The Ol' Apache vs IIS Netcraft Story

Reading the comments to this article on Slashdot made me vomit in my mouth.  Hey, Apache is great.  It's free!  My sister is paying $3 a month for a decent host for service.  How are they able to charge so little?  Because they pay nothing for the software, and the have some pretty talented people working there for real cheap.  But reading through the comments about people switching to Apache because IIS is hard to configure, applications crash on it more (wtf?) and that IIS is chock full of holes and are constantly being hacked is just plain retarded. 

The reason that Apache is so far ahead is because my little sister wants a website, and wants to spend $3 bucks on it.  You have every Tom, Dick and Dimtry out there with a weblog, pictures of their dog, crappy gaming and/or hardware site and that starts to add up.  Not to mention people who are simply squatting domains and pointing them towards some Apache server out there. 

As many people know, a scan of the fortune 1000 sites by Port80 Software puts Microsoft 54.1% of the market share, with Netscape's server in second place.  Take what you will of that information, but the fact remains that companies are choosing IIS or Netscape server for many reasons, not just technical.  It is simply easier to work with and there is a much great sense of security for companies.  I'm not trying to knock Apache, I think it is swell.  But I don't think that because a bunch of porn sites and weblogs are running Apache is any reason to pat yourself on the back and fire off a good round of Microsoft bashing. 

Now one thing is interesting about this is that you commonly hear that the reason you see more attacks against MS is because their software has a bigger market share.  Apache clearly has a bigger marketshare, but you don't hear about any Nimda type attacks against Apache.  Hmmmmm.

Sorry about this, but sometimes when I read the comments on slashdot I need to get it out of my system.  Otherwise what I read would rattle around in my brain until blood actually shot out of my eyes.

6 Comments

  • The whole premise of the apache vs IIS argument is a bit daft anyway as it's comparing apples to oranges. Apache is an excellent server for static webpages, as is IIS. Most issues in IIS come about from implementation of various scripting extensions such as hdr and asp. When you add server products to Apache, it starts to suffer similar problems e.g. search through securityfocus vulnerability archives and look at the large number of php or jsp security holes. Almost all of these were exploited on Apache installations, but are not regarded as Apache bugs.



  • I do not like to vomit. It’s tacky and messy; therefore I do not read Slashdot.

  • Both servers rock!

  • I like that comment - both servers are excellent.

  • i think apache is a great server - in its own right. iis also has its place. they (like mark said) simply serve different purposes. for my part, i like to believe that companies prefer to go with iis simply because they want someone to be responsible for whatever may come up. i may be wrong, but that's just MO. besides, anyhow, numbskulls will still bash ms (i don't love them either), whether or not they have facts.

  • For me the funny thing is that I choose Microsoft over Open Source not because of which product is better, I just can't stand the attitude of the free community. Anyone been not www.unixsucks.com?

Comments have been disabled for this content.