Slashdot Mirror
Apache Webserver Surpasses 50 Million Website Mark
chris81 writes "For the first time ever, the Apache Web Server is powering more than 50 million websites, according to Netcraft's Web Server Survey for October. Although relative share fell by 0.67 percent, the total number of sites powered by Apache grew to over 52 million. Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served."
It's because of php's increasing popularity, as this page shows.
I wonder how they count it when you have different names for a single site:
<VirtualHost *>
ServerName urukpr0n.angband.pl
ServerAlias urukporn.angband.pl urukp0rn.angband.pl urukpron.angband.pl
[...]
(No, this site isn't what you think.)
This is especially important if you count the fact that in a lot of cases www.$SITE is a CNAME for $SITE.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
12,000,000 of them are within microsoft.com domain (spoofed Apache httpd)...
#1. Sites vs servers.
Netcraft states they count the sites while they don't mention whether they count 2nd level domains (foo.com), 3rd level domains (www.foo.com, support.foo.com) or what else. They just say they "received responses from 74,409,971 sites" while not defining what a site actually is.
#2. Growth.
There has been a growth of about 3.73% in the number of (so called) web sites. There must be some hidden winner(s). That is, there must be some group of web servers that is getting the great part of the growth all at once! Netcraft is failing to mention who they are!
#3. Webserver (or website) identification.
It's all but trivial to identify web servers. Are they using some special tool like amap and nmap or just looking at the server response content? How accurate this identification can be?
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Along the same lines, I saw a recent IDC report that showed (if one looked at the data oneself) that MS was continuing to lose market share in the server room, at least percentage wise. My guess is that they took most of Novell's share around 2000 when they ran the smear campaign against Netware and then have been slowly hemorrhaging marketshare since then.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
This is really good news for the OS community, it shows a community product being chosen over a commerical application in the industry.
But keep in mind just because the server is not IIS and is Apache doesnt mean they arent running Windows Apache, I find lots of Windows admins leaning to Apache even when they have IIS readily available.
Well there are the MS Fans out there who believe Microsoft's propaganda, and/or believe that Microsoft is the only serious player out there.
.NET developers and it is easy to for them to make a Web App on IIS vs. Getting Mono on Apache working, and working threw any of the glitches.
Secondly there are a lot of companies that are strictly a Microsoft shop, and the cost of moving is to high and the staff is use to windows so they stick with windows solutions they already bought.
Third they have a group of
IIS is arguably easier to use then apache because you don't need to go threw and end a text file and add commands that may not be part of the default configuration.
Fear from ignorance, they are afraid if they don't use IIS then they will not be able to support the IE users, heck whenever they look at a pro-linux site who uses advanced CSS it rarely renders properly for them.
They already have Windows [NT, 2000, 2003] servers and they have IIS on them so they will use it, because they already paid for it.
It has been a long time since I heard of a major security flaws in IIS being affected and much longer for Apache. But you are expecting all the consumers to be logical, that is just crazy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
From TFA:
Posted by wss at October 4, 2005 08:40 AM
Which means that the news is 22 days old. Given that this is a monthly survey, the slashpost seems a tad bit behind the times.
One of us should write a bot that posts a story 21 days after the fact and see if we can beat the masses that happen upon Netcraft and re-print old news.
Yup. I can confirm this. I used to work at a major domain registrar, using Linux/Apache and Microsoft visited us and asked for us to migrate our servers to Window/IIS for the sole purpose of increasing the netcraft numbers... We were doing URL forwarding. By the way, the conversion was VERY painful... even though they engineers came on site to work on the code for this.