Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apache Now the Leader in SSL Servers?

Posted by Zonk on from the moving-on-up dept.

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."

14 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Congratulations by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Congratulations by Homology · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

  2. Shows what I know by Illbay · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:Shows what I know by PFI_Optix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    2. Re:Shows what I know by DaHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    3. Re:Shows what I know by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      It has been mentioned, just that the figures were not available for the SSL survey unless you coughed up cash for the report.

      Its the response that, despite Apache's strength in overall websites, IIS was used for more 'serious' sites. The OSS people who read these comments (usually in another Apache has more/is better/etc than IIS stories) just ignore them.

  3. Not really. It all depends on how you count it. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure Apache may have more installs than Microsoft but if you go by dollar value of product shipped I am sure that Microsoft is still way out in front of Apache!

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. false readings by Keruo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:false readings by PsychicX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Why so much different? by tedhiltonhead · · Score: 3, Informative

    The vast majority of virtual hosting is done using Apache, and most domains don't have SSL support. The SSL stat may get us closer to counting the number of IP's using the two packages, rather than just the number of domains.

  6. Re:How do you pronounce ... by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    "ess ess ell" like a real man. "Sussell" is retarded. I recall a fellow who pronunced "SSH" as it was spelled "Sshhhhhhhh"...

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  7. Should title not end with ! instead of ? by Provocateur · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or did Slashdot use up all their !!!!! during the infamous OMG! Ponies!!! issue...
     

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  8. Re:funny by Psiren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Thought MS was further back. by Thundersnatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.