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
Sounds more like you just hate the industry you work in. It's probably best that you're leaving.
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..."
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.
MABASPLOOM!
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
"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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
IIS is MUCH easier to configure under Linux. Infinitely so.
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.
Lol. Do you even AD, Bro? Neither of those is AD related.
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.
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