Slashdot Mirror
Apache Now the Leader in SSL Servers?
miller60 writes "Apache has overtaken Microsoft as the leading developer of secure web servers, according to Netcraft's monthly SSL survey. Apache now runs on 44.0% of secure web sites, compared to 43.8% for Microsoft. Apache's recent gains are attributed to the inclusion of mod_ssl in version 2, and strong growth of SSL-enabled sites in non-US markets where Apache has stronger market share."
Are there any admins out there that actually prefer Microsoft web solutions
over LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP)? Or do decisions like that come from on high in many organizations. As an admin who works for a government institution, I
always have the freedom to select the software I want...
I have pity on those admin that are forced to maintain Microsoft solutions
against their will
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the stat's for SSL servers so much different for regular HTTP? Are more business or ecomm(shudder) sites running on IIS? Or am I missing something.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Honestly, all MS bashing aside, why would anyone use MS over Apache? The support and knowledgebase surrounding Apache is second to none. Plus its free, but to me thats second to the quality and performance. Keep it up Apache!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Umm, No.
If you go in dollars collected, then yes, I'd have to agree that Microsoft is way out in front. Dollar value on the other hand, is most certainly up for debate.
And of course the obligatory:
I for one, welcome our new open source overlords!!
It does all depend on how you count it, but using the amount of revenue each product generates as your method of counting is the kind of thinking that leads to open source software being considered worthless. Yes the products that Microsoft's shipped have generated far more revenue, but Apache isn't even trying to compete on that level. If you must compare the two, compare them by actual quality of product, usually as determined by market share. If one program costs $10 and another costs $100 and you measure their quality by how much money each has made, you're not going to get an accurate comparison.
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
I mention how bad Microsoft products are for mission critical servers and applications like websites.
On what information are you basing this statement? If you looked at the stats (several comments above have the links) you'll see that IIS 6 compares very well against Apache. When you're making these statements, do you mention these statistics? I'm guessing not. There are plenty of reasons to use Apache over IIS, but security is not top of the list.
I'm all for advocating open source, but if you're going to do it, don't spout bullshit. You come across as nothing more than a MS basher, and frankly, I don't want people like you speaking on my behalf.
Is it too much to ask for this Bozo to actually, I don't know, PROVE his ridiculous statement? Would it be too much to ask that he explain exactly how ANY Apache server would show if his stupid accusation were true?
Bah. I'm no Microsoft fan, but I hate stupidity more.
More importantly, the reported difference is 0.2%. You can't honestly expect me to believe that's a statistically significant difference; you'd need much more data to even get 1% margin of error.
everyone just now finally figured out how to create and use self-signed certs with apache and openssl :-)
free software, open standards, open file formats, no software patents.