| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
The October 2002 Netcraft Web Server Survey | |
|
||
| Time: 10:35 EST/15:35 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
"When Verisign bought Mark Shuttleworth's Thawte Consulting almost three years ago, it gave Verisign 99% of the SSL server certificates deployed on the internet. However, very shortly afterwards Microsoft relaxed its policy of refusing requests for new root certificates in Explorer. Root certificates introduced at that time now have reasonably good ubiquity, and are permitting a much wider range of players to compete effectively in the market. Most of the Certificate Authorities now understand that the market is a naturally price sensitive one, with a large number of sites simply going with the cheapest certificate on the premise that they all approximately do the same thing." <%=GetPoll(64)%> | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 436 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:35:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 11/2/2002 11:31:26 AM |
|
As usual, I must post my standard response to the Netcraft numbers:
- These numbers are not scientifically obtained and therefore should be taken lightly. They are as accurate as if I just made up numbers. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/2/2002 12:50:03 PM |
|
Netcraft does go into more detail... but they want you to pay for that report.
What's most interesting here is the number of sites overall declined again. |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 11/2/2002 3:43:55 PM |
|
#4 bas: Google Web Server 2.0?
Yet another reason why Netcraft's survey is pointless. Anyone can take a web server and slap any type of server response on it to spoof. |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 11/2/2002 5:19:17 PM |
| #7: There have been several months where IIS gained a good percentage and Apache fell a good percentage. And rather than saying, "Look! IIS is kicking Apache's butt!" I still said, "Netcraft's numbers are still flawed". |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/2/2002 6:40:53 PM |
|
ArkiMage - The fatal flaw with Netcraft is that they treat all sites equally.
That is register.com hosts 5,000,000 "Under construction" websites, and they count equally compared to all of ebay.com's websites. To make it even more distorted, most major websites are a load balancer in front of a farm. Netcraft has no way to count how many servers are in the farm, they just record it as one site. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/3/2002 2:02:22 PM |
|
ArkiMage - I don't think you understand.
The private more detailed report actually does show IIS in the lead. Some 50% of web servers are running Microsoft, rather than Linux/Apache. The key distinction being the use of the word server versus site. This is just a question of how you can support any argument with statistics. I find it disappointing how the Linux/Apache people keep misusing the report. |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 11/3/2002 9:37:58 PM |
|
#10 ArkiMage:
The thing is, TPC _IS_ scientifically verifiable and audited by 3rd parties. MS pays merely for the equipment and the time (TPC charges everyone the same rate). Price has no effect on the outcome of their results. Netcraft has yet to produce a document explaining how they collect their information, they do not have 3rd or even 2nd party auditors. For all we know, they could be throwing darts at a chart on the wall to come up with their numbers. Even if IIS were 99% and Apache 1%, I would still say they were complete BS and unverifiable. As far as errors, Netcraft is full of them. There are many sites who show them running Solaris one day, and Win2K the other. There are days where Netcraft shows a site being down, yet the site comes up just fine on my browser. The point is, Netcraft does not have reliable means of collecting data and who knows what kind of statistical analysis they're doing, if any on the numbers. Like I said, since they don't allow anyone to audit their numbers, they could be pulling them out of a hat for all we know. Add to this a very slight bias towards *nix (if you read their various reports, they're always speaking flowery and glowing about Linux, and have a slight aire of condescention about Windows, not to mention the fact that they purposely ignore the real data anyone would care about which is which web server software runs the most hits or largest volume of traffic) it's obvious that they publish these numbers to make Apache and Linux look better. It would suggest a hidden agenda, or grave stupidity that they blindly ignore the more valuable numbers I mentioned above. Let's assume, for a minute, that Netcraft's numbers are accurate to a respectable level (1% or so, maybe a little more). It could very well be the case that a large majority of Apache sites are either domain holders (useless), my cat fluffy sites (ISP's who host gobs and gobs of low-hit personal web sites), and various other back-alley kind of sites, whereas IIS hosts a majority of the high traffic, high reliability/availability e-Commerce and business web sites. Those would be much more telling and valuable numbers. But Netcraft has chosen to ignore these numbers and go solely with anonymous domain counting. And even then, they don't try to count servers, only domains. Their numbers are misleading because there could be a 5:1 ratio of domains to servers running Apache. Anyhow, Netcraft's numbers are worthless because they aren't scientifically gathered, they aren't audited by reputible sources, and there is a slant or bias to the interpretation of results by Netcraft themselves. -d |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 436 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:35:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
