OSNews

More parked domains. How many of those go up daily do you think?

Probably a fair amount. I'm sure there are enough to skew those numbers a bit.

I was running some tests and had set up a couple of dummy sites on a test webserver (Apache on Linux) but forgot to change my Windows host file to point to the test servers IP address on our network so instead of seing my test sites, my browser went out to the net.

Both domains came up in my browser as parked sites. One of which was trying to sell the domain for $2700.00 dollars (I really dislike companies like that).

Parked domains skew the results for all webservers. It would be nice if Netcraft could figure out a way to eliminate all the parked domains and sites that don't have any content.

I think Yahoo is FreeBSD (and their store is written in common lisp), Amazon I'm not sure, and google is running Linux.

Netcraft probably has the listings you're looking for.

http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?restriction=site+contains&host=amazo...
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?restriction=site+contains&host=yahoo...
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?restriction=site+contains&host=nytim...

Amazon is mostly in HTML::Mason...so i assume some kind of Unix or Linux (mostly)

I care. I'd hate to see a 90% Apache world, or a 90% IIS world (or even a 50% IIS world).
We already have a monoculture on PC's which has lead to probably billions in cost due to worms we don't need one in web servers too.

>"You don't want a 50% IIS world, but you're happy with a 61.25% Apache world?"


Yes... that is more ideal.

Apache can't be used to preclude certainly platforms from getting a consistant web experience like Microsoft can do with IIS for non Microsoft platforms.

Edited 2006-06-07 23:01

Apache can't be used to preclude certainly platforms from getting a consistant web experience like Microsoft can do with IIS for non Microsoft platforms.

You want to explain "preclude certainly platforms from getting a consistent web experience"? What is a "web experience"? Web users don't care what servers they're connecting to.

Yes... that is more ideal.

So Apache should be immune from competition?

>> Web users don't care what servers they're connecting to

well, yeah, but...
what if the web server "surprisingly" begins to "care" about what the users are using as browser or OS? Remember Opera users being fed broken code from msn.com (IIRC) ? (just to mention one thing that doesn't even need a dominant market position)

I am not saying such thing *will* happen,
but can we just remain confident it will not?
Can we frankly believe that IIS leading this market would be a benefit for everyone?

well, yeah, but...
what if the web server "surprisingly" begins to "care" about what the users are using as browser or OS? Remember Opera users being fed broken code from msn.com (IIRC) ? (just to mention one thing that doesn't even need a dominant market position)

If the server becomes sentient and begins to "care" then you have more interesting things on your plate.


I am not saying such thing *will* happen,
but can we just remain confident it will not?


I remain confident that my web server won't be "caring"

Can we frankly believe that IIS leading this market would be a benefit for everyone?

I don't care how "everyone" is benefitting from their own server decisions. I care about benefitting from the server decisions I make for my organization.

I don't care how "everyone" is benefitting from their own server decisions. I care about benefitting from the server decisions I make for my organization.

Unfortunately you and your organization is not an island. The choices you have whether they be web server, operating system, application software is at least dependant on the decisions of the market.

So Apache should be immune from competition?

What supposedly makes it immune? It should be protected from anticompetitive practices, but... seriously, where did you get "immune?"

IIS, on the other hand, would make Windows immune to competition if it were the leader. And precluding certain platforms from a consistent web experience means changing and implementing closed web standards that only Internet Explorer could interpret. So far, that's just ActiveX, which is pretty much only used for updating Windows systems and installing viruses, so it's not exactly envied by the other platforms, but they could come up with something more useful later.

Apache is standards based. Anyone can write a program to do what Apache does. They can even fork Apache into their own project and compete with the original authors that way. And if you want to use Apache, you have a nearly infinite choice of operating system and hardware to run it on. Apache is good for competition. IIS is not, in speculation or in fact.

Correct. More fear of proprietary majority than FOSS majority. Plus I've already seen the 61% Apache world, and it's been pretty good.

As the server markets show (61.25% Apache world) it's not only due to monoculture that there were "probably billions in cost due to worms".

There just has to be a slightly difference between good written software (Apache) and bad written software (A well known OS + browser). And if the software is bad, the monoculture makes it worse, worse worse; if the software is reasonably good, monoculture still arises issues, but I never heard any apache user (admin) worrying...

MS in not exactly the best candidate for the role of white knight, bringing back the healthy market ballance, don't you think?

It's a free market, you don't get many white knights so you take what you can get.

I'd rather not take MS

Those figures are probably the strongest marketing point for Apache and MS knows it.

When the ballance is crossed Apache future growth could be seriousely hamered.

God. You are clueless...IIS has nothing to do with the HTML that is generated, that's up to the developer. IIS simply does it's job and processes the pages.

Microsoft has a proven in courts track record of intentionally breaking standards to hurt competition and will surely do this again as soon as IIS gets market lead. They did it with HTML, SMB, Kerberos etc. and they'll certainly do it with HTTP(S) as soon as they'll have chance. And they'll use it to crush competition in other areas (eg. Firefox gaining popularity just because MSIE is such insecure piece of crap). At the end of the day you'll end up with expensive as hell, substandard crappy software just because its supplier does not feel the need to compete with anyone in terms of quality. If you don't see this, you're just a clueless troll.

Sorry, but open source and open standards are two different things. You can't lump them together.

Of course they're different. One is a standard, the other is an implementation. But they can be equally important to maintaining interoperability. When your source code is open, there's no such thing as an undocumented change.

Sorry, but open source and open standards are two different things. You can't lump them together.

This statement, often used by people are Microsoft, cheeses me off. An open source implementation guarantees open standards, because otherwise, what's the point of it being open source?

You can implement open standards without open source. That's the point. They do go together a lot, but you can't lump them together.

You can implement open standards without open source.

You can, but there is no guarantee to anyone that standards will be kept to. Microsoft have done this many times in the past. There is a guarantee with the use of open source software simply because it's not possible to keep anything proprietary.

They do go together a lot, but you can't lump them together.

Yes you can. The two are joined at the hip, because with open source software you simply can't keep anything proprietary if the source code is there for people to see and use.

You're missing the point.

Implementation of open standards is not exlusive to open source. Just as well, an open source implementation can do the same thing a propietary implementation can do. Propietary software can not change the open standard. They can butcher it but improperly implementing it or trying to extend it -- but so can open source.

Example: the -moz-<property> css properties.
Example: Opera is a properiatary browser with an implementation of open standards equal or [arguably] better than that of any Gecko browser.

Absolutely true. Microsoft HAS been paying domain resellers and parkers as well as furnishing them not only with IIS but also engineers to make the process go smoothly. This is well-known.

Godaddy and other domain name parkers who are in on this scam to look big for Netcraft and the like are probably more than 90% of the market share change month to month.

Show me some proof. Unless I see some facts Im going to write your comment off as FUD as well. Dont throw around accusations without some sort of proof.

Godaddy and other domain name parkers who are in on this scam to look big for Netcraft and the like are probably more than 90% of the market share change month to month.

Would this mean that Netcraft's "active sites" count is flawed? It is supposed to exclude parked domains. And it also showed a big jump in IIS.

I personally switch 2-3 legit sites a month from apache to IIS. It's not much, but it does happen.

In most cases it's due to little web shops who use apache (because its free and popular) and do not know how to keep it running smoothly. There seems to be a lot of these bottom of the barrel hosting companies around, and eventually their clients just get fed up.

Also, a lot of major corporations use IIS for their corporate websites. This is the only reason we use IIS ... because our 5 biggest clients use it.

Overall IIS isn't that bad ... but it's metabase still sucks, even though they switched to "xml".

Just read the article...

"Apache's loss of hostnames is due to decreases for Linux at a number of hosting companies. In addition to Go Daddy, six hosts reduced their use of Linux by 40K or more, including leading UK provider PIPEX Communications, Lycos and Zipa."

>"Apache's loss of hostnames is due to decreases for
>Linux at a number of hosting companies. In addition to
>Go Daddy, six hosts reduced their use of Linux by 40K or
>more, including leading UK provider PIPEX
>Communications, Lycos and Zipa."

That could also be server consolidation.

But I can tell you - I host about 2500 domain names for customers... I have had Microsoft offering me free software and free engineer time if I was willing to switch to IIS. If they're doing that for hosting companies as small as 2500 domain names, imagine what they're offering to the hosting companies with millions...

Ok, so Netcraft's 'active sites' measurement is pretty much useless.

Nobody search for Bugs in IIS because nobody really use the IIS. Apache 2.2 has 0 Bugs... look at Secunia Never trust Numbers. Apache 1.3 has only 17 Advisories but tons of mods. The IIS has just a piece of functionallity of the Apache System.

The IIS has just a piece of functionallity of the Apache System.

really ? Start naming off what functionality Apache has that cannot be obtained with IIS ?

Both servers seem pretty damn extensible to me and i use both of them for various tasks.

Okay, then where are your citations and/or other evidence to back up your "facts." You can't make the statements you just made and expect anybody with a brain to just take your word for it.

Sorry, but the IIS is only pushed by buyed parked domains. The real market share about IIS ist less than 10%. Just FUD from MS... and Hoster who want some money from MS.

If an Customer want IIS or Apache for his parked Domain or if an Hoster sells Customer without care about it to MS...

Edited 2006-06-08 14:00

C'me on. Talking is something, trolling is a different thing.

At the rate Netcraft is reporting? Get a grip.

Maybe not but the trend looks confirmed by server sales and other factors.

We'll see what happens.

Still why domains parked on Apache servers are legitimate and those parked on IIS aren't?

Parking Domains on IIS is legitim... buying parked Domains to manipulate marketshare isn't it.

MS buyed Domains from the Hoster... it was no Customer Choice. See the difference and stop trolling.

I see no gain in flaming and your comments are clearly trollish. There are facts:

1) MS didn't "buy domains from the Hoster" as you wrote. Read better. They simply asked GoDaddy's parked domains to be moved from Apache to IIS. They didn't actually buy domains. Parked domains contribute to increase Apache share: now some of them contribute to increase IIS share. That's all.

2)Your comments (like those from other users) about parked domains are useless. If you had read the article (which you clearly didn't read) you would have seen that while IIS had +4.25% and Apache had -3.51% (overall host names), IIS had +3.96% on ACTIVE webistes (websites which are likely to have contents in it, unlike parked domains) and Apache had -3.17%. So parked domains remarks are mostly childish as they contributed (according to Netcraft) for only a +0.29%.

3) If IIS would be really gaining +3-4% market share PER MONTH, expect IIS to lead this market in less than 10 months.

You might state that Netcraft data are questionable but trolling is not useful. I won't reply to other comments since, as I said, I see no gain in flaming.

They simply asked GoDaddy's parked domains to be moved from Apache to IIS.

Wow. Microsoft must ask really nice then :-). We're simply not that naive I'm afraid. It's called bribery, and with idiots like Pipex in the UK and there well known quality of service, I'm not surprised. All the more reason to avoid them.

3) If IIS would be really gaining +3-4% market share PER MONTH, expect IIS to lead this market in less than 10 months.

Alternatively, they might get their share back to where it was in 2001 ;-).

Wow. Microsoft must ask really nice then :-). We're simply not that naive I'm afraid. It's called bribery, and with idiots like Pipex in the UK and there well known quality of service, I'm not surprised. All the more reason to avoid them.

When I said "asked" of course I meant payed. ;-) Bribery? Commercial agreement, I'd say. I really can't see what's wrong. Tons of businesses pay other companies to achieve their goals. They wished to have more parked domains which means more shares. Bribery? C'me on ;-) If Sun was interested, they could pay other companies to have their domains parked on a sun Webserver. Such agreements happen everyday. Won't Google pay DELL to have their software on DELL PCs? Still I'd say: why Apache parked domains are good and (payed) IIS parked domains are wrong? That's naive, according to me. GoDaddy users don't give a dime if their parked domains get hosted on Apache or IIS. Amazingly, Apache admins simply go crazy about this ;-)

Plus, let's not forget parked domains are a small fraction of share increase, according to Netcraft. I'm amazed no-one stated that Netcraft has been paied by MS ;-)

Alternatively, they might get their share back to where it was in 2001 ;-).

Of course : anything might happen. ;-) U know what? I don't really care ;-) I won't feel much powerful if my webserver of choice will lead the market. Can't say the same thing about other people here ;-)

When I said "asked" of course I meant payed. ;-) Bribery? Commercial agreement, I'd say. I really can't see what's wrong. Tons of businesses pay other companies to achieve their goals.

When a company accepts payment and free gifts from someone else for something they simply don't need as they already have a working solution, that's called bribery. Notice the nice press releases coming from GoDaddy about it as well, which are most certainly not required in the normal course of things. That's definitely called bribery.

It's funny in a way, because Microsoft will probably have given them free licenses and support today, but they'll end up paying for it through the nose tomorrow.

I'm amazed no-one stated that Netcraft has been paied by MS ;-)

If I laugh any more at you I'll split my sides. Yer, we're all zealots and it's been pointed out that Microsoft have almost certainly payed for all of this (and more - including nice press releases from GoDaddy) but it must be a conspiracy against Microsoft! Yer, all these Apache zealots are looking for a conspiracy! Look at them!

Give me a break. The evidence is there, even from the article above.

U know what? I don't really care ;-) I won't feel much powerful if my webserver of choice will lead the market.

Whatever ;-), But hey, don't look at me, Apache or other people around here. It's Microsoft who are doing all the bribing and are desperate to be number one.

Can't say the same thing about other people here ;-)

ROTFL.

I love the way Microsoft enthusiasts (and employees) have this habit of trying to portray themselves as objective and straight down the middle, when their comments are obviously anything but ;-).

Read the facts and stop trolling. Remember the News about GoDaddy?

1) MS payed GoDaddy... MS don't ask GD... GD has no reason to switch... Money was the Key.

2) A parked Domain with 'Here comes something' is also a Page with Content and a active Site.

3) If you troll the next 10 Month, 68% of the World will laught at you.

MS has the Money to manipulate Statistics... and Hoster loves Money for 'nothing'.

The real active Pages go back to Apache if the Customer put really content on it. Because the Mass don't want ASP.

Stop trolling, you're the joke of the day... Make it not even worse

MS buyed Domains from the Hoster... it was no Customer Choice. See the difference and stop trolling.

The HOSTER (or whatever you are calling it) IS the customer in this case.

Yay for speculation!

Yay for speculation!

Yay! Speculation answered with speculation based on the article.

A better way of saying it would be to say that Microsoft directly targetted and influenced with bribes those companies using Apache for parked domains so that they could change the apparent market share of their software. Just so we're clear.

Oh so if a company offers free software or services, or heck even money to do something its a *bribe*? Sounds like good business sense to me.

Now on the flip side if someone dumped IIS for apache to get out of windows licensing fees you would call that a good business decision or start screaming that they were *bribed* by free software ?

Seriously some of you kids need to grow up!

>Seriously some of you kids need to grow up!

Seriously, you need to extract your proboscis from Ballmer's rectum.

Now on the flip side if someone dumped IIS for apache to get out of windows licensing fees you would call that a good business decision or start screaming that they were *bribed* by free software ?

Well, since there's no payment from anyone in moving to Apache, where's the bribe? Where's the financially motivated company behind Apache who are paying for people to move to Apache and also to put out nice press releases as to how great Apache is over the IIS competition? Nowhere, that's where.

Seriously some of you kids need to grow up!

Some certainly do.

Oh so if a company offers free software or services, or heck even money to do something its a *bribe*? Sounds like good business sense to me.

Now on the flip side if someone dumped IIS for apache to get out of windows licensing fees you would call that a good business decision or start screaming that they were *bribed* by free software ?

Seriously some of you kids need to grow up!

Agreed. Simple and clear. It looks like that they only need to bash Microsoft for whatever reasons... even by changing reality of truth ;-)