Slashdot Mirror
Will Microsoft IIS Overtake Apache?
First time accepted submitter jcdr writes "February's 2014 Web Server Survey by Netcraft shows a massive increase [in the share of] Microsoft's web server since 2013. Microsoft's market share is now only 5.4 percentage points lower than Apache's, which is the closest it has ever been. If recent trends continue, Microsoft could overtake Apache within the next few months, ending Apache's 17+ year reign as the most common web server."
With so many botnets taking over IIS, it seems only fair.
Apache is turning into one of the dinosaurs of the information age, being overtaken by the likes of Nginx and Lighttpd left and right but refusing to die already. IIS also is hardly the crippled pile of steaming crap which it used to be.
Netcraft says, "Microsoft gained a staggering 48 million sites this month, increasing its total by 19% â" most of this growth is attributable to new sites hosted by Nobis Technology Group." I have no idea WFT Nobis Technology Group is, but that suggests that what is essentially one large installation swings Netcraft's idea of "the most common web server."
And that's a broken way of counting. If ten servers using Server A serve ten sites each, and one server with Server B serves 1,000 sites,Server A is still the most common web server, with ten times the installation base of Server B.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
you're high
Sounds more like you just hate the industry you work in. It's probably best that you're leaving.
*ring* *ring* *ring*
You hear that? That is the 1990s calling. They want their nostalgia back. (I say this as someone who used to be a CNE and who started his career with Netware)
Do you work for the government, either Federal, State or local? That is the only place I see Novell anymore.
The MS shills are out in force posting as AC, you mean?
Developer January 2014 Percent February 2014 Percent Change
Apache 98,129,017 54.50% 94,741,928 52.68% -1.81
nginx 21,548,550 11.97% 24,206,737 13.46% 1.49
Microsoft 20,901,626 11.61% 21,196,966 11.79% 0.18
Google 15,386,518 8.54% 15,245,912 8.48% -0.07
Nginx instances are rapidly replacing apache setups , so this should be IIS vs Nginx
Why has Apache started to lose ground?
One needs to look beyond the first graph that shows all sites surveyed to look at the actually active sites - there Apache appears to have more *active* deployments than the rest combined. Counting inactive, parked domains is not really indicative of particular server popularity.
NETCRAFT IS DEAD!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
On a completely unrelated topic, Microsoft records record profits: http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Parked domains are a pretty poor measure.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Exactly. A bit of sensationalism in the story.
All Sites (included millions of parked) are in 38%/%32 mix. Looking 600 pixels down and you see the active (non parked sites). The percentage is 52% vs 11%. The big drop in for MS in 2009 was probably a nail in the coffin...
Glad to hear it's not just our pointy haired bosses who point at MS for every solution. MS has it's place, just not in email and LDAP services.
Since I've unexpectedly RTFA, just a heads up, the headline is even more biased than usual. On the total number of active websites, there are still about 10x as many apache websites than IIS. Same picture for the top million busiest sites. There's almost no yearly change, and the server gaining the most marketshare is NGINX.
I'm starting to believe the hearsay: Slashdot has really been totally overrun by astroturfers (in this case paid by Microsoft). Maybe dice sells a number of "promotional posts" on a biased article to various companies, one of them being Microsoft?
Maybe this one?
http://xkcd.com/605/
This is a count of sites running web services, right? Not volume served out by each brand of server.
Microsoft has had the practice of starting IIS on practically every server for the purpose of providing a web management interface. In some cases, without informing the system admin.
Anecdote:
Many years ago, when I managed a few Intranet sites at Boeing (SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, Linux), we had a variant of the Code Red worm infecting IIS systems. Admins of *NIX systems could see the propagation of the worm payload in our web logs, even though our systems were immune*. We collected the source IPs of infected systems and turned them over to computing security. The next thing we knew, we'd get calls from Windows server admins, claiming that their systems could not be infected, as they were not running IIS. "Look again." Configuring many services automatically triggers a start of IIS. And now you've got a service running that the admins don't know that they have to keep patched. So even when Microsoft released a fix, it never got applied since many admins figured it wasn't applicable to them. I would venture a guess that most Windows Server (and many client) systems are running IIS, even if it only displays the default installation page.
*Typical Apache/*NIX systems just replied with a 404 since the target DLL didn't exist. But I wrote a Perl CGI that would capture the query source and fire back a Windows popup message to the effect that their machine was broadcasting an infection. I was surprised to see how many people with client (desktop) systems called me to ask when was going on.
Have gnu, will travel.
This kind of thing happens on a regular basis and is usually due to Microsoft making backroom deals with operators of parked domains, probably not paying in cash but in Windows license discounts for servers or hosting. Borderline illegal and classic Microsoft - don't ever be fooled into thinking that Microsoft has gotten itself a corporate personality transplant. The active sites graph tells the real story: Microsoft continues to languish. It is beyond me why Microsoft is so fixated on manipulating Netcraft stats.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I wouldn't go quite that far. I would say the two tools aren't really comparable anyway. Which one you use really depends on what you're using for your backend development. If you want .Net, you (pretty much) have to use IIS. If you use PHP, Python, Ruby, or other langauges, you most likely are going to be using Apache/Nginx.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
constantly in need of restart and quickest to get owned by crackers
it's rubbish, bad enough to have to fight with it for internal use but only an idiot would expose that to internet. yes, had to deal with IIS for over a decade
In the world of Open Source, I would also like to see the sum total of Open Source web servers VS. IIS:
Nginx http://www.nginx.org/ ( really popular and at least this is in one of the graphs)
Lighttpd http://www.lighttpd.net/ (personally, I have found many reasons use this one in the past and I'm sure I will again)
Cherokee http://www.cherokee-project.co... (yet to explore past a basic setup)
Roxen Webserver http://www.roxen.com/products/... (Still need to take for a spin)
And then special purpose web servers.
HTTP Explorer http://http-explorer.sourcefor...
HFS HTTP File Server http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/
At least that's all I can think of. Anybody else?
I know some of these take up negligible market share, but I would still like to see their market share lumped together.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This is due to GoDaddy shifting to IIS and now WHM/cPanel/Enkompass.. So, don't take this as the industry shifting when its not. GoDaddy has 10,000's of websites they host.
I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with it because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition it is more lightweight, and has better security.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Banks, they're extremely conservative and NDS's ability to replicate a sub-portion of the directory to each branch location helps keep bandwidth usage down, which can be important if you have hundreds or thousands of locations in podunk towns. I can also see using it if you're a anti-MS shop as it's the best directory server other than AD.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
LDAP services? Lolwut? Active Directory is incredibly nice. Ridiculously stable and very powerful. What concrete issues do you have with it? Same with Exchange in terms of corporate mail/voice/Lync/etc.. services.
I work in a large corporation and I don't recall ever having issues with AD unless someone on the support team does something silly, which has happened like 5 times in 17 years.
Novell totally blew it. It was a sad day as I watched NT 4.0 servers creep into our environment. Novell had LDAP based NDS long before Microsoft cobbled together AD. It was a much better solution and they brought it to market way ahead of the competition.
I recently became acquainted with it at work, and it's actually quite nice to work with, I must say.
Still, this post reminds me quite a lot of the xkcd about extrapolating off of one data point. It seems unlikely that IIS will overtake Apache; more likely there was a one-time shift due to some particular event.
Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
This is not true. There is probably some statistical probability which says that most headlines which end in a question mark can be answered with a "no". But not all of them.
you most likely are going to be using Apache/Nginx.
IIS market share dipped a bit after 2008 and is now back to about where it was. Apache jumped a lot since 2008 and is now back a bit below where it was. Nginx has gone from 1% to 14% in the same time. IIS has hovered between 20-30% for a while. It's now closer to 30%. Apache has been in the 50-70% range for a long time, but is now dipping a lot. The only reason we're using Apache is that Nginx doesn't work as a reverse SSL proxy in front of Jenkins (apparently it can, with some magic incantations, but they didn't work for us). For everything else, Nginx is an obvious choice. It's somewhat sad to see that Nginx has completely displaced Lighttpd, as it would have been nice to have some more active competition.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Looks like obfuscation to me, and so not accurate.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Yet you are such a breathtaking, marvelous specimen of humanity that you would grace this undesirable place to enlighten the muck-dwelling Unixites. Truly we are all blessed. Let this day go forth! From this day forward, every February 4th shall be known as -
Oh, wait. You didn't even bother attaching a name to this pathetic holier-than-thou screed. Back to the comforting bosom of Mommy and Windows forums with you, you pathetic bastard.
I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.
MABASPLOOM!
Because it's incredibly easy to pad numbers and claim them as fact without focusing on the real details?
Nobis Tech is the holding company of Ubiquity Hosting. Web hosting & cloud services, so probably a lot of those sites are hosted on virtual servers. The company might have popped into some site admins' field of view when they seemed to have a little problem last spring (namely, hosting tons of spam servers), this problem has apparently been dealt with (though not before some people were prompted to modify their .htaccess files to block all addresses registered to Ubiquity/Nobis).
At the time Elvis Presley died in 1977, he had 150 impersonators in the US. Now, according to calculations I spotted in a Sunday newspaper colour supplement recently, there are 85,000. Intriguingly, that means one in every 3,400 Americans is an Elvis impersonator. More disturbingly, if Elvis impersonators continue multiplying at the same rate, they will account for a third of the worldâ(TM)s population by 2019.
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/...
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with apache because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition apache is more lightweight, and has better security.
It got a little confusing about which it you were referring, so I FTFY. Why is it that after I've written the comment I get options to Submit - Continue Editing - Preview - Cancel , but not Login?
I refuse to sign
Of course this one is also relevant.
http://xkcd.com/1022/
This is not the funny you're looking for.
probably not paying in cash but in Windows license discounts for servers or hosting
Considering that using Apache was free anyway, they're not gaining anything from those Windows license discounts.
"pass the hash" and "mimikatz"... two serious problems with AD...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Considering that the grow was caused because some big parked domains (with static pages) moved to IIS, i'd say that by a very wide margin, the main use of IIS is to serve domains with just one static page.
Regarding the "better in almost every way", is almost as funny as the article title.
Nginx.
My guess is this is largely driven by the push to use Sharepoint.
That is what was intended, so thank you.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I think Microsoft's new CEO decided to start the tenure off with a flood of propaganda.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Probably because it costs them exactly $0 to do it.
Yes, they are. They can say their services supports IIS as an option, and extend their userbase by a bit for the few interested in such a service. This is a big deal in a competitive market, and who cares if they have to host a bunch of dead/parked domains on IIS when nobody visits them anyway? It's a win-win for the hosts.
No.
A hosting company that mainly hosts spam sites. Together with their parent company they have large swathes of bots on various small /26 IP ranges registered to them which seems intended to be to prevent other companies from easily blocking a large IP range.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I prefer a different headline... So finally after nearly 20 years, Microsoft can win (on one of many benchmarks) from a bunch of amateurs ;-).
nosig today
I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.
If tech news has taught me anything, it's that assessing performance is never simple. I have no doubts that whatever site you migrated performs better, but that probably was the result of a single important factor to you.
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: Apache is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Apache community when IDC confirmed that Apache market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Apache has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Apache is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Apache's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Apachefaces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Apache because Apache is dying. Things are looking very bad for Apache. As many of us are already aware, Apache continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
All major surveys show that Apache has steadily declined in market share. Apache is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Apache is to survive at all it will be among web server dilettante dabblers. Apache continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save Apache from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Apache is dead.
Fact: Apache is dying
The "active" sites shows no such growth trend, in fact it shows IIS declining. NginX is the only web server showing growth, and even this is misleading. Most of our use for NginX is does not make Apache go away. We use NginX as a front end reverse proxy that talks to Apache back ends. NginX is good at a few things, but nowhere near as robust as Apache.
This is just another case of pulling only the statistics you want to color a lie.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If 10,000 Web sites are served from one server using Apache, and 100 Web sites are served from 100 servers using IIS, it would be reasonable to interpret that Apache is the more common choice for serving Web sites. It would be reasonable--not necessarily accurate, but in a vacuum decision there is a great chance of validity--to assume that Apache is the better choice for hosting Web sites in most cases, as it has been selected for more often. It would be very reasonable to assume that Apache is, in most cases, at least adequate--a satisfiser would find this palatable--while making no assumptions on whether it is more or less optimal than IIS.
It's silly to assume that the number of servers has any real meaning, unless it can reflect resource use--at our resolution we can't even do that (are these 100 IIS servers run from Raspberry Pi, or 100 IIS servers run from ginormous Dell R620s? How much load?). Even then, that doesn't reflect all the other decisions put into it. On the other hand, there are very real questions like "Does my ASP.NET site run better on Apache?" and the answer is no; or like, "Does my Python/cherrypi site run better through WSGI/Apache or WSGI/IIS?" and the answer is no again.
The raw number of Web sites run on Apache reflects a lot more than the number of discrete servers. But then you have questions like: are these Perl/PHP/Python, .NET, etc.? Essentially: are they Apache/IIS sites because of Apache/IIS, or because of the system that provides facilities for the site best also providing Apache/IIS support best?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Is IIS easier than Apache to configure in Linux?
Would you use IIS instead of apache?
Do you know anyone who would?
Have you ever heard about anyone who would?
Have you ever heard about anyone who knows anyone who would?
The answer to all above questions is the same as the one to the question in subject. No.
That's the number I'd really like to see.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
IIS has been on a fairly steady decline since 2000. There was a spike beginning in 2006 that rapidly died off in 2009, following which IIS continued its slow downward decline. Nginx actually has a higher usage than IIS, and Apache is still around 50%. IIS is only the server of choice among inactive placeholder pages on disused hostnames.
I predict a long and fruitful career, lolzers.
now that I'm retiring
Or not...
Sounds like my colleauge. "I hate Javascript" "I hate tablets" "I hate Micsosoft". "I hate PDF files" "I hate non-vi editors"
For all X where X is not Gentoo Linux and VI he hates X
Everytime he hates I just know since he hates X he has never worked with X so he in incompetent when it comes to X. And have always been correct in that assumption.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
I use both, EVERY SINGLE DAY
IIS changes how it's managed with every single point release, and nothing is obvious about it.
Just to use SSL you need to use multiple administration interfaces to import the cert and then assign that to a specific server
If you know what you are doing, and you should, you can much more easily navigate a text file with all the options than you can clicking around in a dozen places to work on IIS configs.
Then there's all the issues with file permissions
Some real brilliant math here. Apache often runs on windows. You understand that the licensing costs and TCO of operating systems vs webservers is slightly different, yes ?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Nobody with even half a brain-cell should use Access for anything serious anymore. Access is an abomination that Microsoft should've just stopped selling at all once they began distributing SQL Server (SS) Express. There is literally nothing that Access can do that can't be done with far fewer headaches with SS Express and Visual Studio Express (VSE), even by "non-techies".
If you want to put together a database, that's what SS Express does. Use Management Studio (SSMS) to design it graphically, both table structure and queries. If you want reports to run against that database, VSE can be used to design the report layout and integrate it with a data source. Once you've done that, VSE can run a preview for you so you can see what it looks like. Then VSE can also deploy to your production server. If you want some data-entry forms, again, use VSE. Start a "WinForms" project if you're used to making Access forms. If you want to learn a newer and more data-driven way that works almost like a web page, start a "WPF" project. If you just want it to work on the web, start a "WebForms" project. Any of these projects can be done in VB (if you're used to Access, you're probably already familiar with it) or C# (for those that hate VB and/or prefer C-like syntax). And again, when you're code-complete you can debug locally and deploy to production with a single click.
People are far too put-off by the idea of programming. Oddly enough, this is doubly true for Access programmers who are already doing programming work, but in an environment that, while familiar to them, is causing them far more problems than it's actually solving.
Probably because it costs them exactly $0 to do it.
Really? What about the team of thugs assigned to do the job, and associated hangers on?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That nonsense is a mature technology that has been around since Windows 2000 was released. It was one of the first enterprise products Microsoft seriously started building around open standards like Kerberos and LDAP.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
No, those concern serious problems with NTLM and LM. Both of those not only aren't part of AD, they predate it. That's also why security standards now require NTLMv2 be enabled and older authentication methods be refused.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
1999 called. They want their browser war back, but they'll settle for a httpd war.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Here in the northeast we have a winter storm warning getting 10-16 inches overnight so i went to check if there were any early school closings http://closings.cbs6albany.com... And sure enough its down i think theres a few parents hammering the refresh button. So i went to netcraft and sure enough its Windows Server 2008 Microsoft-IIS/7.5. :/
Someone I know runs a hosting provider in Latin America, they sell virtualization, dedicated servers and housing. I don't remember exactly how the deal was (this was about 2 years ago). Microsoft talks to everyone here to route their traffic through Window Server devices and IIS or fake server agents in exchange of money, hardware and licenses. I don't have proof and can't obviously point to specific providers, but i've seen the devices myself.
134,194,577 NON IIS VS 21,196,966 IIS
... It is beyond me why Microsoft is so fixated on manipulating Netcraft stats.
They're attempting to exploit our herd mentality in order to hide their weakness; if enough of us can be fooled into thinking that IIS is more popular than it actually is, then more people will switch to it or stick with it for that reason alone.
They're attempting to exploit our herd mentality in order to hide their weakness; if enough of us can be fooled into thinking that IIS is more popular than it actually is, then more people will switch to it or stick with it for that reason alone.
The big lie, right? Oh is that a godwin...
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You lot remind me of my dad. All he listens to is Pink Floyd and other hippie music, he's convinced any music after 1980 is shit, so he doesn't even listen to any of it.
You should listen to your dad.
I agree, but nginex will win most performance comparisons against Apache, and IIS isn't even in the running. I still run Apache, but it's not because of performance. Porting would require a significant portion of a day. Ain't nobody got time for that.
IIS is MUCH easier to configure under Linux. Infinitely so.
I mostly know a site is crap when I get an IIS error when loading a page. I rarely get a similar view of breakage showing other servers' error messages, execpt maybe 404s on dead links (which is fair enough, because no httpd can run when the server is in a skip). So, this means either 1) IIS leads to broken sites or 2) people who use IIS can't do websites, or I suspect, both together.
Why are you trying to cloud this issue with logic, reason, and truth?
IIS is great if you don't want to bother learning the ins and outs of your server software, and you don't have that many to deploy.
Go deploy 200+ IIS servers then tell me they are easier to manage than apache.
Then go install the URLRewrite module, and try getting support from Microsoft when it threadlocks on you.
And yes, I've used Apache, IIS and Nginx extensively in large scale production sites. IIS ranks 3rd in the bunch in my book for stability and easy of management. It does do fairly well in performance but only if your apps are .NET. Any other language and nginx/apache solidly smokes it.
Or, ya know, large solid blocks of IPv4 addresses are getting scarce
How does it work with Tomcat and websphere?
Netcraft.com: "In the February 2014 survey we received responses from 920,102,079 site"
.. Apache: 62.5%, Nginx: 18.2%, Microsoft-IIS: 14.4%"
W3tech.com: "Usage of web servers for websites
Sweet, I consider it a badge of honor that some Microsoft thug modded my post troll
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Lol. Do you even AD, Bro? Neither of those is AD related.
Microsoft thug, lol. Someone sure seems stuck in a time-warp ca. 1995... Ice Ice Baby, right?
Out of interest, what mail/calendaring client do you prefer to Outlook?
I ask because for the first 7 years of my working life I was stuck with Outlook and I hated it too. At least, I thought I did.
Then I worked three years with Lotus Notes. Then 2 years with GMail.
Holy fucking mother of god am I glad to be at a company that uses Outlook once more.
From Nobis Web site (sounds dodgy just from the language):
"Nobis Technology Group, LLC is the parent holding company to roughly a dozen specialized companies and a broad spectrum of websites. We are privately-held, employee-owned, and have been involved in a number of very lucrative Internet services companies of many names since 2002."
I don't trust NoScript to let them further out of the box for their alleged web site to tell me more.
Why has Apache started to lose ground?
nginx & lighttpd
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Which is great! It gives people with a clue a competitive advantage.
All your ghosts are just false positives.
I am seriously thinking of hosting my parked domains elsewhere simply to stop being a help for Microsoft. Shocked and dismayed to see GoDaddy put mine on Windoze!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Not create certificates, import them and deploy in load balanced environments.
Lol, yes. First, Microsoft cares what a bunch of irrelevant tech dinosaurs on SlashDweeb think enough to pay "shills".
Second, I doubt you know what a shill is. It seems to now mean anyone whose opinion runs counter to the prevailing opinion of a bunch of people who know nothing outside of the narrow niche of Linux dweebery they learned on the Interwebz.
Even Heard of the Halloween Documents ?
Or how about those paid shills microsoft has been caught using?
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
IIS is Isis's sis
That Apache had to save
From her hirsute marital bliss
With abundant
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Mod this up! It's really significant. See: http://www.netcraft.com/active...
The global (unfiltered) figures are useless. The spike could be one IIS server with a mass of IPv6 IPs pointing at it.
W3Techs puts Microsoft's operating systems as running on 32.90% of all web servers. That doesn't leave a lot of room for other web servers, especially since IIS is hosing more inactive sites than anybody else. I can't imagine wanting to run that software stacked together in an enterprise.
Right, I'm tagging this article betteridge, as this article is a classic case of it applying.
Hang on, where are the tags? What the hell has happened to Slashdot? Oh, I see we can edit them on the front page, but not in the article itself any more.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Put 400 million users in it and see what happens.... Believe it or not, eDirectory (formerly NDS) is used extensively for massive directories.
...when you need several IIS instances to do the job of one apache instance, it doesn't surprise me.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It's also extremely secure. I hear that IIS on Linux rivals OpenBSD on the number of remote exploits found over the last decade!
Unless you have an extremely popular website, comparing nginx vs. apache performance is a bit pointless as any hardware these days (even consumer grade) is more likely limited by its storage subsystem and database back end.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I figured out how to configure apache to do what I wanted back in the day in an afternoon. The IIS configuration UI is a piece of shit, and has gradually become less usable in more recent versions.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
AD is basically LDAP + DNS + Kerberos, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but as far as distributed authentication and configuration goes, the Linux / Free Unix world is now several decades behind. Yes, you can build your own distributed LDAP configuration store. Or you can point and click your way to having one up and running in half an hour.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I think you mean that other people aren't driven by ideology and use the best tool to get the fucking job done in a timely manner. Whether that is Microsoft/open source or whatever.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Because everybody has 400 million users in their environment....
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
because, who runs a windows web server?
apache ab. nginx serves static and dynamic content faster. not sure how many other metrics one needs to gauge a web server's performance.
MABASPLOOM!
More people have multi-million entry directories than you would think. Not all of them are "users". For example, Time Warner Cable uses eDirectory to hold the configurations for their millions of set top boxes.
But isn't IIS a whole lot better than Apache? Yours sincerely.. Bill G.
Out of interest, what mail/calendaring client do you prefer to Outlook?
Every single one I've used. I only use an email client to send and receive mail, none of that calendar or other extra features. I'm completely put off by that damned ribbon interface.
I haven't used Lotus Notes but will agree about gmail (or any other browser based email for that matter). Judging by Lotus' other products, I'm guessing I'd hate notes, too.
I was perfectly happy with Novell's twenty year old client. I use Thunderbird at home.
Free Martian Whores!
LOL, I'm retiring at the end of this month, you young guys can have my job. And no, I'm not a network admin, my comments were from a user's perspective; I mostly program (actually programmed since they moved off the mainframe and onto Access) databases.
Free Martian Whores!
(disclaimer, I'm a fan of "use what works" and prefer open-source; but my daily job and freelance stuff has often been on a Microsoft stack)
MVC. Oh yeah, and legacy aspx.
That should say enough. MVC is *dead easy* to dev against and, in the process, produce good code. I'm not running down other frameworks and languages (another disclaimer: I've used and loved at least 12 languages including PHP and Python; I've dealt with CGI; all tools with a reasonable following must have some merit or they wouldn't have a following). I'm just saying this: it's super-easy to get an html5-compliant, fast, well-separated, unit-testable (indeed, TDD-driven) website out of the MVC stack. You almost have to try not to. Cake is cool. Rails is nice. Again, cool your jets -- I'm not running down your tech. But MVC/VS201(2|3)/Entity/SQL Server (2012 express handles a 10 gig db and it's free!) make your average and even above-average sites dev a breeze.
So yeah, I'm not fond of IIS. But I totally understand why it's getting traction. The toolchain, the dev workflow -- those are some good incentives right there. I got a client to pay 50% monthly fees more for a win32 stack by promising (and delivering) a TDD'd site in shorter time. Everyone is winning here. I'm sure other servers beat IIS on performance, sexiness and general karma -- it doesn't matter in the face of total cost and ease of dev.
(Please note that, at no point in the above, did I say this was the only way. Don't waste your time trying to convince me [X] is better -- (a) I know I can do what I want in other environments and (b) I don't really care to be told, mainly because of (a). The OP was bringing up a point and the comments I've seen so far are typical anti-MS /.-isms based solely in the hate for Redmond (not that Microsoft is golden by any stretch of the imagination))
Unless you're hosting simple static web pages IIS is better in almost every way, easier to manage, easier to configure, etc...
Just curious, how much do you make up there in Redmond?
(Score: -1, Stupid)
If I'd seen Outlook as an improvement rather than a productivity drainer I'd welcome it. Nostalgia? Yeah, when something good is replaced by something awful (have you been subjected to slashdot beta yet?), yeah, I get nostalgic. Do I miss vacuum tubes and automotive carburetors? Hell no. I'm going to miss slashdot when they get rid of classic.
I don't miss Novell, I just hate its replacement and will be glad I'm rid of it this month (I'm retiring).
Free Martian Whores!
No, just the awful, poorly designed tools they've been buying for the last decade.
Free Martian Whores!
mimikatz works *because* of the kerberos support introduced for AD (and two other modules which keep plain text passwords in memory but those are easier to disable)...
You can also hash pass with NTLMv2 just fine.
Also assuming you actually wanted to crack passwords, the hashing is extremely weak by modern standards - weaker than the unsalted sha-1 that linkedin were panned for using.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
http://digital-forensics.sans....
your choice is between kerberos support (to join an ad domain), or having your plaintext password stored in memory and extractable with mimikatz (which would be a violation of virtually every security standard ever written but ms seem to get a free pass), they are very much related.
and yes hash passing is ad related too, because it uses authentication protocols which are vulnerable to such attacks. sure it can use others too like ldap, but is it ever actually configured that way? and is it possible to make windows clients join the domain only using ldap for auth?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Don't wear out the IIS servers... http://ars.userfriendly.org/ca...
I prefer Classic Slashdot.
sour grapes from years of suffering