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."

Comments

Congratulations

[EraserMouseMan]

to a quality open source product! Whatever Apache is doing development and management-wise, don't change a thing!

Re:Congratulations

[Homology]

to a quality open source product! Whatever Apache is doing development and management-wise, don't change a thing!

They rejected many security patches from OpenBSD for httpd 1.3.29, and even before OpenBSD forked httpd 1.3 (the infamous license change) the in-tree diff was over 4000 lines of code.

Shows what I know

[Illbay]

I didn't even know that Apache had NOT been the leader in this category.

Re:Shows what I know

[PFI_Optix]

I'm not sure why this was modded redundant. I too am surprised that Apache wasn't the leading secure server. I'd find it interesting to know just how many people didn't realize that MS held as much share in this particular category as they do.

Re:Shows what I know

[DaHat]

I agree... but for a different reason: I'm surprised that this was not mentioned previously by the Microsoft camp in response to the traditional OSS claim of Apache and Linux running more web servers than Windows and IIS.

Just now?

[TimmyDee]

With IIS's myriad of security issues, you'd think this would have happened a long time ago. I guess we just have to chalk it up to the slow movements of corporations (or the death of those who used IIS ;).

Re:Just now?

[Not_Wiggins]

It is more likely attributable to corporations setting up separate web/app servers. It is fairly common to have the front-end content served up by Apache and requests for dynamic content forwarded from the front-end webservers back through firewalls to application servers. Those backend appservers may still be anything... Websphere, IIS, WebLogic, etc.

The stats listed might simply be reflecting this trend towards a split/more secure setup.

Re:oblig troll

[bepe86]

Well, statistics can always lie, but apache has had a steady growth, according to that graph, so I'm not too certain that Microsoft will take back that position by next sunday... Anyways, another victory for FOSS, and proves once again that there's still hope for alternative software has a place in professional businesses :) What I'm really curious about, is how many of those apache servers runs on windows machines, anyone got a statistic to point me to?

false readings

[Keruo]

Netcraft statistics lie.
I run several ssl www-servers with linux+apache configuration, and yet they show as windows 2003 on netcraft surveys because eNom reports them that way.
The true amount of IIS-based ssl servers is much smaller.

Re:Who chooses Microsoft?

[Alkrun]

That hasn't been my experience at all. I run some PHP forums and I'm a .NET developer so I don't think I really qualify as an administrator. But my experience has been:

As far as dynamic web-page language/technology goes, PHP runs poorly, is a bit painful to install / configure compared to the .NET runtime which is almost a no-brainer install.

As far as databases go, MS SQL server comes with better tools than mysql, and generally requires less knowledge to administer.

Apache might be more configurable but editing Apache configuration XML has been problematic for me the limited times I've had to do it. IIS has most of that exposed in the UI, and there are generally more "30 second how-tos" for doing that stuff with the meta-data editor if you need to.

Linux vs. Windows comes down to the fact that I prefer Linux for a server OS but IIS / MS SQL don't run on Linux.

Re:Who chooses Microsoft?

[CCFreak2K]

I think this indeed is a case in point for my argument. Why do people NOT switch from IIS to Apache? TCO. Not only do they have to change over all of their IIS running machines (may just be one, may be more than one), but they have to learn an entirely new product. Apache isn't all point-and-click, either (from my standpoint, anyway; I set up apache on a server without X on it), so they have to contend with administrative incompetence until they understand it. It costs dollars to train those people. On the flip side, Microsoft software is easier to set up, but the dollars are lost in licensing for use of the software in the first place.

I'm not FOR IIS, nor am I against it. I'm just saying that it's sometimes difficult for someone/some group to make such a big switch.

Re:Thought MS was further back.

[Thundersnatch]

It's all about the developers. People use IIS because it serves ASP and more importantly ASP.net. Say what you will about Microsoft, but Visual Stuido is a first-class development environment. Building scalable and functional web applications in ASP.net using the graphical tools in VS is easier than anything I've seen in the LAMP world, with the possible exception of Rails.

Plus, Microsoft's near-suicidal devotion to backwards compatibility makes heavily mixed ASP/ASP.net sites like CDW reasonably easy, probably easier than mixing different web frameworks on a LAMP or Java platform.

Re:Not really. It all depends on how you count it.

[DrSkwid]

How about we sum the value of the transactions shipped via the 44.0% of secure web sites, compared to 43.8% for Microsoft.