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."
Netcraft confirms it
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
>>Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served. ;)
Now did they try to find how many actually work
Not just that so many people and companies host websites on Apache, I'm more impressed that there are so many websites?
Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Isn't that the number of servers required just to power /.?
I smell a rat!
Microsoft salesrep: "You know, Apache's relative share fell by *cough*0.*cough* 67 percent!!!"
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
In the graphs acceleration compared to 2001/2002? :)
It's because of php's increasing popularity, as this page shows.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Just curious. Also would be nice to see the current amount of WAIS :o)
and Archie servers left!
1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
4. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
The last clause there is what makes it incompatible with the GPL and what made the OpenBSD folks fork it (they folked before the license change to include this clause). In answer to your question, yes, indeed anyone is free to extend and distribute binary forms of the software without having to hand over source code for their extensions (or even for the code they didn't write).
But here's a question for you. If you're required to give "any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License", does that mean that the extended work has to be under this license? Or does it just mean you have to give the license to them, even though it isn't applicable. What stupid wording. Presumably it means you can't change the license on the software.. but you can apply any license you want on your extensions.. which means you can prohibit the software from being distributed, even though "this license" says you are free to distribute it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well, actually they have their own plans.
and part of the plan is giving some for free! See SQL Server 2005 Express Edition's Pricing Policy and the same for Visual Studio Express Edition which will be free.
I don't do much open-source programming but I'd like to thank all those guys who do, cuz if it was not for their efforts, M$ would have never given something for free (at least as in beer!!)
Anyway, the point is that some small businesses might be attracted to M$'s side by giving these development tools for free and this might have an effect on Apache and as a whole LAMP's market share.
I really can't see this as anything that'll come as a surprise to anyone, nor the fact that apache came first. I also have a feeling that the apache guys see this the same way, as it is nowhere to be found at http://apache.org/foundation/news.html/. but i guess any round number is worth celebrating, after all free as in drunk, is as important as any other freedom ;)
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
No, IIS isn't "growing faster than apache", it has grow faster than apache this month. If you look at other web server surveys (or at that graphic) you'll find different numbers
What would be really interesting would be a figure of total pages served (over the entire internet), grouped by server type. Or the average return opn investement, per server type. Number of hostnames really says nothing, I can add a few thousand myself with no trouble at all.
#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]
Don't want to be a troll, but what are the latest innovations Apache introduced lately to stay on top? I think we don't talk often enough about this software here on Slashdot. No, I'm not new here...
Bah. If you compile a proprietary extension into an Apache licensed program it doesn't matter that you're technically allowed to copy the Apache licensed portions. You can't seperate the two (and even if you could, the seperate parts would be useless) so the entire program is practically under a proprietary license.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
Qualitywise, MS SQL Server is the IIS of the database world. Only if you somehow got locked into .NET or some other proprietary hook into MS would you need MS SQL over an industry standard like Postgresql or MySQL which are in approximately the same niche. Those two are even starting to nibble at the heels of Oracle in some contexts, unlike MS SQL.
MS has tried give aways before with IIS. People learn their lesson and move on, unless they get locked in. The same goes with SQL databases.
So a purchase price of zero is an advantage, but the main reason people use Apache and the other parts of LAMP is the quality. The price is just gravy.
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.
There will never be a .blog TLD because
4 3&from=rss
(1)It will probably contain porn so the chritian extremists would partitions the US to ban it,
(2) The free speech supports would also want it banned because it could allow goverments to ban blogs just like http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/23552
Apache is doing awesome, however now that Microsoft is second, expect to see the commercials on TV:
.net and a cheesey Access Database. Call today!"
::gasps:: JSP!)
"Is your host using IIS? No? Is it using ASP? NO?! Are you using OPEN SOURCE! (Evil sounding) opeeeennnn sourrrrceeeee.... If so you need to experience IIS! With its ability to make your developers coffee in the morning, and to block users who use that evil Google software from hacking your system! Call 1800MICROSHAFT today to get your free 12 minute introductory offer to IIS! Thats right TWELVE minutes folks! Microsoft nevers gives away free time on any of their products! During that 12 minutes you could host your own Porn site, or just blog about stupid stuff no one cares about, all using asp
Yay for Apache, but I really do think Microsoft will cause some issues on this and start pushing their stupid server software. While I do think IIS is easier to setup I think Apache is MUCH MUCH more stable. (experience with Tomcat and
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
I think that that clause is intended to ensure that the distributers of the derived work let people know that the system is based upon a system with a more "free" licence, to ensure that those who buy the derivative work know that these parts (which are likely to be substantial, in this case) are included.
I expect it's something which is perfect wording in legalese but looks funny to us Average Joes and Joannes trying to inspect it. I am not a lawyer, etc., though.
even with apache identifying itself as apache you STILL see requests that are targeting IIS security holes. It seems its easier for attackers to just fire at as many hosts as possible rather than checking them first.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Larien is correct. The changes indicate infrastructure shifts at domain registrars, specifically Network Solutions and Namezero (as alluded to in this Netcraft post from 2003 and this one from 2001. Both briefly shifted from Solaris to Windows, and then back again.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
well thats what you from collaboration. It has shown here that Two is better than one. Freedom is better than slavery.
Now, I'm not trying to be a troll. I just want to understand the reasons that make someone choose IIS over Apache, since (AFAIK) the later is more secure, more capable, and performs better under heavy load.
Can anyone point me some?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Care to quote the source of this blunt claim? While it is certainly true that many domain-name parking services use Apache, Apache would still lead by a large margin even if those were accounted for.
"Although relative share fell by 0.67 percent, the total number of sites powered by Apache grew to over 52 million."
From September to October, Apache's share went from 69.15% to 69.89% (+0.74%).
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Sure it would be interesting. Could you propose a method of collecting this data?
Perhaps while your at it you could tell me which the visitors to my website are loaded and gullible!
Oh, and just in case my sarcasm is misdirected, do you mean the total number of pages available on each website (which becomes fuzzy with active content), or do you mean how many page requests have been served by each server on the net?
Respect copyright - the GPL relies on it.
As much as I admire all that hard work, I simply don't feel confident that I personally could go to such extreme lengths just to prevent code that I wrote for the benefit of all humanity from being locked up. Other people get to exercise their rights because I live up to the obligations incumbent upon me.
All closed-source software by definition abridges two of the Four Freedoms; and many EULAs would seek to abridge one or both of the other two if only they were legally enforceable. I would much prefer to see the Four Freedoms protected by the Law of the Land.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Look. Apache is targeted by all the script kiddies because it's SO popular. I mean, if you were a script kiddie and saw such a huge target as Apache, compared to the IIS install base, which one would YOU go after? You IIS *zealots* are a big turn-off to the rest of the web serving community.
...let's slashdot them.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
You do realize IIS can also serve several domains with a single install, right?
What, do I need a sig now?
Not that there is anything particularly horrible about apache, but alot of sites could use something smaller, and less of a memory hog like lighttpd. But yet they use apache anyways "cause we're using linux", as if the only webservers that exist are apache and IIS.
Like this (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html) :
www.windows-sc.necsoft.com 102 1267 1310 1310 BSD/OS Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Running MS IIS on BSD - Duh...
Oh well, what the hell...
IIS passes 5 Trillion crashes mark.
* Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes *
Um, you are missing the point...IIS can only handle one domain per "real server". Apache can handle 500virtuals and a bowl of cereal to boot. Counting your way, Microsoft would always win due to them creating this "one server / one application" tiered computing mentality that most *nix users have never come to grips with, nor ever wanted to shell out the $$$ for it...
"Sing to me, Goddess, of the wrath of Achilles, Son of Peleus...
The problem is that I know many system administrators that change their server's response to be Apache even though it's IIS. By the same token I know several Apache servers that respond as IIS and are used as honeypots; their logs are parsed for several known exploits and worms.
People have always mentioned this problem with mining for server usage statistics. What does netcraft do to try and filter out a lot of these false statistics? Is there any thing they can do? Is there any other way to identify a "true" Apache server? I can't check for the existence of php or aspx files because both IIS and Apache support both (aspx via mono).
If you were developing a new statustics mining server for determining service types on the internet, what would you use to identify the "true" Apache/IIS servers?
Actually, Apache's share is up. The article is wrong. Last month it was 69.15% of the market and this month it's 69.89% of the market.
Or scared, if they know something is wrong. ha ha ha
and their 5% (?).
you had me at #!
Must've used the XP or 2000Pro Version of IIS. Artificial restriction to 1 web site and 10 concurrent connections. How would anyone use it if there was a single server limitation on the Server versions...
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.
I have found a company apparently doing exactly this: Initial CityLink.
c el.asp, the server wants to set a cookie. The name of the cookie is PHPSESSID.
When you visit the link http://www.city-link.co.uk/track_parcel/track_par
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.
You do realize IIS can also serve several domains with a single install, right?
True, but given identical hardware, Apache HTTP Server running on Linux or BSD can serve more parked domains per machine than IIS on Windows can.
Are you on crack, you can place multiple domains on IIS. If you are going to make points about one product being better than another atleast know what both can do.
I wrote a rant about the BSD vs GPL debate a while ago. You might find it interesting (not that you'll come back to read this comment as you're posting anonymously so I'm just wasting my time).
How we know is more important than what we know.
No, I don't smoke crack...of course you can put multiple domains on IIS. My point was that IIS is incapable of handling more than one domain at a time per box...load a few sophisticated web applications, and you need a monster of a box, or several...also, IIS does not do well on servers that have more than 2 cpus, so another limitation...
and so on, and so on...
Yes, I do know about the product, you just misunderstood my response it seems.
My being an AC has nothing to do with coming back
registered memebers by default get an e-mail notification which means they are very likely to come back. Unelss they've bookmarked the post ACs will only come back if they happen to read through the articles comments again and spot thier original post.
and even if an AC does come back noone else can tell if its really the original poster or not.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register