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.
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
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]
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.
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
Can anyone point me some?
Sure! Microsoft can:
For reasons, see these case studies:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/iis/ev
- better uptime
- better TCO
- easier to maintain
- more secure
- improved leveragement of potential monetizement of business platform migration plan total cost of... (bribes)
To migrate from Linux/Apache to Windows/IIS:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/wind
There!
Here are the top 10 reasons people choose IIS over Apache:
10. Because they don't know what they are doing.
9. Because their customers don't know what they're doing.
8. Because they are partnered with MS.
7. Because they are racist against Native Americans.
6. Because they get some orgasmic thrill from spending money on slower, inferior products and services.
5. Because the same reason they use Hotmail over Gmail.
6. Because they are really using Apache... but configure it to report itself as IIS to confuse attackers.
5. Because they are originally from another dimension where IIS works better than Apache.
4. Because they were playing a practical joke on their users and then died suddenly.
3. Because they are brainwashed from listening to too many Steve Balmer speeches.
2. Because really all those IIS servers out there are just Microsoft's own servers trying to keep MSN.com running.
1. Because they smoke a lot of crack.
"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.
One word: ASP.
Many corporate sites start of as a set of static pages with a "Contact us" web form. ASP is typically used for that as it requires only minimal programming effort.
Later on, when more dynamic content is added, they will often stick with IIS since they already know it.
WWTTD?
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.
Because most of the tools we use for web development work and are actively maintained on Apache. mod_php, mod_perl, mod_ruby, etc. Sure you can use these via CGI with any web server, but the in process execution makes them more convenient to use.
Apache has turned into a de-facto standard. People can expect security updates for it, and the large user base insures its longevity. With any major piece of software, there are always better alternatives. But still, people use sendmail, even though we have postfix and qmail. People use bind...
Apache works, is solid, scalable and is supported by many languages and many people. That's why most people use it.
PHP requires just as little effort if you turn register_globals back on.
It's only insecure if you let it be insecure. Blindly doing an iteration such as is really no more secure than having register_globals turned on in the first place. The real insecurity came from the order in which the variable sources were processed; by default a query string in a GET request would clobber a session variable. Doing GET first, then POST, then cookies and finally sessions fixes it {although you can't do some nifty tricks which are useful for testing}. So my preference is which gives me the best of both worlds; I'm not cluttering up my code reading form variables out of globals, but neither is it possible to override session variables with a query string.
Beside which, there is nothing quite so insecure as the fact that any PHP script running on the same server can fopen() any file in any other user's webspace -- and some cheap hosting companies really are stupid enough to use the same login and password for Linux login and MySQL database. And on Mandrake {not that anyone uses that in a serious hosting environment}, it was the default for any user to be able to use `poweroff` at the command line. I wonder if that included, or still includes, the Apache daemon's user?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.