Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apache Software News

eWeek: Apache 2.0 Trumps IIS 491

Posted by chrisd
from the apache-is-the-one-true-web-server dept.
AK47 writes "eWeek has a very positive review of Apache 2.0, entitled "Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game." They recommend the native Apache version on Windows over IIS for production use, citing superior security with no loss in performance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

eWeek: Apache 2.0 Trumps IIS

Comments Filter:
  • by autopr0n (534291) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:30PM (#3347369) Homepage Journal
    And if it can run ASP, can it run it 'all the way' -- ie could you take any ASP page and run it from apache?

    If it can handle ASP, there could be a lot of changeover. If not, then most 'hard core' M$ shops won't change.
    • by mdemeny (35326) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:37PM (#3347415) Homepage
      You can get a lot to run on Apache using Sun Chili!Soft [chilisoft.com] ASP.

      We were able to port all of our web-based reporting code with only 1 line change (including COM objects). However if your ASP is truly hard-core then it might be more difficult.

      • However if your ASP is truly hard-core then it might be more difficult.

        I'm not quite sure what this means, but essentially, if your app uses ASP that does more then the simple "Connect to ADO, grab data, and loop over it", then ChiliSoft is not a good solution for serious apps.


    • who needs Windows at all with this

      http://www.halcyonsoft.com/ [halcyonsoft.com]

      combined with

      .NET,.ASP both on Linux and having used it, it actually doesnt suck as much as chillisofts implementation
      • A) Halcyon's iNET does not (as of yet) run ASP.NET (which is much more important then ASP).

        B) They require a seperate runtime that sits ON TOP of your Java Application Server. Double licenses per box (unless you use an Open Source JAS, however, I have yet to find an "enterprise quality" one).

        However, it is pretty cool what they've done with the .NET stuff. Talk about a huge undertaking.
    • I'm half of 2 person IT department. The environment was ASP on NT before I arrived and too much has been developed to switch now. We are small and busy and don't necessarily have 100% to give to keeping up with patches and MS Critical Updates - I would certainly be able to engineer a switch to Apache on Windows away from IIS so very easily if only there was ASP support.
      • I'm half of 2 person IT department...don't necessarily have 100% to give to keeping up with patches and MS Critical Updates

        Are you Serious? How fucking difficult is it to to Start => Windows Update => Product Updates => Start Download.

        We run 5 public web servers here, and when I get the Microsoft Security Update e-mail, I run windows update, schedule a reboot for 3am the next day and jobs done!

        • You know...I kinda get tired doing that 3 times a week. Plus, I don't want to even think of how long those SERIOUS security flaws have been lurking in those servers for how many YEARS, and only NOW has MS told me about it!
        • A 3am reboot on a public webserver that may be trying to be viewed by people on the other side of the world isn`t a very good solution. I find it VERY irritating when a website i`m trying to read goes down to reboot for 10 minutes or however long. Moreso, if you delay the reboot then you are still vulnerable for those hours until 3am, assuming you stop work at 5pm, that leaves 10 hours for someone to break in and install backdoors, which wont be removed by your update - plenty of time for even the most stupid of scriptkiddies.
        • The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them
          • The IIS patches aren't on liveupdate, you have to go get them

            That is BULLSHIT you have no idea about what you are talking about, and it appears the moderators have no idea either.

            The last 10 patches (from MS02-18 to MS02-006) have ALL appeared on Windows Update at the same time or before the Microsoft security update is e-mailed.

      • We are small and busy and don't necessarily have 100% to give to keeping up with patches and MS Critical Updates

        Hey, what's your IP?

        C-X C-S
    • by mikerackhabit (442545) on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:18PM (#3347597)
      Well, you could ask the folks at Apache::ASP [apache-asp.org].

      From their website:

      Apache::ASP provides an Active Server Pages port to the Apache Web Server with Perl scripting only, and enables developing of dynamic web applications with session management and embedded perl code. There are also many powerful extensions, including XML taglibs, XSLT rendering, and new events not originally part of the ASP API!

      Sounds pretty good to me. Of course, I don't use much ASP so I don't really know what most 'hard core' m$ shops would need support for to be convinced to switch.
      • by FattMattP (86246) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @12:19AM (#3348078) Homepage
        Apache::ASP provides an Active Server Pages port to the Apache Web Server with Perl scripting only
        Then it's not very useful. Apache::ASP only implements the ASP framework. The majority of ASP scripts written are in VBScript. If Apache::ASP only supports Perl then you're going to have to port all of your legacy VBScript based ASP pages to Perl. You might as well rewrite them in PHP or C at that point.

        When people ask if it supports ASP, they usually mean, does it execute ASP pages that contain code in VBScript or Microsoft's JScript.

        • by crisco (4669)
          When people ask if it supports ASP, they usually mean, does it execute ASP pages that contain code in VBScript or Microsoft's JScript.
          Don't you go to COM controls when you hit the bounds of ASP performance or when you need a feature and don't have the time to write it in VBScript and nobody has open-sourced something? I don't think it matters what languages the Apache ASP modules support, you're almost going to have to re-do a serious web application from scratch when you change platforms.
    • Look for mod_aspnet (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ASP.NET from the Microsoft.NET SDK is only loosely bound to IIS. There is one .dll (like an Apache module) that fowards all ASP.NET requests from IIS to a seperate HTTP Handler for C#/VB.NET ASP pages. Some people are all ready working on mod_aspnet to do the same forwarding under Apache.

      L8ers IIS :)

    • If it can handle ASP, there could be a lot of changeover. If not, then most 'hard core' M$ shops won't change.

      Then let the bastards be hacked... not my problem..

      Who farted anyway?
  • ...Duh!
  • Yeah but.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by PopeAlien (164869) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:31PM (#3347374) Homepage Journal
    Yeah but, unless you hire an 'expensive expert' you can't write off the investment in apache. Thats the problem with free software.

    heh. nevermind.
    • From the article...
      Because of the magnitude of some of these changes, eWEEK Labs recommends that any site planning a move to Apache 2.0 first set up a system on which it can test all its Web applications and specific setups to make sure they work well on the new server.

      Come on! It doesn't take an 'expensive expert' to know that *whenever* you upgrade a runtime server, you first set up a sandbox where you can test it... or does it? Did they even need to mention this in the article? Maybe they thought that some MSCE would instantly bring down a corporate website and attempt to install Apache, only to find that it doesn't run ASP.
      • they did mention at the bottom that anyone wanting to use apache 2.0 should set up a test server.

        it should be pretty obvious but it's nice they do state it also
    • Re:Yeah but.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by RageMachine (533546)
      I work on several Linux boxen running PHP at a local ISP. I don't get paid as much as the 'shop techs'. Im living proof that your statement is partialy false.
    • Re:Yeah but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rodgerd (402) on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:23PM (#3347631) Homepage
      So, when one of Microsoft's fine products is riddled with security holes, apologists blame the systems admins for not being competent.

      When deriding superior, free alternatives, they claim any baboon can administer Microsoft products.

      I'm failing to see the value proposition in a range of products which allow idiots to render a business vulnerable to serious damage.
    • by alexhmit01 (104757) on Monday April 15, 2002 @11:31PM (#3347898)
      I figure this is a joke, but far too many slashdot posters seem to think they understand accounting.

      When you purchase software licenses, you are making a capital purchase, that will take at least 3 (and often 5) to depreciate. So the cash all flows out at once, but you have to write it out over 3 years.

      Money spent on consultants look great on the balancesheet because they are expenses (and therefore written off immediately), plus they are considered one-time costs for public companies, and don't count as operating expenses. By creating permenant one-time costs (each one one-time of course), they are able to make their financials look better than they are.

      With free software, your costs may be the same, but they are billed as consulting fees or maintenance agreements. All of those costs are easily considered either one-time costs or as regular costs. There are no capital expenses that need to be depreciated.

      Alex
    • Yeah but, unless you hire an 'expensive expert' you can't write off the investment in apache. Thats the problem with free software.

      This is how I talk to my clients:

      - You see? You will save 500 bucks because we're using free-as-in-beer software! Of course it is very, very difficult and normal people wouldn't even understand all the magical things which need to be done in order to set it up, but fortunately I'm a super hacker guru so this is your lucky day. My rates are only 300 bucks per hour, and this is not much for super hackers, so you'll pay much less than you'd pay for a more expensive super hacker for, say, 400 bucks per hour, so you already saved 200 bucks while we speak and you're gonna save another 50 grands in my rates netto...
      - Wait a minute! But I can have a sixpack of MCSE's for $9.95 per hour!
      - Too late! You signed the contract! SUCKER!!!

  • by awptic (211411) <infinite@[ ]plex.com ['com' in gap]> on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:34PM (#3347393)
    It's nice to see apache beating IIS on windows, but how does IIS compare to apache 2.0 running on linux? I can't find anything with a recent kernel, preferably post-2.4.10. Even an apache on windows vs apache on linux benchmark would be nice.
    • You misread my sentence, or i just wrote it wrong :)
      I meant IIS on WINDOWS vs. Apache 2.0 on linux. mmkay?
    • This article is filled with misinformation.

      Somehow... the numbers don't add up.

      Traditionally, IIS on Windows was the leader of the pack [pcmag.com] on static web serving, beating Apache on Linux by a factor of about 4.5 to 1, Windows (5500 req/s vs ~1200 req/s). Apache on Windows scrubbed the bottom of the graph at a measly 500 (yes, five hundred) req/s. Now, suddenly, Apache 2 for Windows is beating/matching IIS? That would effectively place it in the lead of every other web server on the market, free and commercial. Yet at the same time Apache for Linux and other Unicies is retaining "approximately the same performance." (~1200 req/s). So, what's the moral of the story here? Everyone running a unix box should throw it out, install a copy of NT or 2k and install Apache and be home free?

      Of course not. The attitude of the journalist is evidently anti-MS.

      Which would mean, if these numbers were in fact true (I don't remember reading any numbers in the article anyway), that Apache on Windows is about 4.5 times faster than it is on Linux and Unix.

      Once again, it doesn't make sense. This guy is tying two granny knots with a loop, and it ain't happenin'.

      I'd really like some information on these tests that they ran. What, did they run an ASP database call on IIS and compare it to a print "Hello, world\n"; perl script on Apache? Come on, there is obviously something fishy going on here.

      I trust this article like I trust The Register... about as far as I can throw the box it's running on (and that, my geeky friends, is not very far at all).
  • by madenosine (199677)
    that IIS is not so much about raw speed and security as it is web services? That this is what microsoft is really pushing?
  • Every time (Score:5, Informative)

    by SkulkCU (137480) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:35PM (#3347396) Homepage Journal

    "unfriendly administration interface"
    looks to be the only negative thing they could say about it.

    In fact, it seems to be the only bad thing I ever hear these days about most open source programs.
    What the hell is going on? Do we need to hire some UI consultants from Microsoft or something?

    Applefans: I'm kidding
    • Re:Every time (Score:2, Informative)

      by archen (447353)
      "unfriendly administration interface"

      looks to be the only negative thing they could say about it.


      Yeah, and I'd say that's a matter of opinion too. So what if I have to go a (gasp) config file. I mean the apache config files are very well commented, clear, and pretty easy to understand. So I don't have cute buttons and whirly-gigs on my administration interface - trust me I won't cry myself to sleep at night. My main problem with IIS is that the configuration tools never seem to work quite right, or take forever to do _anything_.
      Of course I'm pretty biased since I've always had good results with Apache. I've also never been all that impressed with the MS config tools using MS specific terminology which I have to look up in help files to figure out what they're talking about (yeah, my fault for not learning it).
      • Re:Every time (Score:4, Insightful)

        by flacco (324089) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:57PM (#3347517)
        I don't have cute buttons and whirly-gigs on my administration interface

        That's because you're an "expensive expert", donchaknow.

        Christ, let's just give them GUI tools for config files and be done with it. It would ease the transition for a lot of IIS "admins" who would like to take a step up in life but have an inertia/familiarity problem. Settings that have a list of valid options to select from, a "help" button next to each item to help them grok the stuff that IIS has been hidig from them...

        Point being, don't let your superiority complex get in the way of an effective conversion effort.

      • by ahde (95143)
        I always got lost in httpd.conf till I piped it through grep -v ^#

    • Re:Every time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shogun (657) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:55PM (#3347514)
      "unfriendly administration interface"
      looks to be the only negative thing they could say about it.

      In fact, it seems to be the only bad thing I ever hear these days about most open source programs.
      What the hell is going on? Do we need to hire some UI consultants from Microsoft or something?


      I would have to say quite the opposite about trying to admin an IIS machine, you want to change a simple setting? Expect to spend half an hour navigating menus till you find the setting hidden in some illogical unexpected location. Meanwhile to change the setting on almost any open source software package, just grep the config file(s) and you'll find where the option you want is within a couple of seconds.
      • I would have to say quite the opposite about trying to admin an IIS machine, you want to change a simple setting? Expect to spend half an hour navigating menus till you find the setting hidden in some illogical unexpected location.

        Well, if you are in a hurry, that might be a real bummer. On the other hand, you could consider the menus like a kind of GUI "adventure" game, trying to find the magic icon to push so that you can go back to the great cavern (sorry, main menu) and activate the special option.

        I'm joking of course, but then again I do see a parallel between learning to navigate a GUI and the patient exploration of an adventure-style game. For instance, I learned just about everything I ever needed to know about OS/2 just by exploring all the possible system menus. That - and reading both OS/2 2.11 Unleashed and OS/2 Warp Unleashed :-)
      • Re:Every time (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Bert64 (520050)
        Yes a textfile, especially a well commented one like the default shipped with Apache is far easier than a gui. Gui`s work well for relatively simple tasks (eg the controls of a web browser), but when the interface needs to display thousands of possible options it just looks cluttered, and the only way to combat the clutter is to hide the options under sub menus, which destroys the usability aspect. Ofcourse you can search a textfile, how do you find which submenu a particular gui option is under, i have yet to see a gui which you could search for a particular option or an option containing a particular value.
        And ofcourse you have more flexibility in configuration files, to type in strange custom configurations that a gui designed would never expect.
    • by SkulkCU (137480) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:59PM (#3347531) Homepage Journal

      Despite a general disdain for replying to my own post, here's a nifty little list of Why Free Software Usability Tends to Suck [phrasewise.com] that I just noticed. In my experience, numbers 2 and 5, at least, are true.

      Disclaimer: I've found the Apache interface on Windows to be far less irritating than IIS.
    • It's only unfriendly to a person that cannot grok the advantages of text file based configuration, such as being able to copy the file to a source repository, grep it for keywords, parse it using a regular expression, etc. etc.

      In reality a text file configuration is worth a million GUI config tools.

  • windows version (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cdf12345 (412812)
    After three years of development, Apache 2.0 (or, more accurately, Version 2.035) has finally been released. Unix users will find plenty to like in Version 2.0, but the biggest impact will be on Windows servers, where Apache can now perform as a production-level Web server.

    I would hope no one was using the windows version for the last 3 years, this gives little reason to trash their unix to jump to windows.
  • So Lets See (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peridriga (308995) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:36PM (#3347402)
    The Upside
    • Free
    • Runs On
    • Windows
    • BeOS
    • OS/2
    • *Nix
    No Performance Difference
    Interchangeable Modules

    Downside
    • "All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files


    HOLY DAMN... Edit A FILE!!!!
    • Seriously. When did "admins" turn into such pussies? Using text-based configuration is not so bad, especially when you can put the full power of $EDITOR and perl/sh/etc to use grinding on them to get things done quickly, without fumbling with a mouse for 10 minutes.

    • Re:So Lets See (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stirfry714 (410701)
      You forgot the upside "can't be hacked by any script kiddie out there who's downloaded the latest attack script".

      Of course, there's always the downsides for Apache- "log files get awfully full of failed attacks from owned IIS servers" and "don't get the amusement value of seeing what's been done to your web server's main page every morning by some cracker from China".
    • Re:So Lets See (Score:4, Informative)

      by JordanH (75307) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:52PM (#3347491) Homepage Journal
      Not only that, but you can trade:

      • Free

      For:

      • "All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files

      If you buy the product your Apache from Covalent [covalent.net]. They offer all kinds of Enterprise services to support Apache, too, so there goes the one about Apache not having a support organization behind it like IIS.

    • Re:So Lets See (Score:2, Informative)

      by doorbot.com (184378)
      Obviously the point-and-click interface is far too limited for configuring. I'd like to present my "think and type" method of input, patent pending of course. If you'd like to license this technology, please type me up an email. Please note that in doing so I will be forced to charge you (retroactively) for previous use of my technology.

      But seriously, is editing a file such a big deal? What did people do with DOS and autoexec.bat files? Cower away in fear?
    • by TaoJones (10412) on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:19PM (#3347606)
      Mmm, so editing a well documented text file is hard, while drilling down through a badly documented menu system (which reinstalls Visual Basic Scripting in the background without asking) is easy...


      I'll take hard for $200 Alex...

    • you forgot on the plus side:

      - can upgrade web server without OS reboot
      - uses simple .conf files for config instead of registry or god knows what
  • ASP Support (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Fuzion (261632)
    Most places use IIS because they want to use ASP as their scripting language, instead of Perl/PHP. What is the performance like with an ASP parser?
    I don't think too many people will switchover, if it means having to rewrite all their ASP code, or if using an ASP parser is slower than using IIS, especially since IIS is free (if you have Windows), whereas the chilisoft asp parser costs money.
    I don't know of any other free asp parsers. But, if there were ones that offered comparable performance, I'm sure a lot of people would switch over.
    • Ha! IIS is only "free" if you have Windows Server, lowly little XP Pro only allows for 1-3 connections I believe. Not very useful for much of anything really.
  • Just awful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rocjoe71 (545053) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:38PM (#3347418) Homepage
    ...What a bad article. Starting off by claiming Apache 2 outperforms IIS in their very own tests, yet making not one iota of these alleged "tests" available. Really an artivle like this does a dis-service to Apache and Linux, smacking of evangelism.
  • The news blurb doesn't go into any detail as to HOW they benchmarked it (for all I know, they might've tested only static web pages and CGI applications)... does anyone know how well it runs ISAPI applications? And is it easy to set up to be able to run ISAPI applications?

    (An ISAPI application is basically a DLL files that is loaded into memory and it stays in memory until it was 'halted' by an administrator, thus giving it a protential performance boost over CGI applications. That's the theory, anyway..)
    • I evaluated this myself. I can't benchmark the performance, but it seemed adequate, ie I couldn't see the difference (but the DLL we use spends most of its time making TCP connections to another box, so if there's something funky that ISAPI DLLs do that means they're making lots of calls to their caller, then my experience will not be that valuable.)

      It works fine, just make sure you use the configuration option (I forget which, but it's on the ISAPI page in the Apache 2.0 docs) to keep the damned thing in memory, and if it still seems slow, double check the errors log as that will contain warnings if it couldn't preload the DLL for some reason (like a typo in the path or summat.) Unlike other configuration options, Apache will blissfully ignore errors with that particular setting.

      It's worth checking out.

  • Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MisterBlister (539957) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:51PM (#3347485) Homepage
    What a crappy 'comparison'. I'm no IIS fan (an understatement), but IIS's 'game' is ease of installation and administration....The headline claims that Apache 'beats IIS at its own game' and then goes on to say how Apache is harder to configure (though better than older versions) but that's ok because many experts believe GUI-based configurations are bad for security?

    Also, they don't even bother to publish any real results, all they say is "Apache kept pace with IIS during the entire test"..WTF does that mean in reality? Were they using dynamic pages or static? What were the software and hardware configs like? Numbers please?

    If this article were the other way around harping IIS over Apache 2.0, most Slashdotters would (rightly in that case too) be ripping it to shreds for being a flimsy piece of shit..Hopefully we can all see it for the garbage it is, even if in the end it supports our (well the majority of us, anyway) favorite web server.

    • I apologize for responding to my own post, but I forgot to add something...This article smacks of intentional Slashdotting. Someone at zdnet clearly knows that Slashdot will post any article that even hints at (Linux|Apache|OSS|Whatever > Microsoft). Why do the Slashdot editors keep being successfully trolled in this way? Ignore these stupid ass stories. They make me stupider for having read them.
    • Out of curiosity, is this Apache vanilla, with no apache modules plugged in? If so, what's the point of comparing it to IIS?
    • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Funny)

      by jchawk (127686)
      apt-get install apache

      Then some minor and I mean minor configuration and you have a webserver that is more robust and secure then IIS.

      You need php support?

      apt-get install php4

      Follow installation script.

      Man that's hard!

      :-)

      Maybe I'm just spoiled because I use debian.
      • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Sabalon (1684) on Monday April 15, 2002 @11:29PM (#3347894)

        C:\Program Files\Apache> apt-get install apache
        'apt-get' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
        operable program or batch file.

        C:\Program Files\Apache> apt-get install php4
        'apt-get' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
        operable program or batch file.


        So I now have apache with php support? :)

        It really is a shame that tools like that don't just work on Winders. Then again

        apt-get install secureMSwebserver

        would probably crash the OS.
  • I've always found it frustrating that the superior products produced by the Apache foundation are so sorely underrated by the mainstream media. Buzzwords like "BroadVision" and "WebSphere" are pounded into the heads of middle management by way of large advertising budgets. The truth is, however, that I can do anything a BroadVision developer can do *with no software cost whatsoever*

    Cocoon [apache.org] is a brilliant publishing system which combines many of the Apache projects: Xalan [apache.org] for XSLT transformations of all kinds, FOP [apache.org] for building dynamic PDFs (don't pay Adobe but use their format anyway :-) from XSL:FO, Batik [apache.org] for building dynamic SVGs, and a ton of library code that makes building dynamic websites very easy.

    Not to mention, Apache has provided us with solid implementations of *many* w3c and Java specifications, including SOAP [apache.org] for XML based RPC, and JServ [apache.org] and Tomcat [apache.org] Java servlet engines.

    My point is only this: appreciate The Apache Foundation because they totally rock!
    • by Micah (278)
      You're right -- when one browses the Apache sites, it's AMAZING how much stuff they've done, most of which few people know about or appreciate.

      Does anyone know of a good complete book on Apache, preferrably Apache 2 now that it's out, that covers most or all of these tools and puts it all together?

      The ONLY problem is that it seems as though most Apache projects now use Java, which I could personally live without.
  • IIS6 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by banky (9941) <gregg AT neurobashing DOT com> on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:52PM (#3347490) Homepage Journal
    I have read a number of things about IIS6: mostly that it is a from-scratch rewrite, with a particular eye on security. Also you can assume it'll perform pretty well.

    So, as much as I would like to see the world dump IIS in general, a lot of shops out there will probably just wait and move to IIS6 when .NET Server (or whatever it's called this week) comes out.

    They know how much is riding on this release. If IIS6 isn't tight, fast, and secure, then people will start jumping ship.
    • Re:IIS6 (Score:3, Insightful)

      mostly that it is a from-scratch rewrite, with a particular eye on security

      It will be interesting to see how this "from scratch rewrite" holds up security-wise. History has taught us that it usually takes a long time for a new code base to get the security holes wrung out.

      • by tshak (173364)
        Actually, you have to remember that a lot of security issues have to do with ASP. They are _NOT_ rewriting the ASP ISAPI, so any related security issues will not be affected by the rewrite. They have rewritten IIS6 with a focus on bounds checking due to the ludicrous amounts of buffer overflow holes. Companies will also be moveing away from the clumsy ASP to the not-even-in-the-same-league ASP.NET which is, in theory, a lot more secure.

    • Re:IIS6 (Score:2, Informative)

      by glob (23034)
      i hate to say this, but from what i've read of ii6, it looks like microsoft are finially listening to sysadmin.

      check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/03/IIS 6/IIS6.asp

      the main things that jump out at me are it uses xml as their metabase (finially i can use my perl scripts to *eaisly* maintain iis sties) and ftp *finially* supports chroot.

  • by bje2 (533276) on Monday April 15, 2002 @09:55PM (#3347511)
    should've been Apache 2.0 scalps IIS...
  • .conf files (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lothix (572891) on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:18PM (#3347595)
    Dealing with .conf files instead of a GUI interface is an _advantage_ not a disadvantage. If we really needed a GUI frontend for making changes to a conf file there would be a bunch of them floating around. It takes no time to slap one together. In fact, IBM HTTP Server which is a "cutified" apache comes with a web form interface for configuring .conf files. Of course I've never seen anyone use it because it is quicker and easier to edit a text file than dig around in interface panels.
  • PHP 4.X support. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shri (17709) <shriramc@gm a i l .com> on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:21PM (#3347614) Homepage
    One of these days PHP will support [theaimsgroup.com] Apache 2.0 and then we can revisit these benchmarks. Until then I'll write this off as a Zdnet troll for Slashdot attention.
    • Re:PHP 4.X support. (Score:2, Informative)

      by shri (17709)
      As the article says. If you're running a 1.current release of Apache on Linux, there is no significant reason to switch over.

      On Unix, don't expect a big performance boost with the new release. In tests of Apache 2.0 vs. Apache 1.3.24 running on Red Hat Inc.'s Red Hat Linux 7.2, performance was nearly identical (though still very good). However, platforms such as Solaris and AIX, where a process switch is relatively slower than it is on Linux, will benefit much more from Apache 2.0's hybrid process/thread design.
    • I'm running Apache 2.0.35 and php 4.3.0-dev (CVS checkout from last night) right now. Flawless install. I've setup apache from source many many times and Apache 2.0.x leaves 1.3.x for dead. Very Cool.

      http://home.y3m.net/ if you want to bang on it.
  • by coupland (160334) <dchaseNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:31PM (#3347659) Journal

    I'm a big fan of Apache too, but this article is a piece of crap. They assert Apache 2.0 is as fast as IIS 5.0 on Windows but offer no benchmarks. They acknowledge that IIS had 10 security alerts this past week but offer no equivalent stat for Apache. (A thousand? Zero?) They don't even acknowledge that moving from IIS to Apache is a potentially career-ending chore. I love good reviews of OSS as much as the rest but this was more of a videobit than an actual article...

  • by BurritoWarrior (90481) on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:44PM (#3347711)
    Yeah, the article is weak and has no details whatsover, but the average management schmo has little to no knowledge about how a product works anyway. They read mags like eWeek and base their decisions on just these kinds of articles.

    So drop a copy on his desk with a little note about "same performance, better security." See how nice that sounds. :-D
  • Hard to Configure (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cgreuter (82182) on Monday April 15, 2002 @10:57PM (#3347751)
    I think it says something about the state of IT when they consider it
    a downside that Apache doesn't have a point-and-click web-based
    configuration tool.

    The only advantage of such interfaces is that they're friendly to
    novices, which is all well and good when you're dealing with a word
    processor or e-mail client, but this is a web server. Anyone
    who uses one for anything other than a toy needs to be (or to hire) a
    skilled professional just to keep the thing running and up to date.
    Anyone who finds editing a text file intimidating has no business
    administrating any kind of server.

    Heck--I wouldn't hire a web administrator who couldn't write
    their own point-and-click configuration tool.

  • by kirkb (158552)
    Instead of "Apache beats IIS at its own game", they could've said "Apache beats IIS at the not-getting-0wned game". :)
  • Obviously Apache will beat IIS at Apache's own game.
  • The only problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday April 15, 2002 @11:46PM (#3347959) Homepage
    Apache is eons ahead of IIS in terms of usability and reliability, but the big fat problem is that IIS natively runs VBScript/ASP, while Apache does not (and Chilisoft doesn't always cut the mustard). Lots of companies are somewhat locked-in to IIS because of their existing VBScript code which they're not willing to port to PHP or Perl, either because of ignorance or lack of resources (time, money, brains). If we could somehow create a 99.9% functional VBScript parser for Apache, then Apache could swallow up a very large bunch of IIS users in one quick bite.
  • Didja ever notice that the MS-controlled press always has some nice things to say about open source whenever Microsoft has a court date coming up?

    It's more than a little suspicious.
  • Finally, results from an unbiased source - not endorsed/sponsored by a linux company, or Microsoft. This is when you can truly say, "Hey, look. Apache beat IIS in a fair contest." and no one can complain otherwise.
  • .conf Files (Score:3, Interesting)

    by loconet (415875) on Tuesday April 16, 2002 @01:25AM (#3348308) Homepage
    One question that popped up in my mind while reading the article is: why doesn't the apache team use .xml files for the configuration files like almost every other server these days? ie: weblogic,tomcat,etc..

    Not only do I find editing xml easier than .conf 's, but also to keep the mainstream masses happy... I'm sure it'll be easier for us oss developers to come up with nice gui interfaces to manage the server by reading xml files rather than parsing the .conf files.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...