By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,131 Members | 1,728 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,131 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Can you guess what this is?

P: n/a
asj
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.

I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?
Nov 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
29 Replies


P: n/a
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.

I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?

Ya all those eval versions of Winblows 2003 are going to be timing out
soon also! :)
Nov 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
CJT
Freeride wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:

Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.

I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?


Ya all those eval versions of Winblows 2003 are going to be timing out
soon also! :)


Not for a couple more months.

Nov 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
In comp.lang.java.advocacy asj <ka*******@yahoo.com> wrote:

: In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
: marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

: Can you guess when it started to really sink?

: bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
: viruses in mid-2002.

: I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?

You would think that about the only virus family likely to have taken out
many Windows server configurations is MSBlast.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1.org
Nov 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
ka*******@yahoo.com (asj) wrote in message news:<38*************************@posting.google.c om>...
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.

I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?


A shirt I saw at DefCon 2003 (which happened *just* before Blaster,
etc.):

front - Social Engineering
back - Because there is no patch for human stupidity

Of course this referred to Kevin Mitnick's asking people for
passwords, but it's still kinda funny in this context too...
Nov 22 '05 #5

P: n/a
On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.
You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down quite a
bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to recover.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was 3
years ago.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.
What are you talking about? Code-Red and Nimda were in 2001, not mid-2002.

In fact, there were no new viruses or worms that effected IIS in all of
2002. The problem is that at this point, what we're seeing is the sway of
a few large hosting companies choices, not a mass exodus.
I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?


I don't know, you seem to be doing a good job. Not one claim you made in
this message is accurate.
Nov 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
: On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:

:> Can you guess what this is?
:>
:> http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif
:>
:> It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
:> painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.
:>
:> In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
:> marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

: You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
: roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down quite a
: bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to recover.

Apache has more of the market now than ever before.

: Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was 3
: years ago.

It has dropped from its high, though - from 35% to 23.75%.

Apache never lost a third of its market share like that.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1.org
Nov 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.


You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down
quite a bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to
recover.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was
3 years ago.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html
Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.


What are you talking about? Code-Red and Nimda were in 2001, not
mid-2002.

In fact, there were no new viruses or worms that effected IIS in all
of
2002. The problem is that at this point, what we're seeing is the
sway of a few large hosting companies choices, not a mass exodus.
I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?


I don't know, you seem to be doing a good job. Not one claim you made
in this message is accurate.

Erik, you should cut your losses with this one. IIS is the worst server
application ever. The marketplace is finally figuring this one out.
Your continuous advocacy for IIS is making it even more difficult for
you to appear credible.

--
11:10am up 23:25, 1 user, load average: 1.31, 1.29, 1.14
95 processes: 90 sleeping, 5 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 0.7% user, 0.7% system, 47.4% nice, 0.1% idle
To email me, change .com to .ca Linux Counter Registration #126647

Nov 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
> It has dropped from its high, though - from 35% to 23.75%.

Apache never lost a third of its market share like that.


I'm not saying what is better. But check your math...

35% to 23.75% is only 11.25%, which is far from a third (1/3, or 33%). It
is more like a third of a third, or 1/9th

--
Michael Lang, MCSD
Nov 22 '05 #9

P: n/a
Michael Lang <ml@nospam.com> wrote in
news:Xn********************************@207.46.248 .16:
It has dropped from its high, though - from 35% to 23.75%.

Apache never lost a third of its market share like that.


I'm not saying what is better. But check your math...

35% to 23.75% is only 11.25%, which is far from a third (1/3, or 33%).
It is more like a third of a third, or 1/9th


sorry,
i just noticed I misread that. I misinterprested your statement as a third
of "the" market share, not a third of "their" market share.

--
Michael Lang, MCSD

Nov 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:39:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
: On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:

:> Can you guess what this is?
:>
:> http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif
:>
:> It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
:> painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.
:>
:> In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
:> marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

: You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
: roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down quite a
: bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to recover.

Apache has more of the market now than ever before.
Just barely, after recovering from a nasty loss in share.
: Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was 3
: years ago.

It has dropped from its high, though - from 35% to 23.75%.

Apache never lost a third of its market share like that.


No, but Apache certainly lost just as mny, if not more sites at various
times. 1/3 is a lot more sites if you have 60% than it is if you have 30.
Nov 22 '05 #11

P: n/a
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:24:55 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.
You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down
quite a bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to
recover.


Bullshit Erik. Apache's market share is at an all time high. Something
that can't be said for, say, IIS, which is far below it's peak. In fact,
IIS has actually lost not only in market share, but in raw numbers, over
the last couple of years. In Dec 2001, IIS was on 11,156,732 sites
according to Netcraft. In September's survey, it's only on 10,156,289,
it's been dropping in raw numbers since April... Apache by contrast, has
the highest market share it's ever had, and is serving from more sites,
than ever before as well. So Erik You are full of shit on this.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was
3 years ago.

Slightly up from 3 years ago, and more than twice that down from it's
peak 18 months ago. IIS peaked in the March 2002 survey, in both raw
numbers, and market share, it's been a long slide downhill for IIS since
then. Compare that to Apache across the same timeframe, Apache is up in
raw numbers (from 20 million sites to 27 million) and market share (from
53% in march 2002, to 64% now)

This is getting to be a habit, you make wild unsubstantiated claims
about IIS or Apache and their performance in the Netcraft survey, and I
rip you to shreds with the facts.

Ouch!
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.


What are you talking about? Code-Red and Nimda were in 2001, not
mid-2002.

In fact, there were no new viruses or worms that effected IIS in all
of 2002. The problem is that at this point, what we're seeing is the
sway of a few large hosting companies choices, not a mass exodus.
I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?


I don't know, you seem to be doing a good job. Not one claim you made
in this message is accurate.

You might want to check your claims above Erik. Maybe a touch of
research next time, would help you.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/YABbd90bcYOAWPYRAt+vAKC68/fEytXfxH5TdSrL1fCI+LCIbQCfRNd7
Fizuk1GhLINE6QOs3meIVvQ=
=/bcz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Nov 22 '05 #12

P: n/a
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:30:17 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:39:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch
<er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
: On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:

:> Can you guess what this is? :> :>
http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif :> :> It's a
history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and :> painfully
sunk by the open source Apache web server. :> :> In September,
Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose :> marketshare
dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

: You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now
has : roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone
down quite a : bit in the last three years and has only recently been
able to recover.

Apache has more of the market now than ever before.


Just barely, after recovering from a nasty loss in share.
: Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it
was 3 : years ago.

It has dropped from its high, though - from 35% to 23.75%.

Apache never lost a third of its market share like that.


No, but Apache certainly lost just as mny, if not more sites at
various times. 1/3 is a lot more sites if you have 60% than it is if
you have 30.

Apache serves more sites than ever before, IIS, has lost over a million
sites in the last year, it's down in raw numbers, and market share,
Apache, is up in both raw numbers, and market share.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/YAC+d90bcYOAWPYRAmrxAKDVZkIgjQm+3iwsJmGpVyE8kwUpow Cgx1G7
P0eti4mHTtbdA2gK07vpq08=
=YD8e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Nov 22 '05 #13

P: n/a
Michael Lang <ml@nospam.com> wrote:
It has dropped from its high, though - from 35% to 23.75%.

Apache never lost a third of its market share like that.
I'm not saying what is better. But check your math... 35% to 23.75% is only 11.25%, which is far from a third (1/3, or 33%). It
is more like a third of a third, or 1/9th


By eck you're crap at maths.
35%/3=just over 11%. They lost just over 11%, therefore they lost 1/3 of
their share.
Nov 22 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:55:55 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:24:55 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:
Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.
You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down
quite a bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to
recover.


Bullshit Erik.


Bullshit? Anyone looking at the graph can see what i'm saying.
Apache's market share is at an all time high.
A misleading statement. It's true that it's at an all time high only
because it's essentially at the same level as it's previous all time high.
Something
that can't be said for, say, IIS, which is far below it's peak.
Interesting that you say "far below" it's peak. It's about 13% below it's
peak, however that peak was the result of only a few large sites waffling
between different OS's. IIS is only about 5% below it's average for the
last 2 years. Further, much of this loss is because of a some large sites
that have moved, not to Apache, but SunONE.
In fact,
IIS has actually lost not only in market share, but in raw numbers, over
the last couple of years.
And again, that's largely because of a few bulk providers that switched.
In Dec 2001, IIS was on 11,156,732 sites according to Netcraft.
In September's survey, it's only on 10,156,289,
it's been dropping in raw numbers since April... Apache by contrast, has
the highest market share it's ever had, and is serving from more sites,
than ever before as well. So Erik You are full of shit on this.
That drop is primarily the result of the switch to SunONE by Network
Solutions. As you can see from the August survey:

"Following on from last month, Microsoft continued to lose sites as Network
Solutions migrated the rest of their domain parking system back to Solaris
from a Windows based system hosted at Interland. This is primarily
responsible for Microsoft's 2.2% fall, with a net loss of 810,597 sites."

And the July Survey:

"SunONE's significant increase of 254,603 sites is primarily attributable
to Network Solutions' migrating around a quarter of a million parked sites
back to a Solaris platform. NSI originally ran its domain parking system on
Solaris, but moved large numbers of parked domains to a Microsoft-IIS
system hosted at Interland over a year ago. NSI still hosts a significant
number of parked sites at Interland."

Microsoft has maintained about the same number of sites for quite some
time, There has, however, been a fairly large increase in the total number
of sites over the last few months. In June, Netcraft only reported 40
million sites. In September, 43 million. Even without the loss of NSI,
MS's share would have gone down simply because it wasn't growing new sites
at very high rate.

Apache does seem to be gaining a lot of new sites, with most new sites
coming up on Apache. But the reasons for that are still unclear.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was
3 years ago.


Slightly up from 3 years ago, and more than twice that down from it's
peak 18 months ago.


An artificial peak, actually. It lasted only one month. Apache, however
is only half a percent higher than it was 3 years ago.
IIS peaked in the March 2002 survey, in both raw
numbers, and market share, it's been a long slide downhill for IIS since
then. Compare that to Apache across the same timeframe, Apache is up in
raw numbers (from 20 million sites to 27 million) and market share (from
53% in march 2002, to 64% now)
Largely at the cost of other web server platforms. It should also be noted
that Apache doesn't mean it's not Windows. Apache 2 was released in that
time frame, which provided far better performance than Apache 1.3 on
Windows. I would not be surprised if a large part of that gain by Apache
was Apache 2 on Windows.
This is getting to be a habit, you make wild unsubstantiated claims
about IIS or Apache and their performance in the Netcraft survey, and I
rip you to shreds with the facts.

Ouch!


You have done no such thing. The fact is, Apache does not have any
significantly better marketshare than it had 3 years ago. In September of
2000, IIS had a 19.56% market share. Apache had 60.02% market share.
Today, IIS has a 23.54% market share, and Apache has 64.52%. Or, roughly
the same growth in share in three years. Both have gained roughly 4% in
that time frame.

In other words, the statistics show identical growth, with variations from
month to month.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.


What are you talking about? Code-Red and Nimda were in 2001, not
mid-2002.

In fact, there were no new viruses or worms that effected IIS in all
of 2002. The problem is that at this point, what we're seeing is the
sway of a few large hosting companies choices, not a mass exodus.
I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?


I don't know, you seem to be doing a good job. Not one claim you made
in this message is accurate.


You might want to check your claims above Erik. Maybe a touch of
research next time, would help you.


Maybe you should do the same.
Nov 22 '05 #15

P: n/a
hey dumbass:

Notably, the number of sites switching from Linux has proportionately
kept pace since July when many commentators thought the 5% of sites
switched to Windows 2003 from Linux was an aberration.

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Nov 22 '05 #16

P: n/a
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:28:39 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:55:55 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:24:55 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:

Can you guess what this is?

http://www.blueboard.com/phone/apache_sept_2003.gif

It's a history of the IIs "Titanic", which is being slowly and
painfully sunk by the open source Apache web server.

In September, Microsoft's IIs web server again continued to lose
marketshare dramatically to the open source Apache web server.

You have a strange idea of what "dramatically" means. Apache now has
roughly the same market share it had 3 years ago. It had gone down
quite a bit in the last three years and has only recently been able to
recover.

Bullshit Erik.


Bullshit? Anyone looking at the graph can see what i'm saying.


Yes, Bullshit, Apache has not "gone down quite a bit in the last 3
years"
Apache's market share is at an all time high.


A misleading statement. It's true that it's at an all time high only
because it's essentially at the same level as it's previous all time high.


A factual statement. Apache, is at an all time high.
Something
that can't be said for, say, IIS, which is far below it's peak.
Interesting that you say "far below" it's peak. It's about 13% below it's
peak, however that peak was the result of only a few large sites waffling
between different OS's. IIS is only about 5% below it's average for the
last 2 years. Further, much of this loss is because of a some large sites
that have moved, not to Apache, but SunONE.


In March of 2002, IIS, was at it's peak wrt market share, 34%. Apache,
was low (for Apache) at 53%. Since then, Apache has risen to 64%, and
IIS has dropped to 23.5%. (A drop of 10.5 percentage *points* but a drop
of over 30% I don't know about you, but I call dropping 1/3 of your
market share, to be "far below"
In fact,
IIS has actually lost not only in market share, but in raw numbers, over
the last couple of years.


And again, that's largely because of a few bulk providers that switched.

The reasons are many, I agree that providers are abandoning IIS in
droves. That's sort of the point of the whole discussion. IIS down,
Apache up.

In Dec 2001, IIS was on 11,156,732 sites according to Netcraft.
In September's survey, it's only on 10,156,289,
it's been dropping in raw numbers since April... Apache by contrast, has
the highest market share it's ever had, and is serving from more sites,
than ever before as well. So Erik You are full of shit on this.
That drop is primarily the result of the switch to SunONE by Network
Solutions. As you can see from the August survey:

"Following on from last month, Microsoft continued to lose sites as Network
Solutions migrated the rest of their domain parking system back to Solaris
from a Windows based system hosted at Interland. This is primarily
responsible for Microsoft's 2.2% fall, with a net loss of 810,597 sites."

And the July Survey:

"SunONE's significant increase of 254,603 sites is primarily attributable
to Network Solutions' migrating around a quarter of a million parked sites
back to a Solaris platform. NSI originally ran its domain parking system on
Solaris, but moved large numbers of parked domains to a Microsoft-IIS
system hosted at Interland over a year ago. NSI still hosts a significant
number of parked sites at Interland."


SunONE's increases are nice, but your statement ignores the fact that
APache increased also. IIS may have been dumped by many, Apache, is
still gaining market share. Irrespective of who picks up the ex-IIS
accounts.
Microsoft has maintained about the same number of sites for quite some
time, There has, however, been a fairly large increase in the total number
of sites over the last few months. In June, Netcraft only reported 40
million sites. In September, 43 million. Even without the loss of NSI,
MS's share would have gone down simply because it wasn't growing new sites
at very high rate.

IIS at it's peak, in March 2002, served 12,968,860 sites according to
Netcraft. In september, it was down to 10,156,289. that's not "about the
same number" at all.
Apache does seem to be gaining a lot of new sites, with most new sites
coming up on Apache. But the reasons for that are still unclear.

People are choosing it over the alternatives, that seems very clear.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is still quite a bit higher than it was
3 years ago.


Slightly up from 3 years ago, and more than twice that down from it's
peak 18 months ago.


An artificial peak, actually. It lasted only one month. Apache, however
is only half a percent higher than it was 3 years ago.


Wrong again. In Sept 2000, apache was at 60.02, serving 12,705,194
sites, in September 2003, it's at 64.52 serving 27,836,622 sites.
Doesn't look like a half a percentage point to me. Must be Erik math.
IIS peaked in the March 2002 survey, in both raw
numbers, and market share, it's been a long slide downhill for IIS since
then. Compare that to Apache across the same timeframe, Apache is up in
raw numbers (from 20 million sites to 27 million) and market share (from
53% in march 2002, to 64% now)


Largely at the cost of other web server platforms. It should also be noted
that Apache doesn't mean it's not Windows. Apache 2 was released in that
time frame, which provided far better performance than Apache 1.3 on
Windows. I would not be surprised if a large part of that gain by Apache
was Apache 2 on Windows.


"Apache on Windows struggling?"

<http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/02/25/apache_on_windows_struggling.html>
This is getting to be a habit, you make wild unsubstantiated claims
about IIS or Apache and their performance in the Netcraft survey, and I
rip you to shreds with the facts.

Ouch!


You have done no such thing. The fact is, Apache does not have any
significantly better marketshare than it had 3 years ago. In September of
2000, IIS had a 19.56% market share. Apache had 60.02% market share.
Today, IIS has a 23.54% market share, and Apache has 64.52%. Or, roughly
the same growth in share in three years. Both have gained roughly 4% in
that time frame.

In other words, the statistics show identical growth, with variations from
month to month.


Identical growth, if you ignore the differences. IIS hit a peak, and has
been sliding down. Apache, is continuing an upward trend.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

Can you guess when it started to really sink?

bzzzttttt!!!!! When Windows servers started to get hit by all those
viruses in mid-2002.

What are you talking about? Code-Red and Nimda were in 2001, not
mid-2002.

In fact, there were no new viruses or worms that effected IIS in all
of 2002. The problem is that at this point, what we're seeing is the
sway of a few large hosting companies choices, not a mass exodus.

I guess people aren't so stupid after all,eh?

I don't know, you seem to be doing a good job. Not one claim you made
in this message is accurate.


You might want to check your claims above Erik. Maybe a touch of
research next time, would help you.


Maybe you should do the same.

I did, that's why your post was so easy to refute.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/YNWKd90bcYOAWPYRAt6EAJwLhaEHgOYe2CLtoNxmK488e7RvIA Cg7z2b
2TRFLCPyEGGRbX/An+BW1uQ=
=Rl0e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Nov 22 '05 #17

P: n/a
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

<snip>
Largely at the cost of other web server platforms. It should also be
noted that Apache doesn't mean it's not Windows ..


Excuse me for butting in here but who is his right mind would run Apache
on WinDERS ?

<snip>

Nov 22 '05 #18

P: n/a
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:28:39 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er**@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:55:55 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

<snip>
IIS peaked in the March 2002 survey, in both raw numbers, and market
share, it's been a long slide downhill for IIS since then. Compare
that to Apache across the same timeframe, Apache is up in raw numbers
(from 20 million sites to 27 million) and market share (from 53% in
march 2002, to 64% now)


Largely at the cost of other web server platforms. It should also be
noted that Apache doesn't mean it's not Windows. Apache 2 was
released in that time frame, which provided far better performance
than Apache 1.3 on Windows. I would not be surprised if a large part
of that gain by Apache was Apache 2 on Windows.


According to netcraft, in Feb of 2003, there were less than 120,000
sites total, running any version of apache on Windows, of them, only 7%
were Apache 2.0. So no, I don't think Apache2 on Windows is a
significant portion of the 22 million Apache sites at that time. If
all the apache sites that have been added since then, were all running
on Windows. *Then* it would be significant. But I don't see that as very
likely, do you?
So yes, I would be *very* surprised if a large part of Apache's gain in
the last 3 years, 1 year, or 1 month, whatever, were as a result of
Apache on Windows. At least as of February this year, approx 0.5% of
Apache sites, were running on Windows... Significant? not if you want to
claim that going from 60% to 65% of market share is insignificant.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/YOand90bcYOAWPYRAtokAKDAaXA6Fer0PTy0924joUu2sGv2BA CeNQZY
SMLSXFGYRUIRBgdA+a9dr3Y=
=OK+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Nov 22 '05 #19

P: n/a
<html><input type crash></html>
begin Daeron wrote:
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

<snip>
Largely at the cost of other web server platforms. It should also be
noted that Apache doesn't mean it's not Windows ..


Excuse me for butting in here but who is his right mind would run Apache
on WinDERS ?

Obviously Sock Puppets like Erik but then there is the question of
whether your "i[n] his right mind" meant "while behaving normally"
or "with a rationally functioning mind".
--
With Windows appearance is primary, function is second, and security is
addressed if enough complaints come in.
With Microsoft making money is primary and preventing others from
getting any that they want is secondary, obeying the law is incidental.
Nov 22 '05 #20

P: n/a
Jim Richardson <wa*****@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:<uu************@grendel.myth>...
Apache serves more sites than ever before, IIS, has lost over a million
sites in the last year, it's down in raw numbers, and market share,
Apache, is up in both raw numbers, and market share.


That's fine, but what bothers me about the celebration of
this, is that the reasons of celebration are very negative.

Nobody is *for* Apache. Everybody is *against* MS. They
wouldn't care who won, as long as MS lost.

This is narrow-minded, bigoted, pathetic... The only reasonable
interpretation any fair-minded person can put on this is "jealousy",
and that is not something to be proud of.

Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
much passion. Therefore the only valid explanation seems to be
jealousy of success (apart from some people who are motivated
by the guilt of ripping off pirated copies.) And those are
very poor motives.

I would prefer more _real_ choices in the PC market. ("Free" doesn't
count as _real_, because you are at the mercy of hobbyists
who do "volunteer" labor to benefit multi-million dollar corporations,
just for some primitive ego satisfaction, therefore exposing
themselves as essentially irrational.)

But I don't want those choices at the price of becoming blinded
by prejudice.
Nov 22 '05 #21

P: n/a
> "soft-eng" == soft-eng <so*********@netscape.net> writes:


soft-eng> Jim Richardson <wa*****@eskimo.com> wrote in message
soft-eng> news:<uu************@grendel.myth>...

soft-eng> I would prefer more _real_ choices in the PC market.
soft-eng> ("Free" doesn't count as _real_, because you are at the
soft-eng> mercy of hobbyists who do "volunteer" labor to benefit
soft-eng> multi-million dollar corporations, just for some primitive
soft-eng> ego satisfaction, therefore exposing themselves as
soft-eng> essentially irrational.)

The world is an irrational place.

Personally I write free software, because having written it for my own
purposes, I have nothing to loose by releasing it. I write it for my
benefit, not anyone else's. I release it for my benefit as
well.

Ultimately, though, I don't always want choice in the PC market. For
instance the standard hardware architecture of the PC denies
choice. But I couldn't care less about hardware, so I don't care about
choice here. I don't really care about operating systems that much
either, so long as they do what I want. For my requirements, this
means linux, as windows is too much effort. Other people will differ.

Software is commoditising. What I really want from most of my software
is stability. I don't want new versions. I want something that is
familiar now, to be familiar in the future. I think its going to be a
few years yet.

Phil

Nov 22 '05 #22

P: n/a
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 12 Sep 2003 08:11:50 -0700,
soft-eng <so*********@netscape.net> wrote:
Jim Richardson <wa*****@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:<uu************@grendel.myth>...
Apache serves more sites than ever before, IIS, has lost over a million
sites in the last year, it's down in raw numbers, and market share,
Apache, is up in both raw numbers, and market share.
That's fine, but what bothers me about the celebration of
this, is that the reasons of celebration are very negative.

Nobody is *for* Apache. Everybody is *against* MS. They
wouldn't care who won, as long as MS lost.


Bull. I am "for" Apache, it's a great webserver, it does it's job well,
letting me do mine. I have sites that handle millions of hits a day, and
sites (vhosted) that handle several hundred vhosts. Apache works *great*
for me. I love it. If there was something better for this task, I'd use
it, but for me, there isn't. Apache is the best tool for the job.
This is narrow-minded, bigoted, pathetic... The only reasonable
interpretation any fair-minded person can put on this is "jealousy",
and that is not something to be proud of.

Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
much passion. Therefore the only valid explanation seems to be
jealousy of success (apart from some people who are motivated
by the guilt of ripping off pirated copies.) And those are
very poor motives.

I would prefer more _real_ choices in the PC market. ("Free" doesn't
count as _real_, because you are at the mercy of hobbyists
who do "volunteer" labor to benefit multi-million dollar corporations,
just for some primitive ego satisfaction, therefore exposing
themselves as essentially irrational.)

But I don't want those choices at the price of becoming blinded
by prejudice.

you proceed from a false premise, see above. I use Linux because I like
it, because it works for me, because I prefer it. Not because it's "not
MICROS~1 " I used to use Excel, (mostly) liked it. Now I use Gnumeric.
If Excel were available on Linux (well, it sort of is, with crossover)
I'd still chose Gnumeric.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/YfTsd90bcYOAWPYRAjU5AKDQpJ2f7uvQR47rCRvcMm+KuiX+Kw CePJp6
l3UoQ0R9czQl7nXp/F2Cpu8=
=Lvaj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()
Nov 22 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <9f**************************@posting.google.com >, soft-eng
<so*********@netscape.net> writes
Jim Richardson <wa*****@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:<uub531-kb4.ln1@grende
l.myth>...
Apache serves more sites than ever before, IIS, has lost over a million
sites in the last year, it's down in raw numbers, and market share,
Apache, is up in both raw numbers, and market share.
That's fine, but what bothers me about the celebration of
this, is that the reasons of celebration are very negative.

Nobody is *for* Apache. Everybody is *against* MS. They
wouldn't care who won, as long as MS lost.

I don't quite agree. I think Apache's success is something to celebrate
in its own right. It shows that open source software really can succeed
in its own right.
This is narrow-minded, bigoted, pathetic... The only reasonable
interpretation any fair-minded person can put on this is "jealousy",
and that is not something to be proud of.
I tend to dislike all monopolists, bullies and criminals - and not by
any means because I'm jealous of them.

And that's before you figure in the little things.

- The amount of work lost to crashes, hangs and BSODs.
- The incredible hassle of trying to compensate for Microsoft's utter
failure even to try to make its products secure.
- The deliberately misleading public statements and press briefings.
- The policy of systematically saying different things to different
people.
- Having to pay $500 to a vendor to read its propaganda - I had to buy
Office to read some information a Microsoft contact sent me.
- The systematic desecration of the English language - everything is
"great" or "cool", and each new release of Windows contains 700 "new
technologies".
- There's lots more, but your time is precious.
Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
much passion.
Sure it does.
MS has done a lot more, bigger evil things.
And MS is a lot bigger itself, meaning its evil acts affect more people
in a bigger way.
And it is a monopoly, meaning that even government relies on its
products - and thereby becomes even more inefficient and unreliable.

<snip>
I would prefer more _real_ choices in the PC market. ("Free" doesn't
count as _real_, because you are at the mercy of hobbyists
who do "volunteer" labor to benefit multi-million dollar corporations,
just for some primitive ego satisfaction, therefore exposing
themselves as essentially irrational.)

But I don't want those choices at the price of becoming blinded
by prejudice.


"Prejudice" and "discrimination" are two words that have been
undeservedly blackened by their connotations.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with being prejudiced against
corruption, greed, bullying and cynicism.

It is good to discriminate against the inferior product, and in favour
of the better one.

If people weren't prejudiced against a company that has been found
guilty of deliberate, systematic criminal wrong-doing - and,
incidentally, a company that did its best to con the very court that was
trying it - those people wouldn't be worth spit.
--
Tom Welsh
Nov 22 '05 #24

P: n/a
soft-eng <so*********@netscape.net> wrote:

: Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
: other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
: much passion. [...]

If the number of "hate" pages is anything to go by, Microsoft is currently
being beaten to the title of most hated company by the SCO Group:

http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Busin...ethical_Firms/
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1.org
Nov 22 '05 #25

P: n/a
In article <HL********@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1.org> writes
soft-eng <so*********@netscape.net> wrote:

: Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
: other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
: much passion. [...]

If the number of "hate" pages is anything to go by, Microsoft is currently
being beaten to the title of most hated company by the SCO Group:


There's a difference? I hadn't heard.
--
Tom Welsh
Nov 22 '05 #26

P: n/a
In comp.lang.java.advocacy Tom Welsh <ne**@tom-welsh.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <HL********@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1.org> writes
:>soft-eng <so*********@netscape.net> wrote:

:>: Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
:>: other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
:>: much passion. [...]
:>
:>If the number of "hate" pages is anything to go by, Microsoft is currently
:>being beaten to the title of most hated company by the SCO Group:

: There's a difference? I hadn't heard.

Well, if you think SCO is Microsoft's sock puppet - then it really /is/
a landslide.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1.org
Nov 22 '05 #27

P: n/a
Tom Welsh <ne**@tom-welsh.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bp**************@nildram.co.uk>...
Sure, MS has done lots of evil things. But that doesn't explain why
other evil-doers are not reviled nearly as much or with as
much passion.


Sure it does.
MS has done a lot more, bigger evil things.
And MS is a lot bigger itself, meaning its evil acts affect more people
in a bigger way.


You are making MS to be a lot more relevant that it is. With
MS, it's all about money. Somebody losing it, somebody making
it. People make it out to be very important and sinister because
there are a lot of marketing spinners out there, whose companies
are losing out to MS, and who therefore have been spinning
like crazy to the gullible public.

But people who are capable of thinking rationally, would
consider Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney cartel a
much more truly relevant force in terms of the people
of the world. And would be able to see the anti-MS
hysteria as just that; hysteria. Nothing MS as
a company does is globally significant in a very
serious way -- anymore than IBM's "evil ways" (marketing
spinner types used to weave webs about IBM's "evil ways"
in early 80's when IBM was pre-dominant in the computer
industry) had any far-reaching effect. (I am not saying
IBM didn't have evil ways. Maybe they did. But even if
they did indeed use to get contracts by scaring their
customers with FUD and falsehoods, or by taking customers
out to lavish lunches and not because of product strength,
or by tying customers into their product lines,
still it had no serious effect outside the computer industry.
And sooner or later the tied-in customers did manage
to escape to "workstation"s and "pc"s, causing the former
monopoly IBM to re-invent itself.)

Ultimately, it's all just industry in-fighting, with
innocent bystanders roped in, in the name of "doing good"
by writing free software for some of the in-fighters
(who mostly fight every bit as dirty as MS, and would actually
like nothing more than to become monopolies themselves,
preferably without the DOJ noticing; or at least having
the current administration at the helm if the DOJ
did notice.)
Nov 22 '05 #28

P: n/a
Jim Richardson <wa*****@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:<c0************@grendel.myth>...
you proceed from a false premise, see above. I use Linux because I like
it, because it works for me, because I prefer it. Not because it's "not


There is indeed a small number of people who benefit
directly from free software. But this is a "secondary"
market, much smaller in size than a "primary" market.
It can only sustain a very few people, realistically.
Nov 22 '05 #29

P: n/a
Phillip Lord <p.****@russet.org.uk> wrote in message news:<vf************@rpc71.cs.man.ac.uk>...
>> "soft-eng" == soft-eng <so*********@netscape.net> writes:

soft-eng> Jim Richardson <wa*****@eskimo.com> wrote in message
soft-eng> news:<uu************@grendel.myth>...

soft-eng> I would prefer more _real_ choices in the PC market.
soft-eng> ("Free" doesn't count as _real_, because you are at the
soft-eng> mercy of hobbyists who do "volunteer" labor to benefit
soft-eng> multi-million dollar corporations, just for some primitive
soft-eng> ego satisfaction, therefore exposing themselves as
soft-eng> essentially irrational.)

The world is an irrational place.

Personally I write free software, because having written it for my own
purposes, I have nothing to loose by releasing it. I write it for my
benefit, not anyone else's. I release it for my benefit as
well.


Maybe. But there are lot of government and semi-government
employees who write it on public money, simply because they
can get away with it through strange self-justifications.
Ultimately, though, I don't always want choice in the PC market. For
instance the standard hardware architecture of the PC denies
choice. But I couldn't care less about hardware, so I don't care about
Choice means choice, without even having to know what
the details are. (What is hardware? What is OS?
Why should I care? I just want choices, and what
it does for me. Without me needing to learn
arcane primitive command sets because it is
a "good thing". According to somebody or the other.)
Software is commoditising. What I really want from most of my software
is stability. I don't want new versions. I want something that is


Sure. Cars are stable. And have choices. And new versions.
Nov 22 '05 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.