I don't want a Linux box anymore

[heedoyiu]

all it is is free unix, yah yah great great

yah if you love unix.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Nope, you are right... It is #1 as far as the numbers go. I am not sure how it would rank in terms of complete revenue or people hosted per day, something that most likely could not be analyzed.

Link that contains a lot of information on the subject here.

Edit ** But IIS isn't doing to shabby in terms of numbers. Considering that Apache is free, and well, MS is about 1K at the cheapest... I can understand why someone would use Apache, it makes sense for a lot of small businesses. I would be interested to see an statistic for giant domains, excluding the small fries. Such as domains with 100,000 hits a day. Would it be the same? Maybe. Just curious is all... I know some giant sites use Apache, so it does the job, that is for sure. The numbers speak for themselves.

Apache isn't used becuase it's "free", it's used because it's more robust, flexible, secure, faster, easier....the list goes on.

I get so damn frustrated with IIS. You have a million property boxes with multiple tabs. A single config file would be MUCH easier to manage (and backup your config)

can you chroot the IIS process? I know that when I review my webserver logs, I get alot of IIS exploit scripts hitting it, trying to overflow the buffer and get cmd.exe

LINK

Although the underlying configuration is primarily stored in an XML-based text file, the IIS system

Reason enough not to use IIS. *shudder*

That link is a bizzare comparision anyways. IIS supports perl? Who would want to subject themselves to perl on Windows voluntarily anyways? They claim that Python is supported also, but with Window's almost complete lack of any dependancy management or automatic update facilities for non-MS stuff pretty much puts a halt to that one pretty quick (and obviously IIS can't run on Linux-based OSes or FreeBSD so that's the end of that)

Apache now has pretty much full support for ASP.NET itself, but it wouldn't nessicarially be my first choice for server to be deployed specificly for that language either.

Edit ** But IIS isn't doing to shabby in terms of numbers. Considering that Apache is free, and well, MS is about 1K at the cheapest... I can understand why someone would use Apache, it makes sense for a lot of small businesses. I would be interested to see an statistic for giant domains, excluding the small fries. Such as domains with 100,000 hits a day. Would it be the same? Maybe. Just curious is all... I know some giant sites use Apache, so it does the job, that is for sure. The numbers speak for themselves.

Stuff like that is more difficult.
According to this site it lists the top busiest 'business' websites. About 50 of them. I don't know how new it is, I don't know how accurate it is. I'm assuming it's so-so and so 'good enough'.

I just went to netcraft.com and looked them up. Beware though.. they may be using proxy service. For instance for many months Microsoft used a proxy service to protect against DOS attacks and such so when doing searches on their websites showed up Linux as the OS and not the real Windows stuff.

1. www.yahoo.com -- FreeBSD (assuming apache)
2. www.msn.com -- Microsoft-IIS/6.0
3. www.google.com -- Linux GWS/2.1 (google webserver, probably a highly modified apache system)
4. www.yahoo.co.jp -- FreeBSD (assuming apache)
5. www.sina.com.cn -- FreeBSD Apache/2.0.54
6. www.passport.net -- Microsoft-IIS/6.0
7. www.baidu.com -- Linux Apache 1.3.27
8. www.ebay.com -- Microsoft-IIS/6.0 and 5.0
9. www.sohu.com -- SCO Unix Apache 1.3.3 + mods
10. www.163.com -- Linux Apache/2.0.50
11. www.microsoft.com -- Microsoft-IIS/6.0
12. Amazon.com -- Linux Apache
13. www.3721.com -- FreeBSD unknown
14. www.qq.com -- Linux Apache/2.0.50
15. www.daum.net -- Linux Apache
16. www.naver.com -- Linux Apache
17. www.nate.com -- Linux Apache
18. www.fastclick.com -- unkown/linux apache
19. www.google.co.uk -- Linux GWS/2.1
20. www.aol.com -- Linux AOLserver/4.0.9b (not apache btw)
21. www.google.co.jp -- Linux GWS/2.1
22. www.go.com -- Microsoft-IIS/5.0
23. www.bbc.co.uk -- Solaris 9 Apache/2.0.54
24. www.taobao.com -- Linux Apache
also reports Linux using IIS server so seems likely to be a proxy setup, but that's hard to say.
reports
IIS/5.20.48 Win32
IIS
Apache/2.0.46 Unix
at different times.
25. www.cnn.com -- Linux Apache
26. www.tom.com -- NetApp NetCache Apache/1.3.33 Unix PHP/4.3.10
27. www.xanga.com -- Microsoft-IIS/6.0
28. www.yisou.com -- FreeBSD unknown
29. www.myspace.com -- Microsoft-IIS/5.0
30. www.allyes.com -- Linux Apache/1.3.12 Unix
31. www.ebay.co.uk -- Microsoft-IIS/5.0 and 6.0
32 www.google.es -- Linux GWS/2.1
33. www.rakuten.co.jp -- Solaris 8 Apache
34. www.blogger.com -- Linux Apache (switched from IIS/50 just a few months ago)
35. www.doubleclick.com -- Microsoft-IIS/5.0
36. www.alibaba.com -- Linux Apache/1.3.29 Unix mod_alibaba/1.0
37. www.google.ca -- Linux GWS/2.1
38. www.comcast.net -- Solaris 8 Netscape-Enterprise/6.0
39. www.google.de -- Linux GWS/2.1
40. www.gator.com -- unknown Apache
41. www.googlesyndication.com -- Linux GWS/2.1
42. www.21cn.com -- unknown Apache
43. www.chinaren.com -- SCO UNIX Apache/1.3.33 Unix
44. www.imdb.com -- Linux Apache
45. www.livedoor.com -- FreeBSD Apache/1.3.33 Unix mod_perl/1.29
46. www.craigslist.org -- unknown Apache/1.3.33 Unix
47. www.casalemedia.com -- Linux Apache
48. www.adultfriendfinder.com -- unknown/Linux Apache
49. www.newsgroup.com.hk -- Microsoft-IIS/6.0
50. www.overture.com -- Solaris 8 Apache/1.3.27 Unix

So there you go. Busiest commercial websites on the planet, apparently.

Another thing that is unique about Apache, but it's immediately noticable, is that most people don't run the 'official' Apache from the Apache project. Lots of people run patched earlier versions or heavily modified things like used by Google. Probably this flexibility has helped lead it to it's widespread adoption.