Apache zooms away from Microsoft's Web server - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 01-15-2004, 12:48 PM

In tech news, here's a nice little bit of info from CNet:

Quote:

Apache zooms away from Microsoft's Web server

By Matthew Broersma
Special to CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5139511.html

Story last modified January 12, 2004, 1:28 PM PST

Apache grew far more rapidly in 2003 than its nearest rival, Microsoft's Internet Information Services, according to a new survey--meaning that the open-source software remains by far the most widely used Web server on the Internet.

Netcraft, a U.K. Web services company, found that the number of sites that use <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1012-1022469.html?tag=nl">Apache </a>to send out Web pages rose from about 22 million sites (out of a total of about 35 million) in January 2003 to about 31 million (out of about 46 million) in January 2004--an increase of about 40 percent. In the same period, <a href="http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2FWindowsServer2003%2Fiis%2Fdefault.mspx&siteId=3&oId=2102-7344-5139511&ontId=7343&lop=nl_ex">IIS</a> remained roughly flat, declining from 9,739,069 to 9,675,504.

Apache's market share grew from about 62 percent to about 67 percent, while that of IIS dropped from 27 percent to 21 percent.

The figures represent a consistent trend, according to Netcraft director Mike Prettejohn, who said Apache has grown more quickly than its competitors for several years.

"Apache has done well, because it is very stable, its security record is very good, it is reasonably straightforward to administer--and it is free," Prettejohn said, though he said cost was not a dominant factor in Apache's success.

In a related trend last year, several large domain-hosting companies--which host millions of inactive, or "parked," domain names--switched from IIS to other systems. Register.com used Apache before switching to IIS, and in 2003, the company switched back to Apache. Likewise, Network Solutions switched from IIS back to Sun Microsystems software. Network Solutions' move alone resulted in a jump in Sun's market share last year, but this share remains small, at about 3 percent.

The overall figures don't reflect an important fact: Microsoft's strength in the market for Secure Sockets Layer servers, which are commonly used by e-commerce providers. Netcraft's survey found that Microsoft powers about 49 percent of SSL servers. It is followed by Apache, with about 36 percent, and Sun, with about 3.5 percent.

Microsoft has kept about 50 percent of the SSL market since 1996 or before, Prettejohn said, but the remaining half of the market has been shifting in Apache's favor.

Matthew Broersma of ZDNet UK reported from London.

This is great news for open source and consumer rights. Hopefully the web can keep going in this direction and make some more significant growth before DRM starts to kick in, because a DRM server will lock out non-DRM web browsers - i.e. no open-source web browsers and no web browsers made by people who actually respect consumers.

If this keeps up, Linux and other open source solutions may actually have a chance for the long term

Boner · 01-15-2004, 01:05 PM

I wonder why IIS still has the lion's share of the SSL sites. Easier configuration?

SecretMethod70 · 01-15-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boner
I wonder why IIS still has the lion's share of the SSL sites. Easier configuration?

THat's a good question. I'm not sure.

I suspect maybe it has something to do with most e-commerce sites not having a good tech team considering their focus is not technology and is instead business and, thus, just going with what they know. People are sheep.

juanvaldes · 01-15-2004, 02:23 PM

The boss needs someone to blame when shit fucks up.

Boner · 01-15-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juanvaldes
The boss needs someone to blame when shit fucks up.

Very true. I've been denied the opportunity to use free open source software on the job because of this very reason. Someone's ass needed to be on the line, preferably not one of ours.

sailor · 01-15-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juanvaldes
The boss needs someone to blame when shit fucks up.

Yeah, you have no idea how true that is. That is why companies like Red Hat exist--Linux can be free, but its the support that you pay for.

SecretMethod70 · 01-15-2004, 03:20 PM

Yet another sad example of people today not wanting to take responsibility for themselves

juanvaldes · 01-15-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
Yet another sad example of people today not wanting to take responsibility for themselves

call em' like I see em'

And two of those Apache servers are ours

Boner · 01-16-2004, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
Yet another sad example of people today not wanting to take responsibility for themselves

I'm not sure if you're referring to bosses wanting to absolve themselves of responsibility or my comment. I should have been a little more descriptive.

This was an opinion of the CIO that managers interpreted as a rule. When there was a problem, the CIO wanted someone to hold accountable, and middle management was scared of having to answer to problems without being able to point the finger at a vendor. Plain and simple, it was politics. Although a few of us were making headway, bringing in utilities here and there.

I wanted to be the responsible party. I would have rather have the job of fixing the issue rather than play phone tag with vendor tech support. I figure if the open source solution is implemented and blows up in my face, I didn't do my homework and/or test enough before going into production.

So when I say, "Someone's ass needed to be on the line, preferably not one of ours", those weren't my words, but the unofficial departmental policy dictated by management.

I don't work there anymore.

SecretMethod70 · 01-16-2004, 01:53 AM

Sorry - I guess I could have been moer clear. I meant the bosses. Such is life though

Krycheck · 01-16-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

This is great news for open source and consumer rights. Hopefully the web can keep going in this direction and make some more significant growth before DRM starts to kick in, because a DRM server will lock out non-DRM web browsers - i.e. no open-source web browsers and no web browsers made by people who actually respect consumers.

Please explain this to me. Sounds scary. Any links you can provide on the subject would be appriciated.

01-15-2004, 03:20 PM	#7 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Yet another sad example of people today not wanting to take responsibility for themselves __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-16-2004, 01:53 AM	#10 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Sorry - I guess I could have been moer clear. I meant the bosses. Such is life though __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-15-2004, 01:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
Boner Insane Location: Plugged In	I wonder why IIS still has the lion's share of the SSL sites. Easier configuration?

01-15-2004, 02:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
juanvaldes Banned Location: shittown, CA	The boss needs someone to blame when shit fucks up.