Microsoft continues to gain share in the web server market, chipping away at Apache’s commanding lead. The number of hostnames on Windows servers grew by 4.5 million, giving Microsoft 29.7% market share, a gain of 4.25% for the month. Apache had a decline of 429K hostnames, and loses 3.5% to 61.25%. Apache’s lead over Microsoft, which stood at 48.2% in March, has been narrowed to 31.5%, a shift of 16.7% in just three months.
More parked domains. How many of those go up daily do you think?
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.
What are the stats for the top 100 sites (volume), or maybe the top 1000. What do sites like Amazon, Yahoo, New York Times, etc. use? I couldn’t tell from the graphs
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)
honestly who really cares? i mean as long as you can get to whatever content want whenever you want does it really matter what they are using?
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.
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.[/i]
You don’t want a 50% IIS world, but you’re happy with a 61.25% Apache world?
>”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.
Microsoft and Linux have both been chipping away at proprietary Unix in the server space, so it’s probably a reflection that the vast majority of people running Windows server are going to be using IIS, and that a significant portion of proprietary Unix servers were running Apache.
if netcraft says so!
I can’t speak for others, but since I started Rails development I’ve moved away from Apache and over to lighttpd. So perhaps some of the market share that Apache has lost hasn’t gone straight to Microsoft.
No need to be alarmed by this.
Market volume does not mean that Apache is falling behind IIS, as has been pointed out parked domains (ala godaddy.com) probably have quite an influence on these figures. If I were to try and quantify which is the best web server to use I would take a qualitative approach and perhaps look at what the top 100 sites on the web are running (Google, Yahoo, MSN etc.)
This is not to say that IIS isn’t becoming more prevalent however, it is no secret that Microsfot have been making great inroads into typically Unix/Linux dominated markets
Simple. A lot of IIS-based sites wind up using pages with heavy amounts of VBScript and/or IE-specific HTML that breaks heavily on anything other than IE. I encounter far too many such sites even today, and since IE today is essentially Windows only, it isn’t unreasonable to say you’re precluding access to non-MS platforms by going such a route.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 2.0; U; AvantGo 3.2)
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.
for those wondering why having an open source implementation of an open standard is important, here are two real world examples that i think are pretty useful to keep in mind (there are others, of course) that show the two sides of the web:
1) in ’96 AOL decided to snub web standards. it was a company doing what was best for them, but fortunately they were dealing with an open source server that fed the majority of content that was not “ownable” by them or any other single entity. because of this very strong position, the apache group was able to get AOL to reconsider and correct their behaviour. if it had been a Microsoft IIS world, what’s the bet AOL and Microsoft would have made a cozy deal that benefitted them both (or would have turned on each other and made things even worse, as in ‘more proprietary’)?
you can read about this here:
http://httpd.apache.planetmirror.com/info/aol-http.html
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/199612.mbox/<…
http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0031.html
2) HTML. because there was no open source browser that had a significant market share, HTML became a morass of incompatible hacks and add-ons that perverted the supposed standard into a very non-standard world. this was done specifically to further the aims and goals of the companies behind those proprietary browsers. that isn’t evil in and of itself, but it sure made the web a mess.
had netscape remained open source from day 1 instead of closing the source up things would likely have been very very different since no one company would have had the ability to make such decisions when it came to the leading browser and the failures of that one company would likely not have resulted in losing the dominant position and becoming a bit player to the least compliant browser of all.
so on the web the protocol is pretty consistent and interoperable while the data format is horribly broken at this point. the difference? one (the protocol) had a dominant open source implementation of the open standard and the other didn’t.
it will be interesting to see how the format problem on the web corrects over time with open source browsers picking up market share.
… one can also speculate on and discuss things like SMB/CIFS and Samba, MS Office and ODF, stmp, dns or TCP/IP versus the various other networking stacks proposed. lots of examples out there.
if there is a widely deployed (set of) open source implementation(s) for a protocol or format that is intended to be used for broad information exchange, the market wins in by ensuring the survival of open standard that allows choice of vendor (and free market competition) and increased quality of service (due to actually being able to easily exchange information)
/me steps off soap box.
Edited 2006-06-08 01:37
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.
MS had an upward blip before this in 2001-2002 when it gained marketshare against Apache. This was revesed in the following years and Apache resumed its apparently inexorable rise against Widows/IIES.
Let’s hope that this too is just a similar temporary blip.
… to correlate the rise in IIS market share to increased deployments of Win2K3. I suspect that the reason IIS is gaining market share is due to organizations finally deploying Win2K3.
How much Microsoft has probably cost this.
Many given servers and licences?
Or directly for it paid.
Such Hoster are only a marketing tarts for Microsoft.
Or Microsoft has put up itself some server and has put on FakeDomains.
Bruce Perens claims that Microsoft has been paying domain resellers like Go Daddy to use IIS :
“Microsoft has been paying the large domain resellers to move their “parked” sites to IIS on Microsoft Server. Moving the parked customers of a single large reseller, GoDaddy.com, caused a shift of 4.5 Million domain names, or 5% of total server share from Apache to Microsoft IIS in the Netcraft report. This is an “appearance” change only, because the sites involved have no content. But managers believe figures like those in the Netcraft report, and act on them. It’s time for the Free Software / Open Source community to fight back.”
http://opensourceparking.com/
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.
Well one thing for sure, MS did not earned this growth by only providing the best product. They are reaching this goal by vendor lock-in (business app X requires ASP => windows only) and BUYING there market share. I work in the hosting world for example and if your big they are willing to give these licenses for (almost) free.
Does this take into account consolidation of servers?
You don’t want a 50% IIS world, but you’re happy with a 61.25% Apache world?
If Sun got off their ass and opensourced their SES stack like their promised, there would be a viable, multiplatform, opensource alternative to Apache.
Only 2 vulnerabilities in the web-server were found so far, according to secunia: http://secunia.com/product/1438/
One’s information disclosure (a maliciously crafted PUT can tell the attacker that you’re running IIS6) and the other’s a WebDAV bug in code that is off by default.
This might be the reason people are switching to IIS6.
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.
And you are wondering why Microsoft wants to strike deals with parked domain dealers like GoDaddy and rest of bunch? Because they want to get some real numbers for their marketing team!
But I do care really less. I haven’t used IIS for ages and altought lot of people says that it has improved a lot, critial service application which runs only and only on Windows, is big no no in my book. I need FreeBSD or Linux to be supported to consider one to use.
16.7% in three months. Nuff said. If it was a gradual increase over a period of a year or eighteen months then it might be genuine, but this, no.
Parked domains. Why doesnt the world rely more on Facts than on FUD.
Myth:
Apache reigns the web
Fact:
IIS is deployed on far more web servers than Apache.
Real numbers are more like 45% IIS, 45% Apache and 10% rest.
The only thing keeping Apache numbers high is OSS FUD and big hosters with virtual servers using Apache.
This IS real life.
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, I just had to do it. No one else did.
Remember that ignoring facts will not led to better products.
Everyone uses what they think they are more comfortable with: it’s not a religion war.
However, ignoring that IIS 6 is getting popular because Win2003+IIS6 is a good platform is not useful. This is happening. We’re hosting about 1,000 domains on that and it works and we’re witnessing many requests of people switching from Apache to IIS. That doesn’t mean Apache is doomed but just that IIS 6 is a good product, which is pushed by the will to use ASP.NET as well.
Anyway, I find it rather amusing that pepople is criticizing IIS market share by telling that those are parked domains while Apache has legitimate parked domains 😉 We know that Microsoft is gaining share in server market and it makes sense that they are willing to ask large companies to move their parked domains to IIS since that builds statistics.
Still Apache has many more parked domains than IIS and that doesn’t help to make those statistics useful. There are thousands of Apache installations which just show default page, expecially in Universities and so on. Do those made up the count too?
Anyway, I find that Netcraft limitations are too many to use such statistics as a real proof of facts. Those limitations (FreeBSD and Linux Kernel 2.6, for example) are rather extended to build accurate statistics.
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.
>However, ignoring that IIS 6 is getting popular
>because Win2003+IIS6 is a good platform is not
>useful. This is happening.
At the rate Netcraft is reporting? Get a grip.
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.
Competition should make both web servers better (even if Microsoft takes over the market).
While running IIS server definitely indicates Windows, running Apache does not mean it isn’t.
“Deployed on Web Servers”, these are the web servers, they were not web servers before the web service was deployed on them.
There is no such word as, “Hoster”, just saying it makes me feel dumber.
> open source and open standards are two different
> things
of course they are. and if you agree open standards are beneficial and good, then you ought to think about how to ensure that they continue to exist.
history shows that without an open implementation of an open standard what usually follows is at best degradation in service and often outright disaster.
>Parked domains contribute to increase Apache share:
>now some of them contribute to increase IIS share.
>That’s all.
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.
> If IIS would be really gaining +3-4% market share
> PER MONTH, expect IIS to lead this market in less
> than 10 months.
Likelihood: 0%
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 😉
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3407542187.html
Enjoy. Please note following quote:
“Well, actually the last reason does have something to do with it. Most of Microsoft’s gain, and Apache’s loss, came from Go Daddy, a popular, cheap Web site hosting company, moving 1.6 million parked hostnames from Apache to IIS”
IIS is Brain Dead.
Put a DataGrid on a page, give it “too much data” and watch IIS CRASH. Worst Virtual Memeory Management in the Industry.
Why does Microsoft hire the Incompetent?
( Because the competent cost too much money. )