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?

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:


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

Freeride wrote:

Not for a couple more months.

In comp.lang.java.advocacy asj <kalim1999@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/ tim@tt1.org

kalim1999@yahoo.com (asj) wrote in message news:<38ac73d5.0309092030.2ab6655@posting.google.c om>...
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...

On 9 Sep 2003 21:30:42 -0700, asj wrote:

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.

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

In comp.lang.java.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <erik@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/ tim@tt1.org

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

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

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

Michael Lang <ml@nospam.com> wrote in
news:Xns93F284B6DE87Blang1474icqmailcom@207.46.248 .16:

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:39:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

Just barely, after recovering from a nasty loss in share.

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.

-----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 <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
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.


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!


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()

-----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 <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

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()

Michael Lang <ml@nospam.com> wrote:
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.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:55:55 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Maybe you should do the same.

-----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 <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
Yes, Bullshit, Apache has not "gone down quite a bit in the last 3
years"

A factual statement. Apache, is at an all time high.

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"


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.


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.

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.

People are choosing it over the alternatives, that seems very clear.

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.

"Apache on Windows struggling?"

<http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/02/25/apache_on_windows_struggling.html>

Identical growth, if you ignore the differences. IIS hit a peak, and has
been sliding down. Apache, is continuing an upward trend.


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()

-----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 <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

<snip>

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()

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

<snip>

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

<snip>

<html><input type crash></html>
begin Daeron wrote:
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.

Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:<uub531-kb4.ln1@grendel.myth>...

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.