Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game

eWeek/Slashdot ^ | April 15, 2002 | Jim Rapoza

[milestogo]

Enterprises last week had 11 more reasons to rethink using IIS: 10 new security holes in the Microsoft Web server and the arrival of Apache 2.0. 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.

[egarvue]

Thanks for the article. Now if Chilisoft's ASP plugin would support Apache 2.0, I would have a chance of convincing the powers that be here in our shop to try switching over to Apache.

[smith288]

Ahh, a bash MS party.

[milestogo]

One potential gotcha for organizations that wish to move to Apache from IIS is the open-source server's unfriendly administration interface: All configuration and administration is done by editing .conf files, although Version 2.0 has greatly streamlined configuration directives.

[rdb3]

Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game

As has beat it for quite some time now.

[rdb3]

Ahh, a bash MS party.

Really? I didn't read any bashing in the article. What are you talking about?

[smith288]

no posts......yet.

[rdb3]

no posts......yet.

Oh. You're just inviting "bashing" even though there wasn't any so far.

I see.

[Naspino]

When will the open-source people realize that a user interface IS VALUABLE. I'd never switch to the open-source crowd until that happens. I find that time after time I download an open-source program, read through the brief install guide which informs me that I have to download six other open-source programs that are required for the one I want to run. Then each of those has their own requirements and text-based configurations. After 4-5 hours of configuring text files; the program rarely works and I end up an a message board finding out all of the undocumented issues.

With a closed-source program I click on a file and in 10 seconds the whole thing is up and running. Face it: money = quality.

[smith288]

Yep...inviting... All about my infatuation with nerd fights... I attend support groups but obviously they arent helping.

[ikka]

You need to use OpenBSD (www.openbsd.org) then. Every program has a makefile that automatically calculates dependencies, downloads them and compiles them for you, then builds the program. Just typing "make", then "make install" will compile and build the program.

[mykej]

When will the open-source people realize that a user interface IS VALUABLE.

I'll agree UI is important, but I content that the best UI for server software is command line/config file based. Apache offers MUCH more flexibility in administration, adn is far more secure too.

Being able to do things like having perl in your config files is a godsend. It's nearly impossible to remain sane trying to administer an IIS machine with more than a couple of virtual domains. Apache's UI makes it easy to run hundreds of web sites off one box.

The thing to remeber is that ease of learning is not the same as ease of use. It may take you longer to get up to speed using a CLI, but you can be far more productive(for some tasks) than you can with a GUI.

Your argument about money==quality doesn't stand up in the server world either. Apache is the fastest, most stable web server in the world. Nothing touches it.

There are some crap freeware servers though. IIS springs to mind. Too bad nobody can go in and fix the problems.

For the person who was considering ChilliSoft, be careful. If you're absolutely wedded to ASP development, I'd probably stick with IIS. I've set up ChilliSoft a few times and never had anything but trouble. YMMV, and I hope it does. Just in my experience the extra cash involved in running IIS was deemed to be a lower barrier than trying to get ChilliSoft working properly. If you're starting from scratch, rather than porting an existing project, I'll bet it will go a LOT more smoothly. Good luck.

[egarvue]

Yeah, its all about porting. We have too many ASP apps (written in VBS) here to re-write. I know there's some tools out there that (halfway) convert ASP to PHP, but I am doubtful of the stability of the code they produce.

[B Knotts]

Or debian:

apt-get install <program>

Done.

[texlok]

The way I see it, I'd rather be editing text files than having everything hidden from me. I know exactly where everything is at, and it's much easier to backup and restore than something like IIS, which tries to make everything as simple as possible, which is not what is needed in running servers.

[general_re]

Apache is the fastest, most stable web server in the world. Nothing touches it.

I dunno about that. Zeus is significantly faster than Apache in many respects, and no slouch for stability either.

[rdb3]

Obviously.

[rdb3]

I have to agree that Zeus is good. I haven't used it much, but, from what I have seen it rocks.

[rdb3]

When will the open-source people realize that a user interface IS VALUABLE. I'd never switch to the open-source crowd until that happens.

It all depends on who you are and what you are using something for. For Sys and Net admins, security is job one. Open-Source gives you complete control since nothing is hidden from view. If a problem arises, those in the Open-Source community realize it and fix it immediately. This is possible because thousands upon thousands of eyes are looking directly at the code. A UI system that has a problem has a serious drawback here. You would have to wait for the software company to fix and issue a patch.

Money = quality? In most things, yes, this is true. But this is not 100% accurate. For web serving and security, I'll take Apache and/or Zeus any day of the week over IIS. From all the stupid MS bashing that occurs, most of it is irrelevant. But there is one criticism I give to Gates & Co. that simply infuriates me: SECURITY. A corporation the size of MS and that has the resources of MS has no excuse whatsoever for selling software that has back door after back door after back door being open! It's inexcusable. This is why I, personally speaking, shy away from MS products. But I don't beat you up for choosing MS. It's your choice. This flies in the face of "money = quality" as an argument.

[Bush2000]

You need to use OpenBSD (www.openbsd.org) then. Every program has a makefile that automatically calculates dependencies, downloads them and compiles them for you, then builds the program. Just typing "make", then "make install" will compile and build the program.

Thanks for proving his point. He said a "USER INTERFACE is valuable". You offer him command-line crap. Thanks for nothing.