduce the security footprint of their products.
Re:oxymoronic? by rocjoe71 · 2005-05-30 02:09 · Score: 1

the average administrator is more likely to go "OOOOO CONVENIENT" and enable it without thinking of the potential security risks
I totally get what you mean, but have you seen how much work it takes to get some of the typical stuff like IIS6 or Terminal Services up and going on Win2003 Server? Compared to Win2000, not that convenient after all.

I think all the new wizards for 2003 are there to discourage that "hm, what's this do?" syndrome.

--
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Re:oxymoronic? by dioscaido · 2005-05-30 02:18 · Score: 1

Sorry for the double post, a preview seems to have been posted. Here's the full post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151133&cid=126 76095
Re:oxymoronic? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:59 · Score: 1, Funny

Or even better:

MCSE #1: "Our web site is down again."

MCSE #2: "That's okay, I'll just open my browser and log into the remote administration and fix it right up... Huh... it won't let me in. I guess the web server is down."

MCSE #1: "So now what do we do?"

MCSE #2: "Log in to microsoft.com I guess. There should be a KB Article about this somewhere."
Re:oxymoronic? by NeuralAbyss · 2005-05-30 03:00 · Score: 1

IIS4 also had remote web admin, on a random high port for the complete IIS admin, and /iisadmin/ application for that web's admin.

NTAdmin was also a very cool util for NT4 running IIS.
Re:oxymoronic? by hey! · 2005-05-30 03:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, imagine a rectangular hyperbola produced by this equation:

K = Security x Convenience

where K is a constant representing the level of design and implementation skill an organization has.

What I'm saying almost anybody can have an aribtrarily secure system, provided that they are willing to bear a sufficiently large degree of inconvenience. For example, a web site that is served by a diskless server that boots and serves information from a CD-ROM would present limited opportunities for somebody who wished to deface the site, although it is still possible. But such a CD-ROM based system obviously wouldn't be practical for most organizations. Practical systems require a certain level of convenience to be, well, practical. If that level of convenience entails unacceptable security risks, then you either give up on that application as being impractical, or you go looking for a more highly skilled team that can build systems on a tighter trade-off curve.

So, the very first choice is whether to have remote administration or not; I believe virtually everybody can agree that a practical web server has to be remotely administratable. Once you've made this decision, then you have taken a big step on our graph towards the orgiin point -- where real skill really comes into play. Which approach to doing this is the shrewdest? You can't make this decision using general philosophical principles, you need data; or at least assumptions.

For example, suppose I am considering two alternatives to managing my servers remotely: a self contained management system employing HTML forms and https, or one based on remote shell operations using ssh. Without going into this choice in great detail,a lot depends on your assumptions -- not only that, it depends on your marginal assumptions. If I recall correctly, SSH has had its share of vulnerabilities over the years. But I may feel comfortable with it at this point and regard it as "secure enough" for my application. I may have a queasy feeling about trusting IIS's TLS implementation, or IIS's ability to ensure that sensitive operations are properly authorized. This makes turning off IIs's own management system and using something like Remote Desktop tunneled over SSH through a firewall sound like a good bet.

But wait.

Suppose my web site is supposed to handle secure transactions. I'm relying on IIS's TLS to manage mutual authentication using client and server side certificates. I'm relying on it to enforce security policies I've set up. If IIS's security is broken, then I'm hosed. The marginal risk I am exposed to by managing my web server using it's built in tools doesn't seem so dramatic anymore. Using a separate mechanism to manage the web server actutally adds a second, independent channel by which my site can be compromised.

Intuition can be a faulty guide. If your goal is to get to market with close to a 100% of your eggs, you may be better off placing them in a single, well chosen basket, rather than distributing them between two baskets you don't have much trust in. Likewise, when the universe of choices is constrained by your employer or by your client, your best choice may be something you wouldn't have considered otherwise. Gambling when you need money is a fool's game, but if you're stuck in Casablanca without money for a good bribe, then Rick's roulette table starts to look pretty good, even though everyone knows its rigged.

Of course, I'm probably using Apache for this, but you can see the point. Speaking of Apache, Tomcat has a built in management application, and nobody I know of ever complains it is a security issue. That's because nearly everyone trusts Apache, and assumes that it is not a security issue.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:oxymoronic? by skraps · 2005-05-30 05:28 · Score: 1

I suspect what we will see is that the IIS admin tool will be an MMC snap-in, and that it will be MMC that will gain the remote HTTPS accessibility.
Nice thought, but I doubt it will happen that way. The MMC snap-in interfaces don't expose enough information to be seamlessly converted to a web interface. The treeview is enumerated through the interface, so that could be webified, but the right-hand content pane is mostly opaque to MMC. Each snap-in can define its own content pane implementation as an ActiveX control.

--
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Re:oxymoronic? by perler · 2005-05-30 05:44 · Score: 1

so, all that is neede is an activeX-control which runs an application inside. can't be that hard, can it? PAT

--
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
Re:oxymoronic? by team99parody · 2005-05-30 19:58 · Score: 1

Well, imagine a rectangular hyperbola produced by this equation: K = Security x Convenience where K is a constant representing the level of design and implementation skill an organization has.
Nonsense. Organizations - depending on what they choose to emphasize - with great design and implementation skills can deliver solutions with poor convenience and horrible security.

Microsoft is an excellent example of such an organization - they made the strategic decision to emphasize time-to-market and vendor-lock-in at the expense of both convenience and security.
Re:oxymoronic? by LifesABeach · 2005-05-31 03:02 · Score: 1

How does one keep Microsoft's Web Servies from removing XML processing instructions from the XML output? or, how can one include a XML processing instruction as part of the response for a generic HTML Form generated HTTP Post when Microsoft's Web Servies is the output conduit?

Bring it on, you're heading in the right direction by A+beautiful+mind · 2005-05-30 00:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago aswell. Although all of it seems to be good what MS is doing, it is late with a few years again.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say

Indeed. by game+kid · 2005-05-30 01:03 · Score: 1

If they do this wrong, this'll be just another less-secure-than-Apache server, even with separated components.

This SSL security better be tough, lest they receive extra damage to their reputation.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.

Wait! by sammykrupa · 2005-05-30 01:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft putting cool features into Longhorn!

Next Slashdot Headline: Microsoft Takes IIS v7 Out of Longhorn

--
Dashboard Widgets

Re:Wait! by CastrTroy · 2005-05-30 01:14 · Score: 1

Why not make IIS a completely serparate program? Why should every computer running XP professional even have the option to install a web server from the same disk as the operating system. I think Microsoft should really try to cut out all the stuff that really makes most desktops vulnerable. There are very few computers that need to have a web server, and even fewer that need to have one as complex as IIS.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Wait! by R.D.Olivaw · 2005-05-30 01:30 · Score: 1

I don't see a problem with IIS being on the same installation disk as windows as long as it is not obligatory and is not installed by default. After all, the number of different programs that come on most Linux distribution is significant. There is no need to make it more difficult to get various programs. The trick is to let the user choose what to install according to their need and not force it down his/her throat

oh here we go by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:08 · Score: 0

"*nix had X feature back in Y date!"

Re:oh here we go by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:50 · Score: 0

Wait til the apple fanbois get started.

SSL? by FlashBuster3000 · 2005-05-30 01:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Wah, SHA1 Broken! SSL!! WAAA, PANIC!!!

just for all you tinfoilhats out there :)

Re:SSL? by cillasri · 2005-05-30 05:12 · Score: 1

SHA-1 is not, well, exactly broken... it still takes 2^93 steps to break it which, nowadays, is somewhat an Herculean task. However, attacks do only get better, not worse, so there will be the day when SHA-1 can be broken in much less time.
Re:SSL? by FlashBuster3000 · 2005-06-03 01:05 · Score: 1

it wasnt meant that serious.
I know that its not really broken yet, so noone has to panic ;)

Sounds good, but... by Dink+Paisy · 2005-05-30 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

IIS 6 already rivals (and may even exceed) Apache as far as security goes. These changes seem designed to reduce risk more than increase security, since the security is already there. The other features seem to address one of the biggest complaints with Windows from Administrators, namely that it is too centralized and too hard to administer remotely. Think of these as going further along the direction of the perfect operating system to run Hotmail on.

Even if Microsoft does release the most secure web server ever, they will still have a huge problem to address: how to convince customers to move off of IIS 5, which has been exploited many times. Until that happens, all the new features do them no good at all.

--

Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7

Re:Sounds good, but... by eneville · 2005-05-30 01:29 · Score: 1

Even if Microsoft does release the most secure web server ever, they will still have a huge problem to address: how to convince customers to move off of IIS 5, which has been exploited many times.

No I think their biggest problem is how to enable the large hosting companies to manage sites. I have put together script to add sites and stuff to boxes whcih can be called from database triggers. I do not see how this is even thinkabout with IIS 4/5/6/7.

Until some operating system problems are addressed the IIS platform will not be scalable or useable by large companies who wish not to spend hours clicking and icon scraping.

--
Why UNIX?
Re:Sounds good, but... by codepunk · 2005-05-30 01:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually it still does not address the concerns of our IT manager. Hook it to a database and see how much that costs for licensing etc. On top of that it cannot possibly compete because the underlying operating system cannot perform active / active clustering and single image configuration. And even if it could perfom active /active clustering the cost would still be way too high, vs me downloading centos and GFS and bringing up a high performance cluster.

--

Got Code?
Re:Sounds good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:39 · Score: 0

These changes seem designed to reduce risk more than increase security

What on earth are you babbling on about? Security is all about managing risk.

since the security is already there

Security is an attribute of your processes, not an attribute of your software.

The other features seem to address one of the biggest complaints with Windows from Administrators, namely that it is too centralized and too hard to administer remotely.

With typical Apache hosting, individual users can modify their configurations on the fly with .htaccess files. I haven't worked with IIS in years, is it still basically unable to do the same thing? Or will this new version let you do that?
Re:Sounds good, but... by Waltre · 2005-05-30 02:03 · Score: 2, Informative

With typical Apache hosting, individual users can modify their configurations on the fly with .htaccess files...

This is a majot deterrent for IIS, the first time I used it I was looking furiously for the config file.

All the config seemed to be scattered around little grey boxes, with "tabs" that had more little grey boxes, with circles and what-have-you...it was horrible.
Re:Sounds good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:10 · Score: 0

Actually, with IIS 6 you can export the configuration of the sites to XML. Then just import that XML file with adsutil and you have 2 identical webservers...
Re:Sounds good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 11:53 · Score: 0

I hate uninformed morons like this, and to make matters worse they get marked as insightfull. IIS is Active Active Clusterable and many orgs do this on a regular basis and you CAN use a single image configuration. Either learn to hide your lies better or better still how about learning about something before you comment on it. ignorance is only bliss when you don't try to share it with everyone else.
Re:Sounds good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 12:19 · Score: 0

I hate uninformed morons like this, and to make matters worse they get marked as insightfull. IIS is Active Active Clusterable and many orgs do this on a regular basis and you CAN use a single image configuration. Either learn to hide your lies better or better still how about learning about something before you comment on it. ignorance is only bliss when you don't try to share it with everyone else.
Agreed. He got modded up because his lies are anti-Microsoft. What a big liar.
Re:Sounds good, but... by gromitcode · 2005-05-30 12:54 · Score: 1

have to agree with other 2 posts, this guy is nothing but a troll, windows has been able to do active active clustering for a long time as well as single image deployment (ADS). trolls suck whether they come from the linux or windows side.

webbased admin tool bad idea by js3 · 2005-05-30 01:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't know I think they should improve the multimedia console one. Webbased admin tool might just end up full of holes anyways.

I also noticed the upcoming virtual server 2005 SP1 is using a webbased admin tool. Why something like a virtual machine needs IIS to run to mangage is a little baffling but there seems to be someone at microsoft who always comes up with these terrible ideas.

--
did you forget to take your meds?

Re:webbased admin tool bad idea by lgw · 2005-05-30 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

What good is a server without remote admin to a large shop? Far better to use something SSL-based than Remote Desktop to manage your servers, after all.

Whether it's "insanely stupid" to use IIS as a part of remote admin will depend on how small its footprint turns out to be. I'm skeptical as well, but not at the basic idea, just at MS's ability to implement. If they can deliver a very lightweight web server, more power to them. If not, it will still be useful for machines that have to run IIS for another reason.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:webbased admin tool bad idea by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:40 · Score: 0

"multimedia console one"

But will it run Flash?

Server Error in '/' Application. by r0g1 · 2005-05-30 01:12 · Score: 1

Linked from the article: Guess he's using it already. ;)

Re:Server Error in '/' Application. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:56 · Score: 0

Thanks for that, it made my day! :)

Summon an army of script-kiddies to fuck its shit up.

You can't say cunt in Canada.

Love,
Sony Wankman (fucking with /.ers heads since 1971)

Lame name alert by 0WaitState · 2005-05-30 01:12 · Score: 1, Funny

Is it just me, or is the name "IIS web server" really lame? "Internet Information Server web server..." Yes, I know, Microsoft doesn't append "web server" to IIS, but if you have to tack on "web server" to remind people what the heck it is, then why not call it "Microsoft" web server instead of the nine-syllable babble-phrase? Sort of reminds me of PL/SQL, which when fully expanded is "Procedural Language/Structured Query Language".

--

Remain calm! All is well!

Re:Lame name alert by Wieland · 2005-05-30 01:20 · Score: 1

IIRC, MS changed the meaning of the S from "Server" to "Services" in version 5 and up.

"Internet Information Services Web Server" still sounds like shit, though.
Re:Lame name alert by PalmerEldritch42 · 2005-05-30 01:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

As opposed to what? Apache? At least IIS has the word Internet in it, so you aren't tempted into thinking that there is an war-painted Native American running your webserver!

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
:wq!
Re:Lame name alert by lgw · 2005-05-30 01:30 · Score: 1

Is PL/SQL an IBM thing? IBM has been calling programming languages PL/x for 40 years now - they can't help themselves, it's like a disease or something.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Lame name alert by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:30 · Score: 0

Actually SQL doesn't actually stand for anything.

-1 wrong... go have a look at the history of SQL via wikipedia
Re:Lame name alert by Ithika · 2005-05-30 01:33 · Score: 1

Tell that to the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra!

--
the layman's guide to computer science
Re:Lame name alert by bigman2003 · 2005-05-30 01:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Well since SEQUEL stood for 'Structured English Query Language' (which seems VERY language specific) I figured that SQL was just 'Structured Query Language.'

But SQL was just a shortening of SEQUEL for legal reasons...

--
No reason to lie.
Re:Lame name alert by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:49 · Score: 0

PL/SQL is an Oracle thing. They couldn't get stored procedures right, so came up with a kludgy name to reflect their product.

attn flamers: getting stored procedures right means returning rows from stored procedures, ok?
Re:Lame name alert by kebes · 2005-05-30 01:53 · Score: 1

And TCP/IP stands for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. What's your point? Most acronyms and names sound stupid at first, but after awhile they become a single token in your brain and they clearly describe the thing in question. You forget about the etymology and they just become a new word to be added to your vocabulary. No big deal there. I, for one, have grown accustomed to "Mandriva" and it doesn't sound stupid anymore!
Re:Lame name alert by bigman2003 · 2005-05-30 01:57 · Score: 1

Yes...which makes sense.

I use IIS as an FTP server also...and an SMTP server.

--
No reason to lie.
Re:Lame name alert by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:57 · Score: 0

You forgot about the indian holding the bottle of cheap wiskey. You can't find an indian anymore that isn't already drunk or working on getting there.
Re:Lame name alert by 0WaitState · 2005-05-30 02:00 · Score: 1

TCP/IP by convention refers to the protocol stack, of which TCP and IP are subsets. As for IIS being a single token, why did the article submitter (or slashdot editor) feel they needed to append "web server"? Because outside of Microsoft coding/admin circles, IIS is not that well known. Just as one says "Apache web server" for the benefit of the unenlightened, one also has to say "IIS web server", which is a really cumbersome phrase when expanded.

--

Remain calm! All is well!
Re:Lame name alert by maxwell+demon · 2005-05-30 03:09 · Score: 1

I thought ISO was short for International Standard Organization?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Lame name alert by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 09:22 · Score: 0

Um, doesn't "web server" already imply internet capability? I'm unaware of any web servers that do not make use of internet protocols. Maybe there's a few sad "web" servers targeted to intranet only, in fact given IIS' woeful security perhaps it should have been called the Intranet Server.

Further, "Internet Information Services" is also kind of redundant--what is the internet but a common carrier for information? I suppose the IIS implies an IPS, the internet porn server.

NIHS by putko · 2005-05-30 01:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know it is against "not invented here", but why don't they take a decent BSD-licensed web-server, and then "embrace and extend" the thing to do their proprietary extensions?

If they've modularized their stuff, this should be possible. They've done this already with TCP/IP, Kerberos and so on.

The overall product, to the extent that it benefitted from the work of free BSD-licensed improvements, would be good for everybody.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Re:NIHS by colinrichardday · 2005-05-30 02:59 · Score: 1

Microsoft has used BSD code in the past (try running strings on ftp.exe). Is there a particular BSD licensed web server you would suggest?
Re:NIHS by putko · 2005-05-30 03:49 · Score: 1

The one that springs to mind is thttpd.

It is small and fast. If M$ has modularlized things, they should be able to extend thttpd and make it work for them.

Here are some benchmarks.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by byolinux · 2005-05-30 01:14 · Score: 1

Told y.. No wait, okay.. what about something like Chill!soft ASP/Apache?

Do you have to upgrade to Windows 2003?

--
Join the Free Software Foundation

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by js3 · 2005-05-30 01:14 · Score: 1

sorry but anyone who can't get it to work probably should go back to school and learn how to administrate a real server.

--
did you forget to take your meds?

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:15 · Score: 0

The only thing we long for is that our legacy ASP will continue working on IIS 6.0 as it did on IIS 5.x for years!!!

Uh, ASP.NET has better performance *and* a better security model. If you don't care about security you can run a non-SP1 box. What's the big deal?

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by Wudbaer · 2005-05-30 01:21 · Score: 1

And if you would bother to share with us some details about your problems we could perhaps get an idea if you have any clue about what you are doing or not and if the problem is with IIS or somewhere else...

Why I hate IIS most. by ceeam · 2005-05-30 01:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are they going to fix their totally, state-of-the-brain-damaged-art configuration interface? I was made a couple of times to try to fix IIS problems and damn, is that one misguided abomination if I ever seen one. I dunno - maybe they should make it - you know - well commented plain text configuration file? Or even XML? I heard this works for others ;) But all in all - ASP.Net aside (I have not yet encountered that closely enough, knocking on the wood) is there a reason to use IIS at all? Apache for Win32 works perfectly well. And the fact that IIS runs ASP (classic) is IMO a good enough reason to _disallow_ IIS usage anywhere you have authority to. (In my repeated experience a semi-intelligent ASP programmer with zero PHP experience is made 3-10 times more productive within a week of PHP exposure).

Re:Why I hate IIS most. by jisatsusha · 2005-05-30 01:34 · Score: 3, Informative

IIS 6 already uses XML for all it's configuration files.
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by _ZorKa_ · 2005-05-30 01:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Honestly who cares about ASP. No one today is really still writing in old ASP/VB (except may some intranents). However, if we are talking ASP.NET, in my repeated experience (since I work on a large team of web developers using multiple technologies), those migrating from PHP to ASP.NET constantly say "Wow, that would have taken me about 3 days to code that in PHP.". I mean simple things like caching are not built into PHP, you have to code it from scratch. Other things like OOP sessions don't exists. Everything is a freaking function for crying out loud. So you are left coding your own "framework" so to speak which is why there are a gazillion PHP frameworks out there all trying to immitate what ASP.NET provides you. Another example is the ever popular MVC model. ASP.NET does this out of the box. But with PHP you have to spend the time coding your own. I wrote PHP code for a long time dude, and switched to ASP.NET over a year ago and I haven't looked back. Open your mind. Do you want the green pill or the red pill?

--
"With enough memory and hard drive space, anything in life is possible!"
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by Fweeky · 2005-05-30 02:52 · Score: 1

'"Wow, that would have taken me about 3 days to code that in PHP."'

Funny, that's pretty much what PHP people moving to Ruby/Rails keep saying too. Not that it's exactly difficult to beat PHP, but still..
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by diegocgteleline.es · 2005-05-30 04:25 · Score: 2, Informative

I dunno - maybe they should make it - you know - well commented plain text configuration file? Or even XML

ISS 6 already uses XML configuration files. It's in fact a quite rare move in the MS world - until then they only used their beloved "registry". I guess people asked them to use "configuration files", so they went for XML configuration files. But their approach is awkwards, when you edit the configuration file and save it, ISS detects it and the corresponding registry configuration is changed to reflect the changes in the configuration file - and viceversa.
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 06:15 · Score: 2, Informative

The XML files are there to simplify deployment. Just unzip the files on a new server and your done with both content and site configuration.

The synchronization with the registry is necessary for backwards compatibility, since many tools and applications expects to find configuration information in the registry. .m
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by vhogemann · 2005-05-30 08:19 · Score: 1

Apache beats both PHP and ASP.

Web devellopment using Tomcat is a breeze, it's fully OOP, and you can choose from lots of MVC frameworks.

You can say PHP is better because is trully free, but Java is a much better language to code on, has a more consistant syntax, and is quite mantainable thanks to javadoc.

I don't know what to say about ASP.NET, because I don't really know it.

--
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by brabo · 2005-05-30 08:21 · Score: 1

So you are left coding your own "framework" so to speak which is why there are a gazillion PHP frameworks out there all trying to immitate what ASP.NET provides you.

Somebody said WebObjects?

--
--- 'Pain heals, chicks dig scars... glory... lasts for ever!' -- "Footstep" Falco
Re:Why I hate IIS most. by cdwiegand · 2005-05-30 12:59 · Score: 1

*ALOT* of sites are still using classic ASP. And ASP.Net is completely different. And, if you like it's model, it's framework, then great. If you want to do things a little differently, though, it gets complicated and ugly. Also, remote debugging of ASP.Net never worked reliably for me (VS 2002, though). I'd love to marry the two - PHP for the presentation layer, and .Net DLLs for the backend stuff..

--
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:22 · Score: 0

might you mean "administer?"

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by Begemot · 2005-05-30 01:22 · Score: 1

We did actually. Did it all the way... to MS. They handle the case right now, and, frankly... they don't have a clue what went wrong with ASP engine! I bet they just can't handle the stream of support cases they got after 2003 SP1

Web based administration??? by Ucklak · 2005-05-30 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Umm, you could do that with IIS 4.0. Is this just marketing the same thing and labeling it as new?

Will they fix the backup and restore features so that you can transfer sites server to server without having to configure the whole damn thing?

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

Re:Web based administration??? by eneville · 2005-05-30 01:35 · Score: 1

That is the primary reason I hate IIS, why can't it be text configuration so that we can all script site administration?

The metabase is just a pain to work with and requires, in most cases the scripting host which is slower than java.

--
Why UNIX?
Re:Web based administration??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:47 · Score: 0

you can actually do it with this (not free but nothing MS ever is)
Re:Web based administration??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 03:09 · Score: 0

Well, i hope they dont remove it, seeing as it's already in IIS6

iiscnfg.exe is your friend.

Still bloatware! by bravado2112 · 2005-05-30 01:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

I don't know about you...but being an ex-ASP developer, I always found IIS to be rather bloated and testy. Even when I started using .NET and IIS 6 on a 2003 server...it still felt like bloatware! Give me an Apache server any day! :)

--
Jeff Whitfield jeffwhitfield@gmail.com "I can learn to resist anything but temptation..."

Re:Still bloatware! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 11:27 · Score: 0

I'm a current Java developer. Tell me how it's any heavier than JBoss or Apache + Tomcat.

As an ex-PHP developer, how is it any heavier than Apache + mod_php + all the php extensions?

Apache out of the box is really only useful for HTML or SHTML files, which is fine, it's what it was designed for. But comparing it to an app server is a bit flawed.

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:34 · Score: 0

And yet you still won't share details of the problem with this forum. We run a massive commercial ASP/ASP.Net web site on IIS6 with no problems whatsoever. I call BS.

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by ergo98 · 2005-05-30 01:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

They handle the case right now, and, frankly... they don't have a clue what went wrong with ASP engine!

As others have said, there are countless people who are running ASP sites on IIS. The fact that you encountered a quirk in an outdated hosting option is hardly surprizing. Most certainly your problem relates to some of the securing down of COM.

I can see it now... by PrivateDonut · 2005-05-30 01:38 · Score: 1

Microsoft Longhorn: A False Hope. (I probably the only one who understood that, but it is to do with the let downs that the first 2 new Star Wars movies were, and the way that the titles of these movies where layed out. That or it just wasn't funny.)

Re:I can see it now... by thrashbluegrass · 2005-05-30 06:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft Longhorn: A False Hope

To be followed by The FSF Strikes Back and Return of the Ballmer?

So like Plesk by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:38 · Score: 0

" In addition, the software's admin tool has been completely revamped, and will allow Web-based remote administration utilising SSL."

So basically like plesk, welcome to the 00's.

Don't care.... by ylikone · 2005-05-30 01:39 · Score: 1

My LAMP setup shines brightly enough for me.

--
Meh.

Re:Bring it on, you're heading in the right direct by gregorio · 2005-05-30 01:40 · Score: 1

This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago aswell. Although all of it seems to be good what MS is doing, it is late with a few years again.

IIS is module-based (ISAPI) since the beginning.

Re:Rendering. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:43 · Score: 0

IIS != IE.

So, where do you buy this from? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:45 · Score: 0

and how much do they want for it? And more importantly, how does it compare to my Apache/PHP setup?

Bear in mind this is for a home computer, not a fortune 400 company.

The following from a blog using it by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:47 · Score: 0

Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.

Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by mborland · 2005-05-30 01:50 · Score: 2, Funny

sorry but anyone who can't get it to work probably should go back to school and learn how to administrate a real server.

[reply] might you mean "administer?"

No, no, you see where he works they administrate their web servers as part of their effort to strategify maintenential servifaction. His suggestion that the parent educatify himself was within reasonification.

Hmmm. I'm not saying I'm doubtful, but... by caluml · 2005-05-30 01:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Web-based remote administration utilising SSL

Hands up those of you who think this will be nice and secure, and won't have any flaws. Hands up, all of you - cmon, I can't see any hands up.
The best thing they could do is run it on a different port, so that (with correct firewalling) it would only be accessible from the company admin ranges.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

Re:Rendering. by ch3 · 2005-05-30 01:54 · Score: 1

Too bad I(nternet)E(xplorer) 7 has nothing to do (except an unfortunate version number "collision") with I(nternet)I(nformation)S(server) 7.

IIS7 will do nothing for you in terms of webdesign...

Re:Rendering. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:55 · Score: 0

Too bad I(nternet)E(xplorer) 7 has nothing to do (except an unfortunate version number "collision") with I(nternet)I(nformation)S(server) 7.

So, they changed the "You need to install IE to view this site" to say Firefox?

Re:Bring it on, you're heading in the right direct by ergo98 · 2005-05-30 01:56 · Score: 3, Informative

This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago as well.

Remember that this information is coming from bloggers. The barrier to entry to blogging about something is that you have the wherewithall to setup an account on a blogging host.

IIS has been module based since day one - ASP is nothing more than an ISAPI module. Logging can be configured as external modules. Filters are external modules.

I read a more detailed account and it really sounds like the big change is .htaccess kinds of files (the IIS configuration is already a big XML file, but it's not in your web directories), the use of a new service control manager, and a better admin console. Until more details come out, it really isn't that much of a schism.

MOD UP PLZ by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 01:58 · Score: 0

No mod points, but this is exactly what I was thinking. This submission is much ado about nothing at all.

In other news... by ledow · 2005-05-30 02:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone else noticed that the Hack IIS6 website from the previous slashdot article has gone down?

Re:In other news... by Adult+film+producer · 2005-05-30 02:21 · Score: 2, Informative

ya, here's the link in case anybody missed that story.
Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:22 · Score: 0

Dude! Awesome! These dipshit moderators (no doubt pixie-dick-virgins) modded you offtopic, but I congratulate you on making a wonderful observation. Too bad you don't win an XBox!

Good work champ.

re: Microsoft Modules by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:04 · Score: 0, Troll

Microsoft's only plan is to sell the additional modules. IIS has been free for wayyy too long. You will get the 'basic' IIS for free, and then down the road, you will buy the SSL module, or buy the PHP module..

Re:Rendering. by cablepokerface · 2005-05-30 02:10 · Score: 1

All of you are absolutely right. I misread the blob AND article. I'm truly shamed. I guess it makes me a designer that I could read an article like that and not notice the difference.

Legality? by koko775 · 2005-05-30 02:15 · Score: 1

C# and the CLR (which .NET and mono run on) are open specs. JBoss, unless I'm mistaken, has an explicit exemption from Sun. I don't think there's any question that Apache using mono (which is backed by Novell) is legal....Just a thought.

Re:Legality? by mrselfdestrukt · 2005-05-30 09:49 · Score: 1

Reminds me of the old joke that the # in C# stands for 'rap' . C'rap' ...

To confirm you're not a script:
Uuuhm, these characters are getting almost impossible to read now.

--
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."

Microsoft funded original Apache development by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:16 · Score: 0

You do realize Microsoft Europe funded development of the original EMWACS server, the predecessor to Apache, right?

Yes, they are learning lessons from something they funded.

Re:Microsoft funded original Apache development by coldguy · 2005-05-30 08:11 · Score: 1

That's simply not true. Apache began as a set of patches to the NCSA webserver. Here's a bit about Apache's history.

Legacy problems... by Savage-Rabbit · 2005-05-30 02:17 · Score: 1

The only thing we long for is that our legacy ASP will continue working on IIS 6.0 as it did on IIS 5.x for years!!!

I take it you are complainig because updates to your web server caused old applications to break? If you coded webapps in older versions of ASP you must be prepared for the fact that sooner or later Microsoft will drop legacy support for old features or change default settings and they are not alone in this. There have been changes in PHP for example that have broken people's code. Take for example the time the PHP team changed the value of register_globals from ON to OFF to increase security. Careless admins who didn't read the PHP 4.2 change-list before upgrading were in for a surprise when several dozen websites suddenly had problems because their developers had written their code without taking into account that this setting might be changed. Should the PHP team have kept the less secure register_globals=ON setting for legacy reasons? I don't think so, it is part and pacel of a developers job to deal with these issues and it is up to the admin to inform him self about what changed need to be made to old web-applications before rushing in and making an upgrade.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:Legacy problems... by Pop69 · 2005-05-30 11:25 · Score: 1

Yes, but this misses the point that I can just put in register_globals=ON if I want to.

My choice to do that which isn't available on legacy ASP

Actually, I'd say... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

.. that they're making it more like Caudium.

Modular. Check (Caudium is *way* more modular than Apache.)
Web-based admin via SSL. Check
Integrated language for dynamic pages. Check.

Microsoft getting sued for those features by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:33 · Score: 0

Microsoft is right now getting sued by several companies for rights on some of those features they are announcing. How can they possibly announce those features as parts of their product while they are getting sued for them? I don't get it. Is Microsoft that overly gutsy or stupid or both?

Re:Microsoft getting sued for those features by Artifakt · 2005-05-30 03:33 · Score: 1

Microsoft can either win the suits at reasonable cost to themselves, and offer the features, or settle for a reasonable cost if it looks like they are losing, and still offer the features.

Microsoft could even gamble on a win at some point when the rational thing to do would be to settle instead, and still liscence the technology at a higher price they can still afford. It's a risk that may cost MS something overall, and it's usually ego driven, but it's a mistake that doesn't put the price of liscencing this sort of tech so high MS can't still potentially make a profit.

I suspect you are thinking that there could be other outcomes, like the companies they are litigating with winning, and then refusing to do business with Microsoft at any cost. Such outcomes are theoretically possible, but in practice almost never seen.

I've gone out on a limb before by predicting that the whole SCO fandango may end up with some normally rational companies like IBM persueing a scorched-earth policy at some short term cost to themselves. This time I'll predict that all parties involved will stay more focused on the bottom line than that.

--
Who is John Cabal?

PHP not OOP??? Hah! by JohnBaleshiski · 2005-05-30 02:37 · Score: 1

Caching (of files, of DB calls, of anything) can easily be implemented via PEAR. OOP does exist, and I use full classes ALL THE TIME.

If you have coded PHP for a long time, you obviously where stuck on PHP3 and have not checked out any recent features. PHP has become much more robust and I'm willing to bet I can code a site in PHP at least as fast as you can code one in ASP.NET. Not trying to be flame bait and I'm not going to get in a flame war, but if you are trying to say "Yay ASP.NET, PHP sucks because it's not OOP and is slower to code for" you are mistaken. And yes, I have coded a web application in C# so I do have a reference point.

Re:PHP not OOP??? Hah! by SolidGround · 2005-05-30 04:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Usually it's people with no real programming experience that seem to prefer PHP over .NET. If you have any experience what so ever in general development you'd realize that loosely typed variables are very much a bad thing and that what PHP claims as OO doesn't even come close to the real deal. PHP's programming practices are something that just encourages hacking away at it to make up for bad design and invites bug-ridden, impossible to debug code. It's also very much lacking a framework to do some decent componentization and even PHP 5 manages to stay years behind with no support for SOAP or any of the WS-* technologies and OO manages to be a factor 2 to 3 times slower than it was in PHP 4 already. PHP is popular because it's cheaper to find hosting for and because 99% of the sites out there use pre-written scripts. PHP does have some really nice features but to me they just melt away as soon as you try to build a site with some degree of complexity. It's great for a small to large hobby site, but that's really about it. Lastly, for something that's generally accepted to be open-source, it's a remarkably expensive platform to develop for. $300 for Zend Studio, $2400 for Zend Encoder and/or Zend Accelerator for $300/year.
Re:PHP not OOP??? Hah! by JohnBaleshiski · 2005-05-30 04:59 · Score: 1

> loosely typed variables are very much a bad thing

No argument here. Using hungarian notation makes life a little easier, but certain bugs can still appear without strong type casting.

> OO doesn't even come close to the real deal

What does it lack?

> no support for SOAP or any of the WS-* technologies

PEAR modules can provide these.

> OO manages to be a factor 2 to 3 times slower than it was in PHP 4

gcc 3.0 was slower than gcc 2.9 but it is now much faster. PHP5 is not mature. We still use PHP4 although PHP5 provides some nice features.

> Lastly, for something that's generally accepted to be open-source, it's a remarkably expensive platform to develop for

Real men use vi. ;) Just kidding of course. Although I use vi about 70% of the time, using Ultraedit or notepad for that matter on Windows is very cheap / free. We have not had any need for Zend Studio yet. So far our linux development, staging, and production environments have cost nothing so far in terms of being able to develop in PHP.

I admit that I'm an open source zealot. I will say C# (I hate VB and ASP) is a nice language. Having coded in C/C++ before, it was very easy to sit down and "just do it" to steal Nike's slogan. On the other side, coming from a perl background, PHP was also very easy to pick up.
Re:PHP not OOP??? Hah! by SolidGround · 2005-05-30 10:40 · Score: 1

>No argument here. Using hungarian notation makes life a little easier, but certain bugs can still appear without strong type casting. My main objection is that PHP keeps track internally of what type each variable is already, so providing at least the option of enabling strong typed variables shouldn't be that hard IMO. PHP 5 has type hinting but for the moment I'm stuck with 4 so I haven't really looked into it that much. Having to use "$this->" to reference class member variables probably tops my list of personal grievances though :). I can't count how many times I forget to do that. >What does it lack? Personally, I miss the ability to do function overloading and the functionality that comes with C++'s virtual functions. PHP won't properly call a derived class' overrided function if it's invoked from the base class. PHP 5 solved a lot of the others (scope through public/private/protected, static, abstract classes, etc) but unfortunately, I can't force everyone to switch on over and in some cases it's also impossible due to a shared hosting enviorment. I used to be against accessors but I've found some practical uses for them but strictly speaking C++ doesn't have them either. The way PHP 5 choose to implement them is far from ideal IMO though. When/if I can switch over, exception handling will also be very welcome, assuming the cost isn't too high. And although not strictly OO-related, I do miss the presence of collection classes as well. >PEAR modules can provide these. I never paid that much attention to PEAR honestly but I'll look into that, thanks. As for the tools, maybe it's a habit but I can't develop anything without a debugger and profiler and even with Zend Studio - for me - it's a burdensome process for PHP compared to normal. Also being used to Visual Studio's intellisense has made me rather spoiled and although saying this tends to open a can of worms, I'll take the MSDN documentation over PHP's any day. I remember the frustration and agony of having to develop a basic compiler for a university course which had to be done on linux with gcc and a command line debugger. Whenever I write PHP code those memories just come flooding back. :)
Re:PHP not OOP??? Hah! by SolidGround · 2005-05-30 10:43 · Score: 1

(Once more, now with line breaks. Sorry :) )

>No argument here. Using hungarian notation makes life a little easier, but certain bugs can still appear without strong type casting.

My main objection is that PHP keeps track internally of what type each variable is already, so providing at least the option of enabling strong typed variables shouldn't be that hard IMO.
PHP 5 has type hinting but for the moment I'm stuck with 4 so I haven't really looked into it that much.

Having to use "$this->" to reference class member variables probably tops my list of personal grievances though :). I can't count how many times I forget to do that.

>What does it lack?
Personally, I miss the ability to do function overloading and the functionality that comes with C++'s virtual functions. PHP won't properly call a derived class' overrided function if it's invoked from the base class.
PHP 5 solved a lot of the others (scope through public/private/protected, static, abstract classes, etc) but unfortunately, I can't force everyone to switch on over and in some cases it's also impossible due to a shared hosting enviorment.
I used to be against accessors but I've found some practical uses for them but strictly speaking C++ doesn't have them either. The way PHP 5 choose to implement them is far from ideal IMO though.
When/if I can switch over, exception handling will also be very welcome, assuming the cost isn't too high.
And although not strictly OO-related, I do miss the presence of collection classes as well.

>PEAR modules can provide these.
I never paid that much attention to PEAR honestly but I'll look into that, thanks.

As for the tools, maybe it's a habit but I can't develop anything without a debugger and profiler and even with Zend Studio - for me - it's a burdensome process for PHP compared to normal. Also being used to Visual Studio's intellisense has made me rather spoiled and although saying this tends to open a can of worms, I'll take the MSDN documentation over PHP's any day.

I remember the frustration and agony of having to develop a basic compiler for a university course which had to be done on linux with gcc and a command line debugger. Whenever I write PHP code those memories just come flooding back. :)

Re: Microsoft Modules by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:37 · Score: 0

Cool. Drives adoption of alternatives...

"classic" ASP by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:38 · Score: 0

What? How is Apache::ASP a solution for MS ASP? I have never met a person who codes ASP in Perl.

Exactly, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 02:48 · Score: 0

If Microsoft would only play nice with others. Yes, they are making better products now, but they are still using FUD and monopoly based tactics to shut down the competition or use their influence in government to make the competition illegal.

Why even have web administration? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 03:03 · Score: 0

I honestly don't see WHY they need to develop a web administration tool. You can already use the MMC snap-in over a local network, or over a VPN tunnel, and terminal services duplicates practically everything you can do locally, which could be run over a VPN tunnel as well.

Re:Bring it on, you're heading in the right direct by ergo98 · 2005-05-30 03:04 · Score: 1

Oh, and the aspnet_isapi.dll extension (or the derivative of it) is mapped to every type of file in IIS, so your HttpHandlers/HttpModules can be used (it also means that forms authentication, as an example, would work for static content such as images as well. Right now unless you configure it otherwise the ASP.NET module doesn't handle that, so ASP.NET security and functions are irrelevant).

[OT] werds was Re:Apache by g0at · 2005-05-30 03:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

For better or for worse, Microsoft has definatly become a better company because of open source.

Whenever someone misspells definitely as "definatly", I often read it as defiantly. Sometimes, depending on the context, it's an even more appropriate word.

-b

--
myselfmusic

I can see it already .... by Luscious868 · 2005-05-30 04:10 · Score: 1

In addition, the software's admin tool has been completely revamped, and will allow Web-based remote administration utilising SSL.

Which, somehow, will still be easily hackable rendering the other security improvments useless because every script kiddie and their sister will be able to get remote admin access.

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by Begemot · 2005-05-30 04:14 · Score: 1

Details:
- We have a simple ASP application, JS - server and client (not that the client matters)
- ASP pages call VB COM in COM+ that, in turn call SQL server and format the info out as HTML tables

I haven't seen more simple app than this one.
It never fails on IIS 5 / Windows 2000.

On Windows 2003 we had a problem admitted and fixed by MS in SP1 Beta. Surprise: everything worked well with SP1 Beta!! Once we installed SP1 Release - every now and then the ASP stops responding. Not even the dumbest Response.Write("kuku"). HTML are served fine.

I can provide more details if needed. Thanks for looking.

Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... by NutscrapeSucks · 2005-05-30 04:57 · Score: 1

OK, this is pretty random. We had a JScript ASP app that was leaking memory. Turns out the programmer was destroying COM objects with a VBish statement:
myCOMObj = null;

When in fact the correct syntax is:
delete myCOMObj;

I've also seen COM+ apps hang because the object lifecycle wasn't handled correctly. Sorry if this seems trivial. If there's any more complicated problems with COM+, I'd make the $300 phone call rather than kvetch on message boards.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.

OT: putty MMC-plugin by perler · 2005-05-30 05:24 · Score: 1

btw, why didn't someone came up yet with the idea to make a putty MMC snap-in. I imagine something on the lines of the tsmmc.msc from the windows server 2003 admin pack which is a very handy tool if you have some more servers to work on (basically a tree with the servers on the left side and the RDP-view on the right, switching between servers by clicking on the entries on the left side)

--
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V

Re:Lame name alert -- They did. by Tolkien · 2005-05-30 05:25 · Score: 2, Informative

New the the scene? In win9x, Microsoft offered "Microsoft Personal Web Server" or PWS, which functioned much the same way as IIS does, only with 1/100th of the security and features.

http://www.studiodeluxe.net/pws/index.htm

--
how is babby formed?

Apache has it's own lessons to learn by DigitlDud · 2005-05-30 06:04 · Score: 1

There are many things that IIS has done better than Apache. Take user file permissions for example. On Apache a user can authenticate against, say a passwd file, but Apache still ignores the file permissions of the file system. On IIS, when you authenticate to the server the server impersonates your user account when it accesses files and so the file permissions (ACLs) still apply as they would when accessing files on the OS normally.

Another advantage of IIS is it's ability to isolate applications running on it.
If an application crashes on IIS, it dies within its own isolated process and doesn't affect other applications or the core. Apache does this to an extent and will usually at least keep the core running if a module crashes, but there are still instances where it may need a restart. This is also the same reason Apache needs a restart to change configuration settings while IIS does not (although .htaccess helps).

Longtooth will emerge in 2019. by rice_burners_suck · 2005-05-30 06:47 · Score: 0, Flamebait

IIS web server will integrate ASP.NET and turn many core features into optional modules in order to provide a smaller security footprint for hackers to attack

Oh, so they'll integrate MSIE 7, Windows Media Player, and Clippy the talking paperclip into the core of IIS web server. That sounds like an excellent security policy to me!

Apache-ASP isn't ASP... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 09:17 · Score: 0

It's an ASP version of Perl, called PerlScript. 99% of ASP code is written in VBscript, the remaining 1% being JScript. Neither is supported by Apache-ASP. PerlScript exists at the noise level.

So, no, you can't really run ASP on Apache with free software. ChiliSoft has a package that _will_ run ASP with Apache on Linux/UNIX.

theft of ideas by jesterzog · 2005-05-30 09:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

or stealing ideas, one could also argue

I don't think "stealing" is a very good word to use, or you start to fall into the same trap that a lot of people accuse organisations like the RIAA and MPAA of. ("Stealing" music, copyright "theft", etc.) That is, unless you agree with them that use of another person's ideas without asking is theft.

Personally I think it's good that Microsoft has finally decided to implement what everyone else has, for a long time, known to be useful. Just because Microsoft has done it doesn't mean that everyone else must stop doing it.

Re: Correction by Space_Soldier · 2005-05-30 10:05 · Score: 1

It is called "Internet Information Services". It also has FTP, SMTP, and a few other things.

Re:Apache (Url Rewrite) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 15:34 · Score: 0

Actually, URL rewrite in ASP.Net is very easy.

1. Open up your IIS website and map .htm or .html to the dotnet framework, just look at .aspx and copy it.

2. Put a regex or something in the BeginRequest event of the global.asax. The example dosn't include the regex, but you get the idea.

protected void Application_BeginRequest(Object sender, EventArgs e){
if (HttpContext.Current.Request.Path.EndsWith("articl e101.htm")) {
HttpContext.Current.RewritePath("getarticle.aspx?i d=101");
}
}

Hype! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 17:30 · Score: 0

Next microsoft products will be COOL!
hype! hype hype! tech blogs! coolness! buzzwords! "john, the cool IT guy"
are you as cool as the developers using microsoft tools?

download the FREE betas and GIVE microsoft YOUR TIME helping finding bugs.
Next year you'll be FREE to BUY the final version!
If you don't like it, don't buy it; but you'll have to use it anyway.

Join us and write some quality, maintainable and finally non-portable code! Because microsoft platforms always been and are always gonna be the best choice.

Who needs facts here!? I mean pure and hard facts of course! Its computer science after all... So Microsoft have cooked us the best real facts of the market about the real money it costs for running linux against windows. Read it (or look at the nice graph charts) and FEEL by yourself how much windows is THE clever option.

well, thats the way it works for any big markets on the planet. And it is killing us, I think.

Pierre

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft IIS v7 Details Emerge

192 comments