eWeek: Apache 2.0 Trumps IIS 491
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."
How well can it run ASP? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it can handle ASP, there could be a lot of changeover. If not, then most 'hard core' M$ shops won't change.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:2)
Re:free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:2, Flamebait)
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!
Re:free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:2)
Re:free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:3, Informative)
Re:free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:free ASP support would switch small shops (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, what's your IP?
C-X C-S
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:5, Informative)
When people ask if it supports ASP, they usually mean, does it execute ASP pages that contain code in VBScript or Microsoft's JScript.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:2)
What's not to like about ColdFusion? It even runs on your precious Linux, Solaris, NT, and several Unices. Your developers can code once and it will run on any platform.
Would you run Amazon.com on ColdFusion? Probably not. But 99% of people aren't building Amazon.com, are they?
I'd encourage you to:
1. Grow up;
2. Take a look at the evaluation version of ColdFusion server, show it to your HTML people and watch them smile as they realize that there IS a lanaguage you don't have to be a computer science major to understand. Yes, it's $1,200. That's 8-10 hours of billable time for a consulting firm. You'll save that much time on the FIRST job you do.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:2)
ColdFusion is certainly functional, but not very robust. Can it do most of the basic things that other server-side languages do? Sure. But with the advent of MVC models such as Struts [apache.org] this need is diminished. Or if Struts is too much, then you can build your own custom tags, or use existing JSP custom tag libraries [apache.org]. This allows for your non-CS HTML people to do things such as:
The last project I worked on used this, and the designers (HTML people, with some basic JavaScript experience) were able to pick up on it after a single half-day meeting. Very simple, very straightforward, very robust, and you don't have to drop several thousand bucks into a technology that even Macromedia is showing signs of moving away from.
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it this way, if they were using ColdFusion, your HTML guys could have written it themselves, rather than relying on an admin (you) to provide them with a custom tag!
And who provides them with the ColdFusion tags? An administrator! Look you big dork, if you think that runninng a freaking web site without a web administrator is a desirable thing then you have much bigger problems to worry about. Somebody is going to have to install the software. Jesus!
Look man, I'm being serious: ColdFusion is dying. If you are basing your career upon it I would seriously advise you to at least look into learning other technologies. It's proprietary, doesn't scale well, and is only supported by a single vendor. And Macromedia's energies seem to be increasing steadily over to JRun. I have been involved with over a dozen web applications from design to launch utilizing several different technologies, of which ColdFusion was a part. Very few people in the industry like ColdFusion or even take it seriously, and they have good reasons for that. Trust me.
Look for mod_aspnet (Score:2, Informative)
L8ers IIS
Re:How well can it run ASP? (Score:2)
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?
Are you high?? (Score:3, Informative)
PHP is cryptic and slow. Just check out the stats on the shootout [bagley.org] pages. PHP routinely gets stomped in the tests by perl, Java, Ruby and Python. Seeing as how you can write an ASP in perl, vbScript, or ECMAScript, I dare say an ASP solution would win as well. Several? Try two.
Sorry. ASP is a framework, PHP is a language. I seriously doubt that PHP has that much of an edge over vbscript, but if I decide to write an ASP with C#, your PHP script is *doomed*.
File this review under... (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah but.. (Score:4, Funny)
heh. nevermind.
Re:Yeah but.. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Yeah but.. (Score:2)
it should be pretty obvious but it's nice they do state it also
Re:Yeah but.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You got it backwards... (Score:5, Informative)
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
You have to know how to talk to clients. (Score:2)
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!!!
Ok, but what about linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ok, but what about linux? (Score:2)
I meant IIS on WINDOWS vs. Apache 2.0 on linux. mmkay?
I smell horseshit in this article (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Have we all forgotten (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Have we all forgotten (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Have we all forgotten (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time (Score:5, Informative)
"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)
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)
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.
Re:Every time (Score:2)
And also "over the web" configuration managers ( configure Apache, using Apache :-) )- eg WebMin [webmin.com] (screen shot of apache module [webmin.com]).
Re:Every time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Every time (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Every time (Score:2)
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)
And ofcourse you have more flexibility in configuration files, to type in strange custom configurations that a gui designed would never expect.
Answering one's own questions is lame. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Every time (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality a text file configuration is worth a million GUI config tools.
windows version (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Downside
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
I liken configuring IIS to trying to do CSS in VS, it's a real neat tool and all, but I'm better off editing a text file to get it done. I'm also more confident in the security of Apache when I configure it. It's so easy to determine who has access to what, and what rights they have there.
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
Has Apache switched to XML conf files yet? There's nothing like a schema to make sure you've typed the right things.
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
Re:So Lets See (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
For:
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)
But seriously, is editing a file such a big deal? What did people do with DOS and autoexec.bat files? Cower away in fear?
Re:So Lets See (Score:4, Funny)
I'll take hard for $200 Alex...
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
- can upgrade web server without OS reboot
- uses simple
Re:So Lets See (Score:2)
ASP Support (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:ASP Support (Score:2)
Just awful (Score:3, Insightful)
ISAPI applictions (Score:2, Insightful)
(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..)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:newbie? (Score:2)
Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Apache is consistently underrated by the media (Score:5, Informative)
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
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!
Book? (Score:2)
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)
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
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)
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.
Re:IIS6 (Score:2)
Re:IIS6 (Score:2, Informative)
check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/03/II
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.
Re:IIS6 (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, I used to have arguments that went like this all the time:
IIS User: IIS is faster and easier to use!
Me: Apache is more stable, more secure by default, and easier to extend.
IU: But I can handle 20 bazillion hits a nanosecond, your site can't scale.
Me: Whatever.
IU: Ha, I bet you can barely saturate a T1! etc
Microsoft is obsessed with performance because performance benchmarks give "tangible" proof of goodness. They are not obsessed with security, because features are more important. Or were; who knows what it's like there now.
better title.... (Score:5, Funny)
.conf files (Score:5, Insightful)
PHP 4.X support. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:PHP 4.X support. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:PHP 4.X support. (OT: Support is there) (Score:3, Interesting)
http://home.y3m.net/ if you want to bang on it.
Re:PHP 4.X support. (Score:2)
I'll hold off till Apache 2.1 and a later build of PHP before I move my websites to it. Again, I'll only do that if there is a major performance increase. The bottle necks I have right now on my website are related to mod_gzip and php ( generating dynamic content ), NOT related to Apache serving the content once its generated.
I've not researched Apache 2.0 well enough and there arent enough articles which document the performance increases in dynamic environments with Apache 2.0.
This article is just reverse-FUD... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:This article is just reverse-FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)
No benchmarks? (Score:3, Informative)
Managers not Admins (Score:3, Insightful)
So drop a copy on his desk with a little note about "same performance, better security." See how nice that sounds.
Hard to Configure (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Watch the slashdot effect in action! (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words... (Score:2, Funny)
Well of course... (Score:2)
The only problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Didja ever notice... (Score:2)
It's more than a little suspicious.
Finally (Score:2)
.conf Files (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only do I find editing xml easier than
Re:10,000,000 active web sites can't be wrong..... (Score:2, Interesting)
2 words: (Score:2)
Oranges because unix heads are generally bitter-that their infinitely superior operating system is often looked over as antiquated and requires "eXPensive eXPerts", and being hard to use, among other things.
Apples because the serpent (oops, I really meant salesperson--not) pitching Windows makes users expect to have a sweet eXPerience, flying over luscious green meadows, but in all reality do little that's actually useful.
In case you missed my point: Servers (oh the shiny pretty oranges) are not meant to be home or office computers (apples being too sweet to actually be good for you, damn those serpents.)
When you want do get work done, choose the right tool. Sometimes it's Windows, sometimes it's a Mac, and sometimes it's a 64 processor Sun, or IBM, or SGI, or what have you.
IMHO, Oranges are better tasting anyway.
Re:pot calling the kettle black.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Performance gains (Score:2, Insightful)