Slashdot Log In
2003: Year of Apache
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:11 AM
from the way-to-go-guys dept.
from the way-to-go-guys dept.
John Chamberlain writes "Netcraft's numbers for the new year are in. The trend graphs tell a story: 2003 was the Year of Apache. If Time magazine had a server-of-the-year award the cover would be featuring a feather. Since October 2002 market share has grown from 53% to 64%, a 20% gain while Microsoft IIS, its nearest competitor has shrunk from 36% to 24%, a 33% decline. The change in server totals was even more dramatic. Apache HTTP Server increased from about 20 million to 32 million (+60%) while all other competitors remained flat."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A win for open source (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that the same thing is happening thoughout the open source movement, but its just alot harder to measure the number of (for example) Linux installs when there is no central body that really collects data on this (not that there is any need for this).
So its representing a victory for much more than Apache.
Michael
Yes, but measuring webserver market share is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's tricky, alright (Score:5, Funny)
It's tricky, alright. It's obvious to anyone that Microsoft's IIS is the clear leader.
Look, if those figures were real, then Apache would be constantly attacked by hoards of script kiddies. [ducks under desk]
Parent
Re:It's tricky, alright (Score:4, Interesting)
Apache from 22M to 31M (40%)
Jetty from 1150 to 3731 (324%)
Resin from 24224 to 57113 (235%)
vs. Closed source ones:
IIS from 9.7M to 9.6M (-0.1%)
Lotus-Domino from 78k to 86k (10%)
Oracle from 6629 to 8167 (23%)
Weblogic from 5344 to 7844 (46%)
It looks like
a. The big boys have a trend that is slower than the small ones
b. Open source grows a lot faster.
That says a lot about the dynamic of open source webservers in general, and probably all open source tools to some degree.
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Always helps to actually visit the site. Their methods will favor Apache somewhat, as IIS does not generally play very well in hosting environments with virtual domains for various reasons. Of course that in itself is an indicator of server quality
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure you don't mean 'sites where administrator is too incompetent to turn off the default install of IIS'?
You know, all those sites that have plagued the internet with various worms and other security holes over the last few years?
and given the nature of the beast, I'm going to guess IIS is rather prevalent in that market
I don't disagree. I rather think IIS dominates at these sites.
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Historical: Even though most people use Windows, those that actually know about computing using UNIX (for us, this used to be HP-UX, now it mostly is Linux). It are the latter ones who more than likely started the intranet effort long before management knew what a network was (over here, I myself was involved in our first intranet look-alike long before the word reached the trade-press).
Technical/Economical: If you use Apache for your external site (as we do), than it bloody well makes sense to use it internally as well, instead of wasting time and money maintaining two knowledge skills.
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks to the blaster outbreaks and the growing number of vpns these servers are now shielded off the regular internet. And thus the number of IIS in Netcraft's reports declines..
Intranet Reliability (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the intranets we install and service for small to large businesses, 100% of them run Apache. That's about 3-4 servers per month, and growing. We know 4 of the 5 competitors in our market, very well. For the vendors we know, all install Apache, exclusively.
Yes. Thanks to the "blaster outbreaks and the growing number of vpns", Apache is also rapidly growing inside the LAN market space.
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Even then, how do you count them? How many machines are running any given web site? My sites currently have 8 servers behind a pair of load balancers. But it appears to the outside world as if it's a single machine. Also, do you consider all servers equal? Should my personal site be given equal weight with my company's banking sites? I'd be interested to see a weighted graph so that sites with more traffic have a greater impact. But the problem with that is, how do you measure it?
As an aside, I'm getting mildly concerned about Apache's market share. Not because I don't like it -- I do, and run both personal and corporate sites with it. But I distrust software monocultures, and I fear Apache's heading that way. So I hope that Apache gets some viable competition. I also hope, however, that it comes from somewhere that isn't intent on displacing it with proprietary, incompatible servers. So that'd be something other than IIS, then...
Parent
Re:Yes, but measuring webserver market share is ha (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one of the nice things about Apache. Running Apache doesn't mean running the same Apache that someone else does. mod_perl, Jakarta, mod_php, mod_whatever are all competing with each other. Apache is essentially a platform, not just a server.
Parent
TCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic technology such as web servers are on their way of being removed from the realm of competition. 2004 is promising.
TCO is badly mis-understood. (Score:4, Insightful)
TCO is NOT applicable between companies UNLESS they are practically identical (same number of techs with the same training managing the same number of servers with the same OS's running the same apps (not similar apps, the same apps) for the same number of users, connected in the same fashion (wireless, wired, VPN'd in, etc) using the same desktop OS, etc).
Usually, TCO will come down to human maintenance (and floor space, cooling, etc) and licensing costs.
Neither Migration Costs nor TCO take into account money lost when the server is DOWN!
Microsoft usually does the following:
#1. Incorrectly includes training for other products as TCO instead of Migration.
#2. With #1., they do NOT include training on Microsoft products (assumes people already know it).
#3. Ends the "period" prior to the NEXT round of license expenses.
The Migration Costs (plus) the annual TCO (minus) downtime savings = $$$ You have to get from ROI.
TCO is MEANINGLESS when used by itself.
-and-
TCO is usually calculated incorrectly anyway.
The REAL issue with Open Source is the MIGRATION COST because so many people have apps that they depend upon that must be ported.
Which is why Microsoft does tries to confuse the issue with bogus TCO claims.
If you focus on the MIGRATION COSTS, you can handle them in smaller chunks over a longer period of time. Bit by bit, move your systems over to Open Source based servers and services.
Parent
I'm one of those (Score:5, Interesting)
While MS requires patching & monitoring, so does Apache/Linux (although it's not as time-consuming IMO). I also haven't had up-time issues with IIS although I inherently believe Apache would beat IIS in that category.
The true reason is that Apache processes SSI from the outside, while IIS processes them from the inside. I can make more modular code using apache (i.e. a single template for the whole site that the index files link to, and that template links to "content" and "data" files in a given directory). It also seems to perform better, but that's because I was using Access on the IIS machine, and MySQL on the Apache machine. Also Apache/MySQL are cheaper (putting SCO aside).
The only other good reason was to learn something new/different to make myself more marketable.
Me too (Score:4, Interesting)
Our MD was so impressed with the port (which was very trivial), that she's asked me to consider migrating our main in-house server to Linux too - it's mainly a 'file and print' box so this should be a piece of cake.
We WERE looking at a contact management system (possibly Maximizer or Goldmine), but now we're seriously considering an open source alteratives-should save us about 7000UKP in apps and licences.
Parent
Re:I'm one of those (Score:4, Interesting)
Bryan
Parent
Apache 2.0 (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically when the server went to 2.0.x, the rest of the supporting community wasn't ready. Most of it is still in testing mode. The 1.3.x branch is "good enough", and it doesn't break stuff. 2.0 is good, but it breaks stuff.
Another way to look at it is that my company ships product based upon 1.3.x. Moving to 2.0.x would require several things which don't yet exist. As we are happily operating under 1.3.x, we have no reason to move. If the Apache folks decide to completely abandon 1.3.x, thats OK as we have source and can fix it as needed.
I suspect that most folks will stay with 1.3.x for the forseeable future. The 2.0.x migration will cause more headache than it is worth, and it will cost money/time.
Parent
Makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bit like the complaints from the record companies about how much money they lost to illegal downloading: the downloaders couldn't possibly afford to pay for all the music they download, so the actual losses are a lot smaller.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
With Apache, it was upfront that it required a bit more tweaking to get it to work. But changing a few config files didn't really take a lot of time. While the .NET/IIS version installed without much interventi
Build a better mousetrap... (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, any serious security bugs have been fixed with blazing speed. Compare that with the amount of time MS takes to patch a IIS hole when an exploit is found.
-S
Who *are* these guys? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who *are* these guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kudos.
Parent
Apache 2 runs well on Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apache 2 runs well on Windows (Score:4, Informative)
apache is just so much easier to configure and use...it runs so much smoother, have never had a hiccup or headache with apache.
i don't use php, so using 2.x isnt an issue for me.
as mentioned by others, patching/upgrading is a simple process, be it on linux or windows. no reboots of course, just take the server offline momentarily, run the upgrade, restart server. don't have to worry about your config files being overwritten or anything.
when i first started using apache, i tried both appache and iis, and just found apache sooo much easier to manage, used less resources - all the good stuff kids go for.
and like another person said...the guys over at apache have a lot more than just the webserver going on, if you havent checked out some of their other projects [apache.org]...by all means do!
Parent
Backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's the other way around -- people choose Apache so they don't have to run Windows. It's probably not a coincidence that 2003 was also the year of the Windows Security Patch.
normalize for traffic? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder, why... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's big. It's slow. (okay, it can stand a big load without much slowdown, but overall latency is high) It's a system hog. These computers are often older Pentiums, sometimes 486s, sometimes used as clients/terminals, sometimes serving several other tasks.
Why people so rarely use tiny HTTP servers like Boa [boa.org], Mathopd [mathopd.org], thttpd [acme.com]... especially, that those tiny thingies are extremely fast under light load, light on system resources, have most of features every "amateur webmaster" wants, and because of small code base, usually completely bug-free.
Field for "Evangelism"?
Re:I wonder, why... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've run apache on all kinds of systems, from the older pentiums you mention to big-iron Solaris systems.
The beauty is that it works on all of them. You tune some parameters slightly different, but you don't have to learn a new software because you're now hosting your site on a big machine.
Sorry, I applaud all the tiny-http-server efforts, but in real-life the only thing that I ever seriously considered was the kernel-httpd. That was for the image-server of a major dot-com site that made a several hundred hits a second at peak times.
Parent
Re:I wonder, why... (Score:3, Informative)
I'd never heard of the three webservers you linked to in your post.
Apache has done everything I've ever asked of it without being noticably slow or resouce hogging, even on my iBook when I put up sites in development on our LAN. I can keep working while it happily serves pages to people and I don't notice it's there.
Incidentally, that's a great feature of OS X - Apache out of the box. Sure you need to tweak it a little and enable php and stuff, but it's there ready
Dip in Apache July 2002 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dip in Apache July 2002 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Dip in Apache July 2002 (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
"across all domains" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
But perhaps the real story for 2003, as far as growth technologies go, is likely PHP [php.net]. The ratio of deployments and actual usage to press coverage of the technology is pretty impressive too.
Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alright - let's have it! Where are they hiding all the exploits? They obviously have waaaayyyyy more since viruses and exploits are dependant on popularity, not how well the software is engineered. Since Apache is kicking IIS's scraggly ass all over the 'net, it must have more exploits, right? No? Oh? So all those people that keep saying Windows suffers so much are admitting they're wrong?
Oh, that's right. IIS is also an FTP server, mail server, dinner server, and a cheauffer that takes your wife out on dates then screws her in your bed while you're out of town on business.....
... whoops.. sorry, go a little carried away there. Seriously - face it, that's a flaw. If the software wants to do everything, and, by doing everything, fails, it still failed, AND it failed BECAUSE it does everything. That means the Apache software is a better engineered web server and IIS is, well, a load of crap.
Sorry... a little bitter. If you've ever had to administer that horrendous piece of garbage IIS you'd understand. I think, perhaps, the reason Apache is whooping up on IIS is that IIS is so ludicrously twitchy and convoluted. Normally, I'd say point and clicky interfaces are easier to manage, but god... setting something up in IIS that's not set up by default can result in tremendously time-wasting efforts searching through numerous, poorly labeled, badly designed interfaces. Apache? Whip out a reference book, type in a few lines, and you're done. Even if you have to restart the system, it's not much hassle. I've NEVER managed to shut down IIS and bring it back up on Win2k where it didn't stop responding and, eventually, chew up all the resources on the box forcing a hard reboot of the whole system. That pisses off SQL Server which then fucks up the TrendMicro stuff... Ick.
Long story short? IIS sucks and few (smart) people debate that whether they're pro-Microsoft, pro-*nix, pro-Mac, or, smarter than any of them pro-whatever-works.
Re:Viruses, Worms, and Exploits Are... Where? (Score:4, Interesting)
If 2003 was the Year of Apache, then 2004 will be the Year of the LAMP [uoregon.edu].
Parent
Apache counts... (Score:3, Funny)
when we're finished patting ourselves on the back: (Score:5, Interesting)
When we bragg about these numbers, Microsoft respond with:
"Our webserver is used by more Forbes/Fortune 500 companies and is used by more secure websites. Apaches numbers are only high because a lot of amateurs use it".
What is our argument to that? (we don't have one. We just ignore it and continue patting ourselves on the back.)
If we are to progress, it's better to look at what going *wrong*, and try to improve that.
Apache is so good, it is actually hurting itself (Score:3, Interesting)
Enough said
Sunny Dubey
hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
If Time magazine had a server-of-the-year award nobody would read it. Except you people.
Big Reason for such a shift (Score:3, Informative)
I just don't see this as that significant because of that.
My 2 cents.
Also a win for FreeBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
"Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD." That's right, folks. NOT Linux. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Linux sucks. But there's something to be said here by this data, and I don't feel Linux should get all the current press simply because Linux got all the past press. FreeBSD does amazing things, is used all over the place, has many technical merits not seen elsewhere, but Linux overshadows it because of inertia and the fact that Linux users yell louder. This is sad. Last I knew, Windows won out due to inertia as well, not technical reasons, and we condemn it for that. Must we be hypocritical a second time around?
I know this is Slashdot, but c'mon... would it kill you to put a positive article about FreeBSD on the front-page?
Netcraft confirms it: FreeBSD is quite alive and kicking.
What is corporate America using? (Score:3, Informative)
I would say corporate America sticks with IIS and other MS products because of MS development products are easy enough for Fred the Beancounter to drag-n-drop an app together. A desk jockey can get something done for his department quick and easy. Good code no, but it gets the job done and it was cheap and that is what the PHB care about.
LAMP tools need to become that easy to use for corporate America to take a look.
Proxying firewalls skew NetCraft numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
With the combination of URLScan header removal and a Unix-based firewall (few folks are insane enough to put up IIS webservers and Windows Firewalls on the same network...) my IIS5/6 hosts don't look anything like a Windows box as far as Netcraft is concerned.
Throw in a hardware load balancer doing SSL offloading, and the client connections are never going to see my hosts directly for Netcraft to count.
Sends binary files as text/plain MIME type (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The platform they did the calculations on (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder though, when Netcraft (and subsequently Slashdot) reported about a rise in ISS-usage, many commented about "But they're just being used as domain parking servers". When the same thing happened but with Apache, most people just say "Yay Apache!"
Parent
Re:Apache is racist. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apache is racist. (Score:3, Informative)