Articles / The Anatomy of a Frontal As...
The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache
Conrad Sanderson, a PhD student in Australia, and an advent critic of Microsoft, sent in an interesting piece about Microsoft's upcoming frontal assault on Apache with the release
of Windows 2000, and its effect on Linux. To read the text, hit the details link.
Microsoft's Web Server Strategy - another case of integration
AKA The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache
v1.04 (updated)
Recommendations:
Final Thoughts:
(C) 1999 Conrad Sanderson, 29-Jun-1999. Free to reproduce in unmodified form.
AKA The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache
v1.04 (updated)
Microsoft's Steve Ballmer has recently made some interesting noises in Austria. As mentioned in LinuxToday and Microsoft, Kanzler Klima ... (translated via Babelfish), during a keynote address (and/or an interview) Ballmer said "Apache is simply better." And then: "It is our own fault if we do not offer enough features with our servers to justify their price. When it comes to hosting several sites on one server version, Apache is simply better. Windows 2000 will solve this problem."
This is a warning sign 1000 miles high and wide that is easy to decipher knowing Microsoft's tactics and their history. Everybody knows what happened to Netscape. Let me dissect what is going to happen to Apache (and indirectly, to Linux):
- Microsoft admitting that Apache is better ? Let's remember that Microsoft is more of a marketing company - they would never, ever, I repeat, ever do that. They are too accustomed to spreading FUD and proclaiming "our stuff is better than competition" even when it clearly isn't so. Since they are admitting that the price/performance/features equation of Apache is better than anything Microsoft has to offer, it means they have gotten used to the idea, mulled it over, and came up with a solution. Apache is not just hurting them financially in the server market - it is also hurting them in the statistics game, and Microsoft hates not being on top. They hate not being in control. At last count Apache has 57% of the server market while MS had about 23%.
- The MS solution to the Apache problem: Windows 2000 will have a simple (lightweight?) web server - very easy to setup and maintain, prominently sitting on the desktop. This will be "integrated" into the operating system, just as Internet Explorer was in Win98.
- This MS web server will also be available as a free download, for use on Win95 and Win98 machines. This is done purely to spread it and populate it everywhere - make use of the existing Windows userbase, since the Windows 2000 upgrade (read: migration) will take some time. Have you counted how many pirate MP3 sites use primitive FTP servers running on Windows ? The installed user base of Windows machines runs into the 100s of millions, while Linux and other UNIXes that run Apache are only a small percentage of that.
- it will definitely be a lot better than the poor Personal Web Server currently on offer. Remember Internet Explorer 2.0 in Win95 ? It couldn't compete with the then market leader, Netscape. It was also "hidden" away, deep inside the start menu. But then IE 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 came out with a force, with Microsoft putting much more emphasis on it - directly on the desktop, and impossible to get away from in Win98.
- This new free MS web server may not be as fast, or feature rich as their current IIS server, but people will be easier to convince to upgrade from the free server to WindowsNT (or whatever its called these days) and the IIS server after being used to a Microsoft product. Even if the free web server eats into their NT sales, their thinking is that it is at least a Microsoft web server and not Apache...
- ... which leads us to: Microsoft will add some Internet Explorer-only features into their new web server (small at first), thus attempting to control the server and client side at the same time. Using Netscape to access the web server ? Too bad it won't do SomeCoolNewFeature - normal people and Windows geeks won't be impressed...
- The new free web server / Windows 2000 combination will reduce the appeal of Apache, and hence, Linux (sinceit is the primary platform on which Apache runs on). The main attraction of Linux/Apache is the price and functionality. To most people, its Open SourceNess is a secondary bonus. Microsoft understands this and is attempting to weave a self-fullfilling prophecy of "Linux is only a fad". Stability is of course important, but Microsoft's Marketing Power (tm) will make sure that this is non-issue when the advertising (read: hype) campaign starts for Windows 2000.
- Attacking Apache with this kind of tactic is not legally painful as integrating the browser was. After all, Apache isn't made by a company. To the legal system and Microsoft, Apache came out of the ether and its secretary is a website.
- Overall, this strategy isn't much different from what Microsoft did to Netscape. MS is yet again leveraging the Windows installed user base to counter a new threat: Open Source Software. But this threat is of much greater importance and greater stakes are at play here. They know OSS works. They know it has better stuff than they make. They know it develops quicker. They are scared of becoming obsolete. But most of all they are scared of not being on top, not being able to dictate. Not being able to control.
- The Mindcraft "Benchmarks" were the first phase of the Web Server straregy - designed to throw seeds of doubt against Apache. Too bad for Microsoft they actually helped the development of Linux and Apache.
Recommendations:
- Fix the performance problems in the Linux kernel and Apache as soon as possible, to create yet another viable technical reason for choosing Linux/Apache over Microsoft products and take the wind out the sails of Microsoft's PR benchmark department.
- Increase the population of Linux before Windows 2000 is released by having a good office suite for Linux (KOffice and Corel Office are good candidates).
Final Thoughts:
-
Steve Ballmer on Linux: "one of the five problems, which employ me
before falling asleep. But I sleep nevertheless still quite well."
Let's make him sleep unwell.
(C) 1999 Conrad Sanderson, 29-Jun-1999. Free to reproduce in unmodified form.
big brother
Lets not ignore all the other (and possibly even more dangerous) activities of MS: broadband / internet 2, Gates buying up rights to various artworks, their insidious inroads into the entertainment industry. They have the money and the resources as well as the business savvy to control more than just the desktop...
Pirate Websites and Corporate IT
I think it is important to remember that, while there might be 100 million MS Windows machines out there (many of which already running IIS or IIS/PWS), many are behind firewalls. Network administrators deperately fear the idea of Joe Blow in marketing putting up his own pirate website, which could open security holes into the rest of the LAN, open the company up to content liability, might consume bandwidth for non-corporate purposes (translate: porno and mp3s), or worst of all, may leak corporate secrets.
The "guerrilla upgrades" of Windows 98 pissed off more than a few corporate IT managers, and as a result, Win98 has been banned from many corporate networks. If Microsoft encourages folks to download free, personal webservers, they may very well end up shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to the market they need most. I think that Linux advocates should sieze on this ...
Linux offers an excellent alternative in the corporate LAN. Linux workstations are easy to administer remotely and centrally, and easy to secure, insuring that end-users don't upgrade their systems to an unauthorized and unsupported OS, and insuring that they can't run unathorized network services.
I agree that Linux and Apache advocates should work hard to make sure Linux and Apache are ready for the W2K competition, but we should also use this as an opportunity to go on the offensive, targeting IS/IT managers who are tired of the support and security woes that every new Microsoft product "upgrade" brings.
now that perl stuff makes sense
So now we know why MS is sinking money into ActivePerl. It seems to me though Linux's big wins - Free Speach, Free Beer and GPL code aren't going to go away.
i'm not sure i agree
it seems to me that a more successful tactic from microsoft would be to just put apache on the windows 2000 computers for free. that way, they don't need to bother with the upkeep, they don't have to lose any money over it being free, and they've taken away users from linux. microsoft doesn't really care what webserver you run because that's not where they make their money. microsoft makes it's money from the desktop installations and oem charges. by putting apache, for free, on windows 2000, microsoft would make little investment of their own and offer superior service than just making a cheap, lightweight webserver.
most importantly, though, a good webserver on a desktop machine doesn't really matter. most people don't run their websites off their own machines bandwidth and most people don't want to administer their own webpages. if anyone is going to run a large enough web site to have apache than they either need large enough computing resources (bandwidth included) to price themselves beyond most home users or enough expertise to choose the better solution instead of whatever microsoft gives them.
Linux isn't about winning
Linux isn't about winning the war against microsoft, Just like I don't build my hotrod truck to beat top fuel racers, we don't build linux for the purpose of beating anyone, we build it to get the job done that we need to. It just so happens that it has gradually been molded into a super souped up operating system, that is costing very little to run the 1/4 mile, compared to what MS puts into their beast, and we are getting better times out of ours ;-)
And although Apache isn't a company making server software, there are other server companies that are that will more than likely bring it to the attention of the DOJ. I just hope someone pulls their head out long enough to see that even though MS is in court they are still pulling things.
New target audience
It seems to me that right now Microsoft is targeting a new audience - the cable modem script kiddies. The ones you see when you do an mp3 search on scour or audiofind -- all these anoying sites which never work. However, they are rather invisible, other then to few morons like themselves.
strlen.net
its all about money.
im not here to support or bag out either side. Microsoft is a business. It runs to make money. If it can make more money by muying out another company, or squashing the competition it will. They have done it before, but since apache is free they cant buy this out. Linux (or apache, GPL etc.) is not a normal business model, and this has thrown them off. Microsoft arent bad people, just greedy. One good thing has come of all this war and that is better educated people - thanks competition.
Microsoft
Microsoft can go to hell.
If they think they can compete with Linux they are waaaay out of line.
I can imagine...Having windows2000 and the their so called new and good webserver...and after a few hours
uptime..i can see it come...that horrible blue screen of death!!
I dont get it..i Run Linux and windows 98..when running Linux its so great and stable, but windows..hey..crash me here crash me there. I only use windows for Playing games. And in the next few years all games will be released on Linux too..Scew directx and microsoft!
LINUX WILL PREVAIL!
personal webserver
This article appeared on linuxtoday too.
Someone there mentioned you can already get a stripped down web server for Win9x, the Personal Webserver with Frontpage.
Issues of stability would deter most from using Win9x as a web platform anyway. Not at first of course, but once their machines have crashed for the umpteenth time..
Apache/Linux vs. Micro$oft
Very nice article Conrad!
One thing that leaps to (my) mind in all this is the question of whether anyone - including the "MS Crowd" - can actually "stop" the pea that is a snow ball that is an avalanche that we call Linux.
I do, however, think that additional and better integrated software (read: applications) is required, as well as a standardized desktop environment for Linux to ever be considered a candidate for the current Win9x crowd.
It'll be very interesting to see what happens to the Linux "world" when some of the "giants" (in terms of development assets and cash flow), who claim to be committed to Linux, finally unleash their latest offering for our favorite platform.
Let's do the Samba Strike again
Well, they had this proprietary SMB protocol, which was over years adopted to pretty well by a certain free product.
Once their proprietary 'extenstions' come out, it's probably just a question of developer time, need, and some extra apache modules.
Unless they hit the world with some patentable protocols... To be seen.
Though I tend to agree that this is not the way things should be developed. Development efforts should be targeted towards real needs.
Well Written.
A Very well written article. :)
I agree with the comment on a new target audience, but in my experience it's not just script kiddies who would want to set up their own site on their own machine, and not just SKs who use the newer faster technologies. Even here in the UK, British Telecom have been plugging the leased line internet kick - and we still have to pay about 2c a minute for local calls. More and more frequently I talk online who are using ISDN or similar.
Microsoft can not only bank on fast line technology dropping in price, with their corporate power they can get on the bandwagon themselves - "New Windows 2000 with two click integrated support for your Direct Line to the Internet! Run your own webserver, just drag and drop blablabla..."
By working 'together' (read, we'll support your tech to promote ours) with the companies who make it, M$ can help to lower the prices for the connection and the hardware even faster than it would already fall at.
With the influx of either free or cheap DNS registry systems, it's becoming easier to have your own semi-personalised hostname. If Microsoft were to get onto this as well (cf. Hotmail) the combination would be a significant force.
-- Rob Sanderson (no relation afaik)
Windows 2000 is NT5
Windows 2000 is NT 5. It is not supposed to be a follow up to Win3/3.1/95/98. Hence, it will ship with as NT4 did with IIS for free.
You are also ignoring the fact that there is a version of Apache for Win32. Not to mention - as another reader already stated- MS Personal Web server which is also free.
Also, if IIS somehow becomes a better web server than Apache does, and it too is free, do the majority of web masters really care? (How many people have actually even looked at Apache's code, much less made changes to it?!
Of course IIS I am willing to bet that IIS will never become a better server, for it is based on NT.
The best Java environments currently are (supposedly) on NT. Would I ever run a production system on NT? No way. I'd rather use the (supposedly) inferior Java VM running on Linux any day.
May be we can do something
Well, there is only one way to combat MS's tactics. Bring APACHE to Windows faster than MS. The same way ICQ took off like crazy, a lite version of APACHE can be ported to windows, a basic-home-user version that Joe Blow that just got his computer and wants to put up his small webserver or the-little-kid-who-just-got-his machine can use. But unlike MS Lite version doesn't mean giving up functionality. The little web server can be for dial-up users as well as dedicated (ADSL, Cable). People will eat up like crazy, the same little things like MP3 and ICQ spread through the net this baby can to, once it has spread Micro$oft won't be able to do anything about it. They are even trying to kill ICQ by putting up Microsoft Buddy List in their new OS. The only way to beat Microsoft is to create something compatible with their products only better and free, then no one can say oh don't use that software cause it won't be comptaible with your current Micro$oft products.
The ultimate thing would be an OS which can run Windows products!
Anticipating the next move
If Microsoft's strategy is to come out with a cheap web server that provides proprietary features so as to lock out Apache and Netscape, the right solution is to provide a free, open solution to the exact same people. In other words, a version of Apache on Win98 that's just as easy to use as whatever Microsoft will be shipping. I realize this sounds like promoting Win98, but it's not actually that. What it actually is is promoting open source software and confusing the market so Microsoft can't take it over, and so that incompatible features Microsoft provides will be seen as non-competitive, and will not work to Microsoft's advantage.
But...
While your post makes some good comments, I think you're missing the mark on a couple of important points.
1) I'm glad to see you mention PWS in this version, although you still don't acknowledge that IIS is free with NT server. This means they're already competing with Apache when it comes to price. Since it ships installed, it gives IIS the slight advantage when it comes to atractiveness.
2) There are already features in IIS that only work with IE. Most notably, the NTLM authentication mechanisim that is missing from Netscape clients and Apache servers. This makes browing sites that require authentication, especially intranets, much more transparent to the user. This makes them more attractive.
3) MS is essentially saying "we will win the web server war based on features". This is no more evil than trying to build a better mousetrap. As one of the mice, I still want to get iron plating.
Our challenge is much as you describe:
- Show why open source and platform portability is a major feature
-- Match the MS features one-for-one
-- Improve our weakpoints as a server _and_ as a client
IIS free with NT server
True, IIS is free with NT server, but when's the last time you looked at the price for NT server? Not only that, if you want to run more than one server, you need site licenses, which significantly add to the price.
userfriendlyness and market shares.
I was talking to a friend of mine and after a long conversation we finally decided that really the only reason people see windows as "user friendly" is because their 5 friends use it. Ignore the fact that Windows really isn't any friendlier than a nicely setup X environment. Anyone with a decent DOS background could end up with Linux/*Nix just fine. It seems that MS's main goal is to get that market share then keep it. I hear people talking about Linux dominating the market. I don't ever want to live to see that day. Because then the operating system we all love will end up becoming just as commercialized as Winblows. RIght now with about 5-10% market, Linux is free to do whatever it wants. If we ever hit 60% market, we become slaves to the users. Ultimatly what Microsoft does won't kill Linux/Apache... The life of Linux/Apache will probably outlive Microsoft.
Simplified Apache Setup and PHP
I wonder why Apache doesn' t just ship built with PHP. By default the server side parsing could be turned off except for one access restricted subdirectory where an abolutely killer easy to use GUI Apache configuration tool would reside. The very same PHP app could produce a wonderfully formatted interface for Lynx too.
I realize there are similar web interface projects out there. And I guess yet another 6 or 7 KDE GNOME GUI thingie projects will appear - but a web server should be configurable through a web interface and it should ship with one. This doesn't have to be a security issue: make the Admin module accessible only from 127.0.0.1 then ssh into the box and use lynx.
It'd be nice if this interface was set up so one Apache server could act as the "configuration proxy" for a series of machines ...
Anyone know the rationale behind the default modules that get built or ship with Apache? Why not build and integrate PHP and some simple database for storing configurations (not a server just something like DB or whatever), easing authentication setup etc.
I think Apache could kill IIS completely and do it right now with a little effort. If IBM dumped some $ into the kitty and someone finished and polished the port (with some of the above features) to NT and added an easy download, one-click install it'd be all over.
Hmm s/Apache/apache/ for the above .. I think
Windows 2000 uptime
I don't know where you guys got this crazy idea that Win2000 has an uptime of 5-10 days. I've been using Beta 3 of Windows 2000 Server with IIS 5 (which *is* far, far nicer than Apache), and the thing (wonko.com/) has been running smoothly since the day I first booted it up about 4 months ago. Windows hasn't caused a single problem, and so far there isn't a single memory leak. If you configure the system correctly (basically, if you just don't screw shtuff up), Win2000 is extremely stable...perhaps not as stable as Linux, but we'll see...
More suggestions...
Interesting article. You make some good points. I think that on the suggestions side there are other things to add:
1. Make it very easy to download and install Apache. Use wizards to step novices through the process. This is true on other platforms of course, but particularly so on Windows.
2. Make the installation and configuration easy and intuitive for a 'windows person' to understand. By this I mean: use standard tools, like Install Shield, and standard controls that look modern, professional and are well understood. Users of Windows are so used to an insular way of doing things and looking at the world that anything 'foreign' is seen as a complexity and looked on with suspicion.
3. As part of the installation, offer to make Apache the only server activated at startup. (they would have to do this anywise of course, but offer to do it for them). Also, put Apache on the desktop. Offer to remove the MS icon.
4. Make Apache easy to upgrade. This could be built right into the server - doing a check of it's version number against an authoritative site and prompting the user to download/install any upgrades when they are available.
On Linux boxes, the same is true of productivity applications. Make them easy to download and upgrade through wizards.
5. If you really wanted to be aggressive about it a machine could be set up that crawls the net connecting to servers and checking which vendor they are. If they come up non-apache, then email could be sent to addresses like webmaster@domain.name with text like "Try free Apache web server now" and links to downloads. Care would need to be taken to say this in a non-spam way, but addresses like 'webmaster' should expect unsolicited email from the public.
6. Maintain a steady stream of case studies, success stories and reviews. After all, the "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" mentality is very entrenched.
recommendations
Forget the killer office application suite! Port InstallShield first if you ever want to grow the Linux user base!
Office apps do no good if you scare the Joe Blow users away with the cryptic installation process.
Another take
My take on Ballmer's comments is that MS means to bundle the full version of IIS with W2K (for free, of course), and/or break Apache functionality on the same platform.
admins know better
Why should Apache compete with a web server placed on the end user's desktop?
Setting up an own litte (pirate) website is surely not most common use for IIS nor Apache.
All admins dealing with webhosting i know LOVE Apache and HATE IIS.
Not because IIS is from MS but because it's hard work to configure IIS and Apache is not
(having magnitudes of several thousand customers).
Yes, you have several tools/facilities in IIS for this purpose but this make it even
more complex (IMHO).
As for reliability: even Frontpage server extensions run better with Apache...
MS Assault on Apache / Linux Could Be Good
MS may worry about Apache and Linux for servers,
but MS has a lock on the desktop with Office.
Word, Excel, and PowerPoint have unfortunately
become de facto standards in industry. I personally
reject such proprietary formats if they are sent to
me, but they are, all too often. The MS monopoly
is not the OS but Word.
However, if MS really pushes people to send URLs
of HTML docs on their personal web servers, in
order to conquer Apache/Linux, they could very
well defeat their own Office monopoly. I would
love a world in which people understood it was
better to ship URLs pointing to some standard format
rather than ship around Word docs. And it would
break MS's real monopoly if people did that. Unfortunately,
I doubt people will . And if they don't, Apache will
survive, and so will the MS Office monopoly. Sigh.
Let's be fair...
In all fairness, I believe you misinterpreted Steve Ballmer's comment.
He said, "It is our own fault if we do not offer enough features with our servers to justify their price. When it comes to hosting several sites on one server version, Apache is simply better. Windows 2000 will solve this problem."
I don't believe that the problem he was referring to was Apache. The problem he was referring to was not enough utilities included with the server for the price. Windows 2k will address THAT problem.
I think Microsoft recognizes Apache as a viable and well-written web server. However, they also recognize--from Linux's (and Apache's) success that people want the all-in-one product. Since Microsoft can't compete with the price of Linux, they'll focus on bolstering features for the price.
I don't perceive this as a threat to Apache or Linux. Those who use Linux are going to use it regardless of what Windows offers. Winning converts is the true crux of the issue.
Since the Linux learning curve is so monstrous, Windows remains the viable option. It's simple to set up, simple to administer, and simple to deploy. I think Microsoft's strategy will be one more of cooperation with Linux instead of opposition. It's hard to kill a phantom. And since Linux remains informal, there's no real way to attack it.
Those who buy Win2k would have bought it regardless of the inclusion of a scaled back IIS. Linux is not losing anything with this move.
Kill Microsoft?
A friend once told me a quote that basically said "Linux is for Microsoft haters, BSD is for UNIX lovers."
While I want to see Linux more popular and more mature (kernel, RPM/InstallShield, X-managers, etc), my motive is not really to kill Microsoft. Microsoft sure can't kill Linux, so I don't feel threatened. Linux and Apache are free and have so many die-hard users that they will never die.
I see other commerical UNIX operating systems such as Solaris taking hold of the high-end business market such as a corporate web server. Think about it. How many people are going to use a regular desktop computer to serve thousands of web pages a day, on a 10 megabit network? My guess is none. I don't care if you are using Linux or Windows, you don't run the "real" web servers from workstations. You buy four-CPU machines with RAID arrays and gigabytes of RAM.
If Microsoft does include some new HTTP 1.2 protocol or certain IE-only extensions, one's first reaction is that of anger. But hold on: just because Microsoft includes some new feature, does that mean people either need or want it? Does anyone remember "Microsoft Bob?" That was a HUGE flop. Nobody needed it, nobody wanted it, everyone thought it was stupid.
Just make sure you are more concerned with Linux's well-being than Microsoft's failure.
oh please
I'm sorry everyone, but this seems to be like a script from the X Files - "conspiracy" - "big brother" - "evil MS". No, its just MS realizing that Linux/Apache is viable competition. All the developers for both projects should feel complemented, and it does say something good about the OSS movement that it is achieving this level of competition. However, on the other side of the coin, MS already gives away IIS, so a free web server on Win2k will be nothing new. And just for the record, for everyone who's knee-jerk reaction is to regurgitate the Linux camp's own FUD campaign (NT is unstable, NT is unstable) - I'm afraid you are going to be very disappointed when Win2k does come out. It is extremely stable.
the other strategy
let's also remember that apache for windows doesn't even come close on the usability scale.
let's make apache one-click install using InstallShield, one page configuration that even a first
time user can figure out, and make it SMALL so it can be downloaded in just a few minutes.
The Internet as your desktop
Charles Petrie wrote: "I would love a world in which people understood it was better to ship URLs pointing to some standard format rather than ship around Word docs. And it would break MS's real monopoly if people did that. Unfortunately, I doubt people will . And if they don't, Apache will survive, and so will the MS Office monopoly. Sigh." Well, I for one have been using the Internet as towerofbabel.com 's desktop since Day One. In fact whenever one of our translators asks to receive Word documents via email to translate it just strikes me as being so inefficient, not to mention instrumental in preserving the Word monopoly. Fortunately it's only the rare translator who works that way (still). Anyone with any sense realizes that having the Net as your desktop and just sliding URLs around is definitely the future. The only way of convincing the masses to do this is simply by assuming they do it too and pointing out to them how inefficient it is if they try to slide Word documents around. It will take a while, sure, but it can/will happen.
Server vs. Desktop
This highlights what I believe is a key problem in both Microsoft AND OSS's strategies; M$ is trying to take over the server market, and Linux, etc are trying to win a share of the desktop. Neither is necessarily a good idea.
Microsoft needs to increase the number of Windows servers on the Internet before their Web server share goes up; while there are a lot of Win boxes out there, not many are static IP, long-life Internet servers. The FTP, etc servers that you do see are usually here today and gone tomorrow, and therefore won't show up in the surveys.
Mr.Ballmer's Sleep habits
Excellent article by Mr. Sanderson. One comment from one who has played the game. Let Mr.Ballmer sleep well and deeply and while he sleeps win the game.
Taking care of business.
Linux can't be beaten by microsoft since it will always be run and maintained by hobbiests. Therefore a threat to the livelyhood of Linux is virtually non-existant.
Apache on the other hand doesn't need to compete with Microsoft. Microsoft will never be able to create a stable environment for a commercial webserver because they rely on backwards compatibility. This is why their code is so bloated in it's operating systems.
This is of no concern to the open source community because all you need to do is obtain the latest version of GCC and recompile for the new version! This way you can afford to throw out the old and upgrade to the new!
In the end this could very well be Microsoft's downfall.
Microsoft still has a long way to go...
I am 17 and work at an Internet company (developing web-applications). At my company they run 5 five MS IIS 4 Servers and I can tell you that gives them quite some problems. Every day there's something else with the damn machines. Now don't tell me we don't got them configured well cause we do got our MS-experts here. Now some time ago I finally convinced them to at least *TRY* Linux as a server. Now there's one Linux server running and it hasn't had any problems since it was configured. Fact remains that we are an MS-company and Linux will never replace all servers here (mostly because most of our web-pages are based on ASP server-side scripting). At home I am a fanatic Linux-user. I don't got any problem with my MS-friends at work - we have a lot of fun. A lot of people though see this whole Linux-hype as a war against Microsoft. It is NOT a war, I (and many others) simply use Linux because it works better! So I don't say this as a PRO-Linux and ANTI-Microsoft guy: if Microsoft really wants to catch up with Apache's level of stability it still has a very long way to go. And that's nothing but the truth.
typo + reasons to be cheerful
Well, I suppose he might be an "advent critic" if he is currently building up to an epiphanal expose of the Evil Empire (? Microsoft = Rome, Bill Gates = Herod, Linus = Jesus etc. analogy?), but if not, I guess the typo is more likely "ardent" than "avid".
Anyway, with regard to the original subject, I think that Apache/Linux fans shouldn't sleep too badly because MS is after their market. I am sure Conrad is right about Microsoft's plans and tactics. I just don't think they will find it easy to succeed.
What exactly will bundling a lightweight web server with Win2000 achieve? Why would you want a web server on a desktop? I have Personal Web Server running on my Windows machines, but only for the ftp functionality. The only use I can see is for the limited and temporary market which has been mentioned of the cable/DSL users who want to run pirate porn/MP3 servers. Let Microsoft have that market if they want it, but I don't think they will - it won't do them any good.
And if you are talking about the Win2000 server versions, MS have been trying that for a while with IIS, and are actually _losing_ ground to Apache. On a server, the choice isn't so much between IIS and Apache but between NT and *nix. *nix tends to win this battle for web servers (and other internet use) because it is more stable, doesn't carry so much baggage, is more configurable, more scalable, and (with the free *nix flavours) much cheaper. I don't see this changing any time soon.
Nevertheless, this is no reason to be complacent, and we should adopt Conrad's recommendations as quickly as possible. Just because this is a battle which will be harder for Microsoft to win is no reason not to mend any chinks in Linux/Apache's armour.
As discussed on the mod_perl mailing list, we need (a) threading support in Apache and (b) a lightweight Apache/ heavyweight squid or thttpd to handle serving of non-dynamic content and proxying of dynamic content as quickly as possible.
bug base?
As The Linux community has been known from the 'direct attack'-mode againsta Micro$soft it should be good for Micro$oft to take the same attack on itself...
it's laying itself an trap.. if the Server Proves To be as bad of an bugbase as Windows95/98 has proven to be, or even has bugs Like apache has had... it will mean BIG security bugs in Microsofts softwares.. and as every Linux user knows, "you have to get patches to fix 'em"..
-> Service Packs will grow out of control.. (as they have now in NT)
-> patches will be TOO late.. (week is nothing, month can be tolerated, but 1-6 months)
as soon as the hysteria will move on to Windows users.. either the server isn't used, which is the good case on Microsoft.. or people are moving to other OS's.. or just refuse to buy W2000...
Corporate IT
there is always talk about whether corporate IT will accept
linux, if they are smart IT managers they will, but who cares? These boneheads talk a great deal, contribute nothing, and generally screw things up royal.
Sure i want the OS to grow and be accepted widely as being better than most. but much of the buzz is aimed at the slowest moving, dimwitted, self-congradulating sector of the computer industry.
Their should exist a confidence in linux that it is good, does not have to compete with NT, is a free alternative to existing un*xs, and will in no short time disapear from the face of the earth as long as it works and works well.
This is the start
I would like to say that Im not a defendant of Linux, Ive found that it has holes. Not nearly as big as Windows but still holes. Yet Im not a fan of Windows. But I am an AntiMicrosoft individual. Microsoft has had taken alot of businesses out because it needs to be on top. Gates has a God complex that, at this point, is so out of control is laughable. When Microsoft killed Netscape this was the final straw. I believe that if computer makers and computer sevice engineers and techs dont take up against MS then it will bully and continue to do what is has done for a long time. I will comment more later.
Apache, etc.
Jason Straight is right: "Linux isn't about winning the war against microsoft, Just like I don't build my hotrod truck to beat top fuel racers, we don't build linux for the purpose of beating anyone, we build it to get the job done that we need to."
It's not linux or apache who will be threatened by this-- it's the vendors. But even that is doubtful: how do you hurt the business of a competitor who sells a product that's free in the first place?
I guess it's the linux dichotomy that's in question here-- are you using linux because it is technically and morally superior to Micro$oft, or are you just another snake oil salesman trying to get rich quick?
Sure I'll look at Win2000--I have to support it for my clients. But it's not going to displace linux on my personal systems.
This is War
And If is war the greatest damage would be in the desktop arena where they feel invencibles. If M$ would use it's desktop base to attack Open Source then Open Source Movement must get desktop share avidly. Is not only Apache's problem, GNU's too, and ...
Winning isn't the goal
I don't understand why people are so urged to see the couple Linux/OpenSource win.
Let's focus on an essential thing: What made Linux kernel and open source programs better than commercial ones is the fact that they are always trying to compete with them and to prove that a band of geeks can do better than 1000 of Microsoft's guys.
I am not sure that if Linux will take over 50% of the market, things would be better... Remember what happened with CP/M. After years of success, Digital Research people forgot innovation and lost against the dirty DOS.
WINNING ISN'T THE FINAL GOAL... The goal of our community is to create, to innove and to provide people with high quality software regardless of Bill Gates' plans and declarations...
preserving Apache
The easiest way to fix performance (if it's really an issue) is to run Apache on FreeBSD.
The most direct way to fix Microsoft, if it attempts to create proprietary client-side hooks for MS server features, is to boycott such sites and make noise about it.
I don't think Microsoft will be able to transcend the breach between servers and clients.
There will always be those who know better, even if only dimly, and "everyone else" = mass market = 'stupid' public. All Mr. Jones needs to know about his 2000-based 'server' (if he gets that far) is that half the world can't view it; he'll ask his nephew, his nephew will explain the difference between Microsoft software and the rest of the known universe, and Mr. Jones will be convinced to abandon his toy in favor of something real (Apache, which will run on 2000 and still be free) and that's all she wrote.