IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache

About time by BWJones · 2005-09-15 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server.

I am shocked that it has taken this long to implement these features. Come on now. The rest of the industry has known that this increases stability, eases management and reduced computational overhead for years. Why is it do they think that an eight year old Linux box running Apache can serve up such huge volume versus a latest and greatest IIS server? Also, "simple configuration. IIS 7.0 does away with complicated the "Metabase" and replaces it with XML configuration files, Well, yeah! The fact that they are even talking about doing this rather than simply implementing the feature and then talking about it troubles me though. For myself, I am not running anything sophisticated for the sites I manage but I want simplicity of management and therefore went with standard OSX hosting systems. For heavier lifting, an OS X server system for our scientific databases is not quite as fast as Linux based solutions for some data types, but it is certainly easier to manage than Linux or IIS. If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Re:About time by Golias · 2005-09-15 09:14 · Score: 5, Funny

If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now?

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:About time by turbotalon · 2005-09-15 09:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The important thing to remember is the current install base. They don't need to innovate, only keep the differences in performance/features small enought that the hassles of switching are greater than the benefits. In other words, they need only keep people happy enough to stay. Many places (like where I work, UPS) are MS B****hes and it would take something VERY VERY major to convice them to go elsewhere, even if MS has a vasly inferior product.

--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Re:About time by justforaday · 2005-09-15 09:22 · Score: 5, Funny

I think he forgot the 'r' up there...

--
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Re:About time by toddbu · 2005-09-15 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.
Well, let's hope that they can actually pull it off. Just breaking the system into modules isn't enough. What they're really missing is cool functionality like mod_rewrite.

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:About time by aktzin · 2005-09-15 09:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was really surprised when this came out in 2001:
"Research group Gartner is advising businesses to "immediately" replace their Microsoft Internet Information Server software with a more secure server application, following attacks on IIS by the worms Code Red and Nimda."
http://news.com.com/2102-1001_3-273461.html?tag=st .util.print
Gartner approves of Microsoft more often than not, and this was by far the most negative opinion I've ever seen them express about MS. Too bad hardly anyone took their advice.

--
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
Re:About time by MrAnnoyanceToYou · 2005-09-15 10:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now? Because the other option is:

a) Free
b) Easily modifiable if you figure out something else you want it to do
c) More Stable
d) Running on an OS that's Free'er than yours
e) Kicking your tail
f) Preferred by Developers
g) All of the above

It might be mildly intelligent to actually add features that people really want badly to overcome the rest of the problems there....

--
My little site.
Re:About time by CDMA_Demo · 2005-09-15 10:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now?

Not really. They also rely on innovation. They bought hotmail and excel. Thats innovative, don't you think?
Re:About time by kahanamoku · 2005-09-15 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Funny, until they Patent the Idea of using modules and editable text files for configuration of a web server

--
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
Re:About time by DJ-Dodger · 2005-09-15 11:21 · Score: 2, Informative

The IIS metabase is already an XML configuration file. It has been since IIS 6.0 which ships with Windows Server 2003. It sounds like they are just making some changes to it. Located at systemroot\System32\Inetsrv\Metabase.xml They also provide a schema file for it: MBSchema.xml

See this article for technical details.
Re:About time by LO0G · 2005-09-15 11:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Excel? Nope, not purchased, 100% developed by Microsoft.

Now then, Powerpoint, Hotmail, Frontpage, etc were purchased.

But not Excel.
Re:About time by toddbu · 2005-09-15 11:48 · Score: 3, Funny

corrupteed?

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:About time by Mo+Bedda · 2005-09-15 13:45 · Score: 5, Funny

- If you leave a Windows box running IIS alone in the corner of your office (Like I have), you will rarly touch it, I usually install updates once every few months.

Most folks find web servers more useful when connected to a network.
Re:About time by DavidTC · 2005-09-15 15:27 · Score: 4, Funny

a) Free
- IIS is also free.
IIS is free? Holy shit!
Where's the download for XP Home, then?
Oh, wait, it's not free, it's merely included in the price of something else.
b) Easily modifiable if you figure out something else you want it to do
- IIS isnt that hard to figure out.. I figured it out as fast as Apache. Because of the strong/open community around Microsoft products, them being diffult to use is easily overcome
You missed the 'modifiable' part of that, didn't you? Apache has source. If worse comes to worse, you find a module that's close to what you want, and hack it. (I think this is one of the things MS is trying to change here.)
c) More Stable
- If you leave a Windows box running IIS alone in the corner of your office (Like I have), you will rarly touch it, I usually install updates once every few months.
So...you're owned every month, then? Or is the corner of your office not connected to the internet?
Or, wait? Is your webserver behind a Linux proxy/firewall? Admit it, it is, isn't it?
d) Running on an OS that's Free'er than yours?
- 100 bucks is not really something to complain about. If that overhead is hurting your business you have larger problems.
You can't even get XP Home for 100 bucks. And Home does not have IIS.
A 'legit according to MS' license for XP Pro is $269.00. See here. That's sans CD, incidentally.
Yes, you can get it for cheaper, but those are often counterfeit or gray market OEM version. (While the illegality of selling those is probably dubious under the Doctrine of First Sale, Microsoft does not get to use gray market licenses that it is trying to stop to demonstrate about how low its prices are.)
Windows Server 2003 might be cheaper, but I can't locate it. However, it's not 100 dollars.
e) Kicking your tail
- ?
I think that is self-explanitory. Apache owns the web server market with 70% of the entire thing, and MS limps in at 20%, with the other 10% being other Unix servers. I think 70% vs. 20% is 'kicking tail'.
f) Preferred by Developers
- Considering the .NET Framework is the most propular develpment platform today, I am sure this could be argued.
Oh, I understand. You'll living in that parallel universe where people care about .NET. Um, no. Depending on want you mean by that, the 'most popular development enviroment' is probably C, like it's been for the past 30 years. If you mean 'desktop programs', I suspect C++ might slightly win over C, with Java in there somewhere.
Even if you're saying 'Windows application development enviroment', .NET doesn't win, and I don't know what the hell that would have to do with web server.
With web development, almost all is Perl and PHP. ASP comes in a distance third, and ASP.NET isn't even making a dent.
But wait! .NET is by Microsoft, and it's new. We should all immedaitely start using it so we can be obsoleted in four years.
VB anyone? ASP? J++? Just exactly how many programming languages has MS left to rot?
Some of us like to code in languages that have open source versions, or at least are multiple vender-supported standards, so we don't get tossed out of the Microsoft truck when it decides to randomly swerve in a new direction.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:About time by marbleye · 2005-09-16 00:27 · Score: 2, Informative

IIS Free ? Last time I looked you have to pay big money if you want to have more than 50 (IIRC) simultaneous concurrent user-connections from your .asp(x) app to a MSSQL server.

--
Where do you want to go, toady ?

XML Config by mysqlrocks · 2005-09-15 09:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I link the XML configuration. Hopefully Apache does this soon. Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

--
Bradley Holt

Re:XML Config by grub · 2005-09-15 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was thinking the exact opposite. I like editting a plain ol' text file by hand. Editting XML is a pain; yeah it's all text but then so is Postscript.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:XML Config by Anonymous+Crowhead · 2005-09-15 09:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

Heh, I worked with someone who thought it was a pain to edit too. His solution - he erased every single comment from httpd.conf. (He thought it was a pain because it was too long. Needless to say, tempers flared.)
Re:XML Config by Nos. · 2005-09-15 09:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I tend to agree... sort of. Once your familiar with httpd.conf, editing it tends to be quite simple. However, trying to write an application front end to do that is a pain. This is where XML is nice. Its structured and formatted. The idea behind using XML isn't to make your life easier to edit it by hand... its to make it easier to make automated tools to edit and query the config files.
Re:XML Config by Anonymous+Crowhead · 2005-09-15 09:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Would have been nice had he done one of these first:

mv /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf.bak

Heh, fat chance with that guy. I usually append a bind type serial number (2005091501) to the end of a copy. If you just use .bak you can accidently write a bad copy over a good one. Even worse is finding things like:

httpd.orig.bak3 or
httpd.conf.this.one.works2.bak

in the conf directory.
Re:XML Config by Just+Some+Guy · 2005-09-15 14:16 · Score: 2, Informative

His solution - he erased every single comment from httpd.conf.
I worked for a small ISP, and we used a heavily-commented named.conf and associated zone files to keep track of configuration information, explanations for non-obvious things, etc. Since we were a small shop and worked well together, this was fine. Until we merged with another ISP. Whose admins "helpfully" slaved their BIND to ours, made it the master, and then slaved ours to theirs. Without changing the zone filenames in named.conf. I think that, had I been in the same room with them before we managed to retrieve our off-site backups, I might've had to have killed them.
One hugely useful system is to use version control on your configuration directories. Let the new guy delete at will; you can always roll back his commits and explain why you're going to beat him if he does it again.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:XML Config by DavidTC · 2005-09-15 15:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

It isn't psuedo XML at all. That would be a neat trick, considering how far it predates XML.
It's merely a nested config file. Each option is set with a single line that has the option name and then the setting(s) to give that.
Many of these options can be put inside a 'restrictor'. You can restrict options to files, directories, URL paths (Locations), and virtual hosts. These restrictors look vaguely like XML, but lots of things look vaguely like XML.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

so... by intmainvoid · 2005-09-15 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache?

--
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations

Re:so... by FyRE666 · 2005-09-15 09:23 · Score: 5, Funny

so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache?

Because it costs les... I mean, because the OS it runs on is more secu... Oops, I really meant, because people should support all the good things that MS do for the...

Sod it... Hey, O'Gara, you get paid good money to come up with this horse-shit - take it away, would you?

--
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Re:so... by dioscaido · 2005-09-15 09:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

asp.net w/ c# would be one reason. it's a fantastic dev platform, hatred for MS aside.
Re:so... by SomeGuyTyping · 2005-09-15 09:38 · Score: 3, Informative

that's what Mono is for

--
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

How about multiple versions? by fuzzy12345 · 2005-09-15 09:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses? Install or uninstall without rebooting? Change or inspect the source code?

--

Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.

Re:How about multiple versions? by Atzanteol · 2005-09-15 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache?

I believe the appropriate question is: Why can't you run two different versions of IIS? Maybe one writes a web-portal or some such that will need to be run in different versions of IIS? Who knows?

It is to the user to decide what they want to do with software, not the developers.

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re:How about multiple versions? by hkb · 2005-09-15 10:19 · Score: 2, Informative

IIS runs without a GUI. You can configure it* without a GUI by editing the XML config file. Have been able to since IIS6. 'Bout time to wake up and get a clue, don't you think?

I won't completely flame you for sounding like a Windows-ignorant Linux zealot, because you're a fellow climber.

* Although why the hell would you want to?

--
/* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
Re:How about multiple versions? by man_of_mr_e · 2005-09-15 11:08 · Score: 2, Informative

That is a very complicated solution to a simple problem.

You can very easily run each version of your web app in different virutal sites in the same apache instance. You're going to have be convince me as to why it's necessary to run them under different instances.

Unlike Apache, IIS is far more configurable about it's "Application Pools" and can run them all as different uesrs, or different configurations or different security.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here

Copy Cat by sheepoo · 2005-09-15 09:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Is M$ becoming a mass copy store...First Firefox (for IE7.0) then Apple OS X (for Vista) and now Apache (for IIS). Are they going out of business of innovation?

Re:Copy Cat by Saiyine · 2005-09-15 09:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Are they going out of business of innovation?

Well, to go out you first have to have been in!

--
Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

--
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
Re:Copy Cat by MrDomino · 2005-09-15 09:44 · Score: 5, Funny

They were in the business of innovation?
Re:Copy Cat by MedManDC · 2005-09-15 10:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't forget Microsoft Bob!

Security? by WindBourne · 2005-09-15 09:16 · Score: 2, Funny

Here is to hope that security will be job #1, rather than job #10.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Erm by Vlad_Drak · 2005-09-15 09:18 · Score: 5, Informative

IIS 6.0 utilized an editable-during-runtime xml configuration file, metabase.xml. The new stuff is more integrated into a .Net Framework style config.

1996 Called by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-15 09:20 · Score: 2, Funny

...they want their webserver back. =)

THIS JUST IN - IIS 6.0 does most of that crap by BattleRat · 2005-09-15 09:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

wow, I guess that most slashdotters REALLY hate MS enough to not even know the characteristics of their current offerings...

Re:If I remember correctly... by $RANDOMLUSER · 2005-09-15 09:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh come on. When you install SQL Server, you have to reboot. New installations of infrastructure are a different matter than deploying a new virtual directory.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

Re:A wiser man than me once said: by DA-MAN · 2005-09-15 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Henry Spencer

"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly".

Repeat after me, Apache is not UNIX. Apache is a web server. It's a web server that's not even exclusive to the UNIX world since it runs on Windows.

--
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum

It's always been a copy cat... by jimmer63 · 2005-09-15 09:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is one of the major ways Microsft has stayed on top. The are great at collecting the best ideas from many sources and implementing them in their own software. Often implementing these ideas better than the orginal. Microsoft isn't stupid. They're always watching the market to learn how to do things better.

Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. by Johnno74 · 2005-09-15 09:27 · Score: 4, Informative

... At TechEd New Zealand. IIS7 looks really smart, with pluggable modules to provide all of its functionality, as the submitted mentioned. Ouf of the box pretty much everything will be disabled, and you enable only the modules you need.

IIS6 (win 2003) has already done away with the metabase and gone to an XML file for all of the configuration settings.

IIS7 goes one further, by allowing you to put configuration files in each virtual directory or website to over-ride the parent setting (if permitted) - this allows a website owner to configure their own website, without affecting the other websites on the box, or having to ask the administrator to make the changes for them.

The MS guy told me they are trying to make management as easy as possible for servers containing thousands of seperate sites. He also said they hope to release IIS7 for Win2003 R2.

Loads of other management things are coming in too, such as the ability to examine currently execting requests, and kill them without restarting the site or server (VERY usefull if a script is looping)

MS's new approach to security seems to be really paying off - IIS6 was re-written from the ground up, and how many security holes have there been? I can't remember any.

Re:Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. by SocietyoftheFist · 2005-09-15 09:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been taking care of an Win2k3/IIS6 combo and to be honest, I've been quite happy with it.
Re:Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. by sparkz · 2005-09-15 12:52 · Score: 2, Informative

this allows a website owner to configure their own website, without affecting the other websites on the box, or having to ask the administrator to make the changes for them.
Ah - you mean .htaccess
Now that's what I call innovation :-)

--
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Re:Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. by Allador · 2005-09-15 17:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

An application pool runs under an isolated process.

Multiple threads (configurable) service requests for this pool, in a pooled, as-available fashion.

So in the current system, you have visibility into the application pools, and you can see how many threads are servicing requests, there is no mechanism to make a given (hung or misbehaving) request visible and killable.

Now granted, this is a very minor feature, as if a typical asp or asp.net script is looping or hung, it'll either time out or be terminated by the system as a misbehaving execution.

So its nice, but the times when you need this granularity is rare.

In fact, the only times I've seen where it would be useful would be in killing runaway perl processes running under IIS. Currently, its difficult to figure out what script, or what request is looping/hung, and there is no automatic timeout for perl scripts or processes.

Ummm... patents? by Anonymous+Custard · 2005-09-15 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Did anyone at Apache remember to patent hot-swappable web server modules?

--
$8.95/mo web hosting

Re:Ummm... patents? by greg_barton · 2005-09-15 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Did anyone at Apache remember to patent hot-swappable web server modules?

Why do that? Isn't the point of open source the spread of technology ideas? So what if the evil empire uses Apache's server fu? It's their right, just as it's your right.

Re:Not XML by Rasta+Prefect · 2005-09-15 09:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Running in prefork MPM is fine for the most part, but I really wish perchild would get off the ground so that PHP scripts won't be all running as the same user. Now if only all of PHP's modules were thread safe...

suPHP will take care of that for you. Well, the user bit, not the thread safety bit.

http://www.suphp.org/Home.html

--
Why?

Apache Browser? by krgallagher · 2005-09-15 09:31 · Score: 4, Funny

From the article:

"The popular open source Apache Web browser takes a similar approach to features."

Does it support tabbed browsing?

--

Insert Generic Sig Here:

In other news... by unixbugs · 2005-09-15 09:34 · Score: 2, Funny

3 people shocked to learn of Microsoft copying other people's ideas.

--
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...

Re:Text Conf Files for Windows by vcv · 2005-09-15 09:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

No they won't. There is still a GUI tool to write the config files for you.

My two cents... by Savage-Rabbit · 2005-09-15 09:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

I'd settle for a better IIS-FTP component, the one in IIS 6 is a bit of a joke. As for the Metabase , yes it could be more transparent but it isn't that complicated and there is an excellent programming interface for it. Most of all I'd really like to see Microsoft cough up the ability to configure absolutely every aspect of IIS (and Windows it self for that matter) from the commandline. Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell. And this to the point where I don't have to see a Windows desktop for months should the need arise. Even in Windows 2003 the commandline toolkit that comes with Windows is incomplete although Microsoft does offer a bunch of administrator toolkits that help alot but I still fail to see why these have to be tracked down and downloaded seperately rather than being supplied with the OS.

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

Re:My two cents... by nachoboy · 2005-09-15 13:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most of all I'd really like to see Microsoft cough up the ability to configure absolutely every aspect of IIS (and Windows it self for that matter) from the commandline.

What is your primary concern? Is it that tools are simply not available at all to do the work you'd like, or is it that the command-line tools are distributed separately from the OS?

What tasks (in IIS and Windows) can you absolutely not accomplish via the command line today? (Please give as many examples as you can, I'm very interested in others' experiences.) Is this due to lack of awareness of the tools, or lack of availability of tools?
Re:My two cents... by secolactico · 2005-09-15 13:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd settle for a better IIS-FTP component, the one in IIS 6 is a bit of a joke.

Heck, yeah. I don't even bother with it anymore and I usually go with a third party program for my ftp needs.

But I wish IIS would allow me to authenticate against an external user database instead of the system's or AD.

Other than that, I have no complains about Windows 2003/IIS 6. I also run Apache 2 on Linux and Apache 1.3 on Solaris. I don't see much of a difference in stability. Apache1.3/Solaris are a bit behind in performance but that's because they are running on a *really* old Sun machine.

--
No sig
Re:My two cents... by throx · 2005-09-15 14:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell.

If it's all configured through XML files, I don't see the difficulty here.

In addition, MS is saying they are going to layer their management tools on top of monad so everything will be command line scriptable, but take it with a grain of salt as to when/if that all comes to fruition.

--

Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Re:My two cents... by RomanySaad · 2005-09-15 16:40 · Score: 2, Informative

I went to the "Breakout Session" for IIS7 yesterday and the guy was using IISCMD.exe to configure it. I am not sure how robust it is, however.
Re:My two cents... by delus10n0 · 2005-09-15 17:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

The mentality here is pretty funny-- most SlashDot people would get on Microsoft for "using their monopoly" to spread their software. Here we have people saying the FTP server _isn't_ good enough, and should be made better. While that's an alright opinion to have, you're also free to install any other FTP server you'd like. The excellent (and free) FileZilla server is one that I find myself using.

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Re:My two cents... by Dom2 · 2005-09-15 18:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

The point about the metabase being xml is very, very important. How many people keep their apache config files in version control? Lots (the sensible people). How many people keep their IIS configs in version control? I don't know, but I'm betting it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the user population.
Version control is essential for systems administration. You need a good, working "undo" button. That's what version control gives you. But VC works best with text files, not the registry. So switching to XML config files will give IIS admins a chance to bring their practises closer to those used by Apache admins (and the rest of the Unix sysadmin world).
-Dom
Re:My two cents... by ajs318 · 2005-09-15 22:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you just want an OS with a decent ftp daemon and where everything can be configured from the command line, why are you bothering to stick with Windows?

Linux has good configurability and a stable ftp daemon. FreeBSD has good configurability and a stable FTP daemon. OpenBSD has good configurability, a stable FTP daemon and an excellent security track record.

My advice to you is to ditch Windows altogether, but not tell the management. Just use Apache and ProFTPD on FreeBSD or Linux. You can get patchsets to make them look sufficiently like IIS that a PHB will never notice the difference, and you will also achieve indispensability. All you need is the ability to cash the cheques that would have gone to the likes of Microsoft; there are many places that can help you, but they most probably won't be in the normal Yellow Pages.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:My two cents... by Savage-Rabbit · 2005-09-15 23:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I a word? The PHB crowd demands it. Besides, even though I prefer Unix in its various flavors and use it exclusively on my desktop machine and my own servers I don't mind working with Windows. There is a number of solutions where it's use is mandatory either because there is a demand for Windows specific solutions like Frontpage or because a bigass customer demands Windows being used. Money talks bullshit walks and if the money says Windows I use Windows, I push Unix/Linux as far as I can but if the are dead set on Windows then so be it. I just think that if Microsoft wants to be taken seriously as a server OS vendor they have to include a much much bigger kit of commandline tools. Yes, I know Linux exists, and yes, I know that even on Windows I can painstakingly build my own toolkit with Perl/VB/C# etc... But I don't see why I should have to do that if every other Server OS vendor on the market provides these tools as standard? For all I care they can choose not install these tools by default to avoid confusing they "part-time-admins", just so long as they power tools are there on the Install disk for advanced users to select when we install a Windows Server OS.

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

Not new... by Sliptwixt · 2005-09-15 09:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

" Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration." This is not new. web.config (each web app) changes override machine.config (system-wide) already.

IIS 7 by bitserf · 2005-09-15 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Okay...So I guess the OP fixated on one thing (modular configuration snippets) and wrote off all IIS efforts as copying.

It is this complacent attitude that will get Apache's ass handed to it.

When I last checked, Apache has no way (short of parsing the config file with your own crappy scripts using unreliable regexen ) for you to inspect the current configuration. IIS has this, the entire object model of the server configuration is available for inspection from the scripts, guaranteed to be accurate.

Apache needs to provide (if not a more structured file format), a set of script-callable APIs for configuring and managing the server.

Grepping the config file and making one or two changes then restarting may be sufficient when you're running 10 or 20 sites in production, but when you're hosting 1000s, you need something better.

IIS is also completely manageable from scripts, and I cast envious glances at the things our IIS admins are able to do with scripts. Create new vhost: Check. Temporarily disable vhost: Check. Modify vhost properties at runtime without bouncing the entire server: Check.

Apache doesn't have anything equivalent (unless you count the big-hammer apachectl START/STOP/GRACEFUL) as "management". Or you write your own. (Yeah, we all have time to reinvent that wheel.)

Apache is playing catch up here in every sense.

And this comes from someone who runs tonnes of sites under Apache in production.

Believe me, generating Apache configuration from a canonical source (i.e. a database) is a royal pain in the ass, but currently the only way you're really going to manage 1000s of sites with Apache if you're offering hosting services.

This management is the single biggest thing missing in Apache today.

Re:IIS 7 by Just+Some+Guy · 2005-09-15 10:51 · Score: 2, Informative

If only there were some scripting language that could be used to configure Apache...
Not that it fully answers your needs, but surely someone who manages 1000s of sites would be aware of its existence?

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Apache doesn't have hot-swappable modules by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-15 09:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Apache doesn't have hot-swapable modules.

It has modules, but they are loaded when the server starts. If you want to enable or disable modules you need to restart the server.

You can restart the server in a fairly graceful way with very short downtime. But this is not the same as hot-swapable modules.

So, no, I doubt that anyone at Apache has patented hot-swappable modules.

Have a look at http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/stopping.html for more details.

Re:Not XML by greenskyx · 2005-09-15 10:46 · Score: 2, Informative

PerUser does this as well: http://www.telana.com/peruser.php

Backward by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-15 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

You've got this backward. Apache doesn't have an XML configuration file. It also doesn't have hot-swappable modules. If IIS now has these features, then it will be Apache that needs to catch up.

Apache has plenty of good features. I don't honestly know how it compares to IIS and I don't much care because I want to run on unix. But it is not perfect. These are two areas where it could improve.

(Why do so many people here think that Apache does have these features?)

Re:Backward by Bulln-Bulln · 2005-09-15 13:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, maybe Apache does not have these, but other OSS web servers have. Eg if I understand the feature list correctly Roxen WebServer does have at least hot-swappable modules.
Re:Backward by glwtta · 2005-09-15 16:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Apache doesn't have an XML configuration file.
And thank the gods for that! I believe the feature they are referring to is the concept of having configuration files at all (which you can then easily scriptify, version, etc). As far as I understand IIS was strictly pointy-clicky for config.
That MS chose to do their in XML isn't a feature, just an annoyance for whoever has to work with those files.
(Same thing with modules: having modules is the new feature, that they are run-time loaded is a pretty useless addition)

--
sic transit gloria mundi

better security? by diegocgteleline.es · 2005-09-15 11:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Statistics say that IIS6 has been doing MUCH better than apache 2

Re:better security? by Daengbo · 2005-09-15 15:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

You just can't count security advisories when the method of reporting them is not consistent across different products. It's like doing an experiment where you don't calibrate your instruments before different measurements on different days. The results say nothing.

MS is strongly in the camp where vulnerabilities are not reported publicly until a patch (or at least an exploit) is already available, while Apache publicizes vuln's without either, hoping that the community will pony up with a patch.

How in the world could you ever compare either of these products with numbers that come from such widly different sources? It's like saying that I run faster than you when I measure my speed in km/h and you use miles...

--
Put identity in the browser.

Re:Text Conf Files for Windows by istartedi · 2005-09-15 11:08 · Score: 2

No, they'll just use something like this to edit it, or more likely some MS GUI tool.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Clippy by lullabud · 2005-09-15 11:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, they are innovative. Clippy is the most innovative offering of its kind since Chinese water torture.

Re:Awesome by seanvaandering · 2005-09-15 20:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh yeah...and it helps get the first post :-)

Do me a favor and hit refresh please...

Slashdot Mirror

IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache

73 of 395 comments (clear)