| 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 |
 |
June 2004 Web Server Survey | |
|
||
| Time: 01:31 EST/06:31 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Although web server market share has been relatively stable in recent months, the web is again growing very rapidly both in absolute terms and in terms of active sites hosting distinct content. As measured by hostnames, the Internet has grown 26.1 percent over the past 12 months, adding 10.7 million since the June 2003 survey. That's the strongest period of sustained growth since the boom era of Feb. 2000-2001, during which the Web added 16.9 million hostnames. Thus far in 2004, the net gain has averaged nearly 1 million per month. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:45:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 6/15/2004 6:51:12 AM |
| How is it possible that such a less than mediocre, open source web server that never innovated, is gaining market share over Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server and IIS6.0. Those statistics can't be right. Why would anyone want to use apache, afterall its plagued with security holes, and has secret backdoor code that was inserted by al queda terrorists. The only decent code in apache has probably been directly stolen and copied line by line from Microsoft's IIS. |
| #2 By 7797 (63.76.44.215) at 6/15/2004 8:16:39 AM |
| Perhaps my sarcasm was a little too thick? |
| #3 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 6/15/2004 9:02:05 AM |
|
More Apache running sites = more sites to deface. REmember, most of the defacements are on linux/apache and not IIS...
There are 2 real reasons why Apache took off like a bat out of he11. (1) it's really easy. Any moron who can read remedial english can set up a server in about 5 minutes. (2) IIS is *not* easy, there's too much the darn thing can do and that confuses some people. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.215) at 6/15/2004 9:44:28 AM |
|
" More Apache running sites = more sites to deface. REmember, most of the defacements are on linux/apache and not IIS..."
More Desktops running Windows = More potential to spread viruses. Remember, most of the viruses are on Windows and not Linux. Sounds stupid, doesnt it? |
| #5 By 9589 (66.57.145.91) at 6/15/2004 10:38:18 AM |
|
These statistics are great if you want to know what some geek in his basement is using as a web server or what some ISP is holding mostly inactively. For the information regarding those sites using SSL you have to pay this site. About once a year, some tech source will buy the report and put it out. What one discovers then is that IIS is doing quite nicely. In other words, if you want to put up a site that actually makes money you are likely to use IIS. But this information has bee posted on this site ad nasuem.
Next . . . |
| #6 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 6/15/2004 12:08:51 PM |
|
#7, the last report I saw said that more viruses were being spread by rooted linux boxes that were running sendmail.
I'd like to see a real report sometime as to the actual source of spamination, although I do not deny that there are boatloads of infected Windows boxes out there that are part of the problem. Just goes to prove the old addage that Email is broken and that we need a real replacement. |
| #7 By 7797 (63.76.44.215) at 6/15/2004 12:46:01 PM |
|
"the last report I saw said that more viruses were being spread by rooted linux boxes that were running sendmail."
Really? Can you send the link to this please? I've heard that its boxes that are infected by the latest windows worms and viruses that are being used for sending spam, not systems running sendmail. "Recent published reports have suggested that spammers may be acting in concert with virus writers, such as the author of the Sobig virus, to build networks of insecure and virus-infected home machines that are used to distribute spam." http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/09/HNcomcastspam_1.html |
| #8 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 6/15/2004 2:39:27 PM |
|
"Perhaps it has to do with economics, or even tradition. Large expensive companies don't think it is wise to bet the farm on an open source application with nobody to sue directly"
But that is just not the facts. Your opinion is noted. "and small companies think it is wise to use technology that does not cost much and that they can support themselves for cheaper than having to rely on the manufacturer." Most small companies don't want to support themselves. Home users, businesses and corporations all rely on a form of support. And since there is not any "free support" in the free *nix versions, it's an obvious advantage to get support included with your purchases from parties like Microsoft. "Apache can also be run on different operating systems and allows the flexibility of choice to fit the budget or need." Apache isn't the only one. "At any rate it simply appears that Apache offers more choice. So therefore it would make sense that the reasons for using Apache are probably quite varied." Actually, Apache doesn't offer more choices. It offers less. It has a couple different choices, but it has substantially less choices and features. Keep in mind that the netcraft surveys continue to count all the FREE Apache servers running in little script kiddie homes, where as the IIS servers not only cost money, but have been PAID for by the best companies out there. Based on the IIS / Windows Server 2003 stability and history, and it's level of included support, MS is naturally the better choice. This post was edited by AWBrian on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 14:44. |
| #9 By 7797 (63.76.44.215) at 6/15/2004 5:35:52 PM |
|
"Keep in mind that the netcraft surveys continue to count all the FREE Apache servers running in little script kiddie homes, where as the IIS servers not only cost money, but have been PAID for by the best companies out there."
And what percentage of all apache servers out there are run by script kiddies at home? Unless you can quantify this with real number (which you can't - its only a guess) your statement is useless. "Apache isn't the only one." I don't recall him claiming that apache is the only one. So whats your point here? "It has a couple different choices, but it has substantially less choices and features." Oh really? Care to give us a few sample of the substatial number or missing choices and features? "Based on the IIS / Windows Server 2003 stability and history, and it's level of included support, MS is naturally the better choice." Huh? What stability and history are you talking about? what percentage of all IIS servers on the web are IIS6? Has IIS6 been release long enough to talk about its history and stability? IIS's prior history is certainly less than stellar. This post was edited by tgnb on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 17:40. |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.215) at 6/15/2004 5:42:48 PM |
|
"One theory currently doing the rounds is that Akamai patched a hole discovered this week in the Linux kernel that allows for a server to be crashed with a simple 20-line piece of code."
Parkker you're basing your statement on "one theory, that is currently doing the rounds"? What about facts? Oh you ignore those.. oh well. |
| #11 By 7797 (63.76.44.215) at 6/15/2004 5:45:18 PM |
|
"These statistics are great if you want to know what some geek in his basement is using as a web server or what some ISP is holding mostly inactively."
Fact or FUD? Unless you send a link to go along with your little opinion i'll chalk it up as more FUD |
| #12 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 6/15/2004 8:38:02 PM |
|
#17 "Fact: Every Linux box can be crashed with a 20 line C program"
http://linuxreviews.org/news/2004-06-11_kernel_crash/index.html#toc3 |
| #13 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 6/16/2004 7:13:17 AM |
|
"Trusting your business to Linux seems unwise."
Yeah, Google, IBM, Novell, Oracle et all thinks so too! You are so much smarter than the decision makers at these firms apparently. |
| #14 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 6/16/2004 7:15:09 AM |
| I note that no links have been provided to proove the facts about the questions i raised above. If you can't provide links to back your statements up you concede that they were not fact but merely opinion. |
| #15 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 6/16/2004 7:45:00 PM |
|
Halcyon - "Perhaps it has to do with economics, or even tradition. Large expensive companies don't think it is wise to bet the farm on an open source application with nobody to sue directly, and small companies think it is wise to use technology that does not cost much and that they can support themselves for cheaper than having to rely on the manufacturer."
No, it has more to do with project size, complexity and labor costs. When you are developing a internal software product and the budget is $10 mil... spending $200,000 on software licenses doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, and if that software will gain you $5 mil in efficiencies, it's a win-win scenario. I can't think of a single serious company that relies upon open source totally. |
| #16 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 6/17/2004 12:05:24 AM |
|
#15. Try this "fud" on for size: "Port80 Surveys the Top 1000 Corporations' Web Servers," and the link at, http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/
And that subscription to Netcraft and the questions that you are likely to get answered: The Netcraft Secure Server Survey The Netcraft Secure Server Survey examines the use of encrypted transactions on the Web through extensive automated exploration of the Internet. Each month it provides timely answers to questions such as; How many companies are doing encrypted transactions over the internet? Where are they? What are they doing? Whose server software do they use? Which authority do they obtain their certificates from? What is the growth rate of SSL sites on the internet? How have obstacles placed by different governments affected the topology of encrypted transactions? Who should buy it? Server vendors Credit card companies Banks, financial institutions Software vendors developing for the electronic commerce market Brokerage, Venture Capital & Fund Management firms investing in these companies Legislators, Government officials, the Military, and Privacy groups Anyone considering doing encrypted transactions over the internet What do I get? Access to a monthly updated analysis and dataset on our subscription access site. There is a sample pageset produced using the January 2001 data. The analysis includes; Noteworthy highlights Detailed timeline trends SSL server market share by server and by vendor. Certificate Authority market share Analysis of certificate issue & expiry dates Geographical analysis of sites Analysis of sites by encryption strength Glossary of terms Links to all vendor sites What does it cost? An annual subscription for an individual is £1200. At current exchange rates [$1.5 to the pound] this is $1800. This includes access to all of the 2002 datasets and trending information derived from the 2001 data. Company licences are also available. Go to Port 80 and get the same answers for free! |
| #17 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 6/17/2004 9:30:07 AM |
|
Odd I don't see the report that Port 80 released a awhile ago which actually listed the tops sites by URL, IIRC 5 of the top 10 were MS owned sites.
Although I like the new feature where you search by URL and if the site shows up as running Apache they claim that the site may be running IIS and is hidden by ServerMask. Of course when a site shows as running IIS they ask 'Why let anyone know you are running IIS'? Is this because IIS is easier to hack than Apache? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:45:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
