Miscellaneous > The Lounge

How about making a peace?

<< < (2/2)

voidmain:
Those are good reasons Preacher but I do not agree that cost is the primary reason for Apache's success, in fact has very little to do with it.

Apache is popular because it is not proprietay (runs on nearly every OS known to man), It is far more secure, more versatile, and all statistics I have seen (that aren't backed by Redmond) show that it outperforms IIS. Remember Apache runs on large Sun, IBM or Linux clusters, even on mainframes.

Maybe IIS will outperform Apache on Windows (I haven't looked at the performance data in some time), but no one in their right mind runs Apache on Windows. That's like putting steel doors on your cardboard house so no one will break in. IIS only runs on Windows and the Windows/IIS combo is about the least secure combo you can have.

Of course when the Linux/Apache combo starts out being better than Windows/IIS, being free certainly is a bonus.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

KernelPanic:
Can somebody just remind me what google runs on again?

Oh no n/m, i've remembered, it's clustered linux.

preacher:
Apache's success isnt just based on cost(although if it was as expensive as IIS, Im sure it wouldnt be nearly as popular). Actually there are quite a few sites that do run apache on windows 2000, one of which happens to be internet security site antionline.com. I have seen quite a few comparison tests between the Apache webserver 1.3.x, IIS, Zeus, Netscape Enterprise, and a few others, and IIS does hold its own for high loads, although it is outclassed usually by Zeus. IIS did beat apache in most of these tests, however I believe that apache 2.0.x performs equally or superior to IIS. Im not a microsoft fan, however I am willing to admit that windows systems are capable of being extremely secure. If this wasnt possible then why would anyone run it at all? I think the true difference between the security in linux and windows is the intelligence of the system administrators. Most linux sys admins seem to be more technically savvy and keep their systems more secure.

 
quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
Those are good reasons Preacher but I do not agree that cost is the primary reason for Apache's success, in fact has very little to do with it.

Apache is popular because it is not proprietay (runs on nearly every OS known to man), It is far more secure, more versatile, and all statistics I have seen (that aren't backed by Redmond) show that it outperforms IIS. Remember Apache runs on large Sun, IBM or Linux clusters, even on mainframes.

Maybe IIS will outperform Apache on Windows (I haven't looked at the performance data in some time), but no one in their right mind runs Apache on Windows. That's like putting steel doors on your cardboard house so no one will break in. IIS only runs on Windows and the Windows/IIS combo is about the least secure combo you can have.

Of course when the Linux/Apache combo starts out being better than Windows/IIS, being free certainly is a bonus.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
--- End quote ---

voidmain:
But IIS is also free (as in beer). Why would anyone run Apache on a Windows box when both cost them no extra? It's because IIS sucks and is full of holes. The cost has little or nothing to do with why one is used over another, especially since they both are free.

Here's a good link that interestingly appears to be hosted on an IIS server:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,3763,00.asp

And let's compare performance of Apache and IIS on a Sun Fire 15K server with 106 CPUs. Oh yeah, IIS won't run on that (Apache=versatility).

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

Master of Reality:
i just wanted to add a reply with the word 'fuck' in it, because i like the word 'fuck'. Who else likes the word 'fuck'? They are saying fuck on TV... its funny.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page