Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apache Software

Apache Jumps In Market Share 47

Posted by krow from the little-graphs-with-little-lines dept.
mshiltonj writes "In case no one has noticed, the lastest Netcraft web server survey showed a marked shift in market share in just one month. Apache gained 2.63% and IIS fell 2.06%. However, the previous month showed an even larger change in Microsoft's favor, so Apache is (quickly) making up for lost ground, as discussed before. Was this turnaround due to the release of Apache 2.0? Sadly, in the last 12 months, Apache's market share has noticeably eroded, while IIS has gradually gained ground."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache Jumps In Market Share More

Apache Jumps In Market Share

Comments Filter:

  • Sun also gained market share at the expense of IBM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @02:50PM (#3524974)

    Sun went from 51% to 54% of the Unix server market, largely at the expense of Big Blue: IBM fell from 21% to 17% (and HP passed them, to take second place):
    Sun Makes Gains In Unix Market As IBM Slips
    http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle?doc_id=IWK20020514S0004 [informationweek.com]
  • Slashdot Junps ahead getting Apache article posted.

    Film at 11

  • ...which is why I use TinyWeb [ritlabs.com] Does very little - but does it securely.
  • Apparently Slashdot's use of Apache 2 is important according to Netcraft as it is mentioned: several high profile sites, including News.com and slashdot.org have started using it
    • What?

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:48:54 GMT
      Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a
      SLASH_LOG_DATA: shtml
      X-Powered-By: Slash 2.003000
      X-Fry: And then when I feel so stuffed I can't eat any more, I just use the restroom, and then I *can* eat more!
      Cache-Control: private
      Pragma: private
      Connection: close
      Content-Type: text/html
    • mod_gzip is not available for apache2 yet. the main servers would need this much more than the image server(s)

  • Turnaround not due to Apache 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cycon ( 11899 ) <steve [at] theProfessionalAmateur...com> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @03:05PM (#3525065) Homepage
    Apache gained 2.63% and IIS fell 2.06%. However, the previous month showed an even larger change in Microsoft's favor, so Apache is (quickly) making up for lost ground, as discussed before. Was this turnaround due to the release of Apache 2.0?

    According to the Netcraft Web Server Survey page [netcraft.com], the drop in IIS over the past month was due to a change in Homestead.com's policies:

    Microsoft drop back a couple of percentage points this month, primarily attributable to the reaping of around a million expired sites at homestead.com. Homestead used to offer limited free hosting supported by advertising, but has revised its business model. As of April 15th has announced that it is migrating to a traditional paid-for services model.

    --Cycon

    • Hmmm... If a single web hosting company can influence the stats by that much, there is something seriously wrong with the stats.

      One approach would be to count unique IP addresses (i.e., vhosted sites would not be counted twice).

      But even better, it would be way cool if Google's linking metrics could be brought in. That way, a rough guesstimate of the amount of information served by all the web servers could be established.

      There's lies, damn lies and statistics. I remember when a sales droid walked up to me and recommended I switch to IIS because it was the dominant web server. He had brought this list of high profile IIS installations, and on the surface it looked impressive. When I confronted him with how many of those still had Apache or UNIX somewhere in the path (either as a firewall, server for static images or ads), he started mumbling incoherently.
      • >> One approach would be to count unique IP addresses (i.e., vhosted sites would not be counted twice).

        Now, wouldn't that also pose problems of its own? I don't have numbers to prove it, but I firmly believe that you could host a significantly larger number of sites on one good Linux/Apache server than you could on an IIS server with the same hardware, due to efficiencies of both Apache and the OS.

        However, you'd have the same limiting factor of bandwidth.

        Just something to think about,
        MadCow.

        • You're probably right with the assertion of the number of vhosts per IP limiting IIS more than Apache (on a decent OS like BSD or Linux). However, I have a hard time believing that this would outweigh the numeric advantage the mass-vhosting web server would have. As you say, bandwdith limitations will kick in way before operating system overhead kicks in (and I for one do not think weighing a gazillion of never-viewed web sites on a single IP address should count as heavy as one {Amazon|Slashdot|CNN} sized web server).

  • Apache 2.0 lack of modules (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gruntvald ( 22203 ) on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @03:31PM (#3525265) Homepage Journal
    I would think the release of Apache 2.0, which lacks php or mod_perl, the two most prominent web scripting environments, renders it to be the least useful or relevant apache release ever. Why would an IIS site ever consider switching - security has always been low on the totem pole for IIS admins, they are looking for domain integration, and other windows interfaces. Which, of course, Apache lacks. Other than the fact it now runs better on OS/2 than before, and has a BEOS port, there's little incentive to "upgrade" or switch. And those examples are only partially facetious.

    • Re:Apache 2.0 lack of modules (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      PHP 4.2.1 came out the other day with improved Apache 2 support. It works pretty well. They say it's not quite ready for primetime, but it's definately there for development.

      As for why an IIS admin might consider switching, some tests have shown better speed when using Apache 2.0 on Windows. Sometimes people are forced to use Windows for various reasons. Now they have a production quality Apache they can use on that platform.
    • Actually, mod_perl is out in beta and people have been testing it for a while now.
    • IIRC, PHP has been released for Apache 2.0. (I seem to remember that version 4.1.2 announced this.)
      I don't use mod_perl, so I can't comment on that, though.

  • Gartner recommendation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by booch ( 4157 ) <slashdot2010NO@SPAMcraigbuchek.com> on Wednesday May 15, 2002 @04:07PM (#3525512) Homepage
    It's probably due to Gartner's recommendation [slashdot.org] to drop IIS due to all the security holes IIS has had recently. Or more to the point, the holes themselves have caused people to lose faith in IIS and move to Apache.
    • While I agree Apache is a wonderful product. I'm also clueful enough to realize that the offerings from Microsoft are just as great. IIS in the hands of someone with a clue is an incredible product. Problem is that IIS is handed to too many morons that mismanage and create a bad image for IIS. If Apache were as moronproof as IIS I'm sure you'd have just as many problems.

    • I've seen no sign whatsoever that people running IIS * are now suddenly concerned about security. :)

      * I mean, people who weren't concerned before, of course.
  • The fine print of the netcraft survey points out that most of the Microsoft gains are the result of mass hosting places and hostname expirations (i.e. small numbers of people making decisions). I suggest that the trend is really quite flat. Will Apache sweep thew market... no, but Apache is much better possitioned, and I forsee the gradual errosion of Microsoft's server market...

  • Question about IIS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Thursday May 16, 2002 @01:21AM (#3527991)
    Do these numbers include all the people running IIS who don't realize they're running IIS, or that a web server is running on their machine at all?

    Just wondering.

    • Re:Question about IIS (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That is a BIG reason for the increase in IIS usage.
      Apache may be included in linux but it is not on
      by default, nor is apache integrated with the OS as
      much as IIS.
      Hopefully people will see through this bullsh#*.
      • netcraft only measures DNS registered sites so the answer is no. Whats causing the rise in IIS use is microsoft paying off huge webhosting companies like homestead.com and many others to switch. Ask anyone in the webhosting bussiness how many calls from MS salesmen do they get in a week? Ms constantly bugs them and yes even offers to pay for the upgrade costs for all servers! The reason? Marketshare. Webhosting companies have like %40 of DNS registered sites out there. MS knows the suits in the fortune 1,000 only buy whats popular and not whats best. If they see a jump in IIS they will buy it in fear of apache becoming the next netscape or lotus smartsuite.

        Its total bs and crazy to even think like this but this is how IT thinks. If you look at netcrafts monthly usage you will see a jump in IIS after some big web hosting company switches to it. Then MS will make one fud report after another about bussiness migration away from expensive unix systems to NT and how its changing the whole world and yada yada yada. However now I believe alot of bussinesses are thinking about switching back to apache due to the huge security holes in IIS. If they use active server pages then I feel real sorry for them. Infact my windows2000 at home was hacked using just a small 56k modem. I believe the hacker used IIS in which I had installed to learn vb active server pages. Absolutely astounding! I checked the logs myself and no this was not a registered website but for my own personal use.

  • Does anyone trust these numbers anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Havokmon ( 89874 ) <rick.havokmon@com> on Thursday May 16, 2002 @12:11PM (#3530345) Homepage Journal
    It's pretty crappy that NetCraft includes all those domain names that are just parked on webservers. One provider moves web servers one way or another, and it appears that there's a huge migration somewhere.

    Migrating empty virtual hosts isn't what 95% of the internet will be doing when evaluating a 'new' web server.

  • Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ruiner13 ( 527499 )
    Could more people be figuring out how to simply flick the switch in OS X to make their computer an Apache server? As Apple's Xserve catches on, as well as more people migrate to OS X, Apache stands to gain ground too. I think that is a good relationship.
    • Sorry Mac Boy but you're dreaming... OS X isn't the new rapid deployment server platform simply because it has Apple's name on it.
      Interesting statement, now I shall defent it
      A: noone ever got fired for choosing microsoft and intel (shitty as this is it still holds true.
      B: Apple has a bad reputation in the corporate world, and a very well known reputation for releasing a product and just as quickly pulling it. (*cough*Newton*cough*)
      C: Darwin is NOT stable, and apple's development policies reguarding it, including dropping the kid that fixed the gaping ppp problem is senseless.
      D: More mature solutions, Solaris, BSD, Linux Windows exist (in order of appearance as a server hosting environment chronologically) and frankly I doubt OS-X will catch on a server environment.

      now that that's said. OS-X server will be nice for graphics devel/video/photographic editing and effects clustering. Small and out of the way 3 or 4 of these will calmly sit in a smallish rack under someone's desk. I don't think webserving is in apple's future, and really feel apple's decided that now that they've had some success it's time to shoot themselves in the foot again. this is just apple's way of cocking the pistol to fire the shot.
  • One thing you will avoid by running apache 2 on win32 is the cancerous penetration of the OS by IIS. If anything, ANYTHING at all is "wrong" with your IIS install, patches installed in the wrong order, your server is doomed, at least to a painful reinstall -- possibly of the whole OS. Most aggravating is the integration of the browser and the webserver -- heaven forbid a browser patch goes awry. At that point you might as well resign and become a mountain man. It is as if MS feels they will solve the problem of discrimination by integrating software. Anyone who has run a lot of IIS boxen has no doubt seen this. IMHO, Apache2 in Win32 will be under serious FUD by MS, but quick. It's just too easy compared to IIS to administer. In time I hope we will see IIS eclipsed by Apache 2.
  • all those parked domains and vanity sites mean squat. It's the number of large business sites that really matter. Netcraft needs to update how the surveys are taken.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close