Apache Now the Leader in SSL Servers?

miller60 writes "Apache has overtaken Microsoft as the leading developer of secure web servers, according to Netcraft's monthly SSL survey. Apache now runs on 44.0% of secure web sites, compared to 43.8% for Microsoft. Apache's recent gains are attributed to the inclusion of mod_ssl in version 2, and strong growth of SSL-enabled sites in non-US markets where Apache has stronger market share."

Re:Just now?

[bod1988]

IIS: http://secunia.com/product/1438/ [secunia.com]

Apache: http://secunia.com/product/72/ [secunia.com]

What were you saying again?

Re:Why so much different?

[tedhiltonhead]

The vast majority of virtual hosting is done using Apache, and most domains don't have SSL support. The SSL stat may get us closer to counting the number of IP's using the two packages, rather than just the number of domains.

Re:oblig troll

[Homology]

On Windows, forking a new process is expensive thus the heavy use of threads. On Unix, forking is not so expensive, comparatively.

Apache http 2.x is supposed to run much better on Windows than 1.3, and do indeed use threading.

Re:Who chooses Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

To get anywhere in Dot-Net, at least version 2, you need to know about the XML based Web.Config files. XML can be harder to understand than the more traditional plain text UNIX config file. To take advantage of stronger security features and set up a minimum privelage system needs a lot of skill.

Dot-Net 2 on IIS is not always a no-brainer to install. You sometimes have to tweak it manually to get things working. mixing Dot-Net-1 and Dot-Net-2 can be difficult, especially if your Dot-Net-2 app needs to put something in the global Web.Config that Dot-Net-1 can't understand and falls over on.

PHP installation on my Linux box was a case of selecting php4 in Aptitude, my package manager of choice. The Debian installers are really very good and set up the link with Apache for you.

Database connectivity in Dot-Net-2 is giving us nightmares at the moment. It may be fine if you stick to a single MSSQL database, but try distributed transactions with MSDTC or try non-Microsoft databases and things become sticky very quickly. The word Fragile doesn't do it justice. I'm sure we never had this kind of trouble with JDBC.

Looking at the graph, I note that Apache plus the Apache derived cNet have summed to about level or slightly more than Microsoft all along.

Re:Shows what I know

[gbjbaanb]

It has been mentioned, just that the figures were not available for the SSL survey unless you coughed up cash for the report.

Its the response that, despite Apache's strength in overall websites, IIS was used for more 'serious' sites. The OSS people who read these comments (usually in another Apache has more/is better/etc than IIS stories) just ignore them.

Re:Shows what I know

[Secrity]

It was my understanding that for heavy duty "serious" sites that Netscape web server/Sun whatever web server had been the usual choice. news.bbc.co.uk (serios web site, number 8 behind Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google) is using Zeus/4.2 on most of it's sites. www.yahoo.com is running something under freebsd. cgi.ebay.com, #9, is mostly running WebSphere. #10, toolbar.netcraft.com (?) is running Apache The only Netcraft top 10 most visited site that is running IIS is www.microsoft.com (#6). For reference, www.sony.com, www.weather.com, and www.cnn,com are running Apache (all of which are serious sites)