newbie question - Apache vs IIS

If I were going to learn either Apache or IIS, which should it be, and why?


My initial response would be "Apache of course, because it's by far the most
widely used". But I see from Netcraft

http://survey.netcraft.com/Reports/200709/graphs.html

that IIS usage has been growing rapidly, mostly at the expense of Apache.
(And there's the sudden appearance of Google, which I know nothing about but
don't want to ignore.) I still remember what MS did to Netscape with IE. Is
that going to happen again?


What are the relative benefits and drawbacks of each?

IIS is great if you want your webserver to get hacked or infected by viruses.

On Sep 1, 6:22 pm, "Paul Pedersen" <nos...@no.spam> wrote:
> If I were going to learn either Apache or IIS, which should it be, and why?
>
> My initial response would be "Apache of course, because it's by far the most
> widely used". But I see from Netcraft
>
> http://survey.netcraft.com/Reports/200709/graphs.html
>
> that IIS usage has been growing rapidly, mostly at the expense of Apache.
> (And there's the sudden appearance of Google, which I know nothing about but
> don't want to ignore.) I still remember what MS did to Netscape with IE. Is
> that going to happen again?
>
> What are the relative benefits and drawbacks of each?

it wont happen again no, because you have to pay for IIS, and for all
the snapins and addons that you have to use to provide the
functionality that apache has.
oh and then theres china

Hi Paul,
use the one you are already more familiar with. Your learning curve is
better.

Long long ago, apache has been clearly the better (because more virus save),
but that was the time of win nt 4 and iis 4 (a security nightmare).

The now topic versions of apache and iis, there is no significant difference
for virus or hacking vulnerability. You have to consider basic security
rules on both worlds.

The most used languages for dynamic weg pages, php and asp.net, can be run
on both worlds. So no significant difference for this.

I myself prefer iis, because i am familiar with, because apache has php (a
security nightmare, imho) built in, because iis has asp.net built in.

greetings from germany
chris

On Sep 3, 7:08 am, Christian Stüben <cs.st...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> use the one you are already more familiar with. Your learning curve is
> better.
>
> Long long ago, apache has been clearly the better (because more virus save),
> but that was the time of win nt 4 and iis 4 (a security nightmare).
>
> The now topic versions of apache and iis, there is no significant difference
> for virus or hacking vulnerability. You have to consider basic security
> rules on both worlds.
>
> The most used languages for dynamic weg pages, php and asp.net, can be run
> on both worlds. So no significant difference for this.
>
> I myself prefer iis, because i am familiar with, because apache has php (a
> security nightmare, imho) built in, because iis has asp.net built in.
>
> greetings from germany
> chris

just to set the record straight, php isnt built into apache, you have
to deliberately run php as an apache module if you want php. Php is
also not a security nightmare! Any programmer worth his or her salt
will write good secure good. Php is a popular and easy language which
makes it a good first language for budding web developers, and of
course eveyone knows an uncle who is dabbling with it, downloading any
old script and "getting it working" which is why php appears to be
insecure.
Apache has a module called mod security which is an extremely advanced
web application firewall. If you are worried about security for
either .NET/PHP/Perl/Ruby etc... on IIS or Apache at all, then run
apache as a proxy server in front of your web server - which can be
IIS or Apache, you can then use mod_security to write per application
rules to prevent weaknesses in the code from being exploited.
Apache is quite often used in front of IIS servers because in many
cases the .NET code running on the IIS server is closed source, or not
modifiable under the terms of the license that came with the product,
and since the code cannot be modified, the only other way to secure it
is by using a web application firewall.
Personally I use Apache because I prefer it and I think it is much
more configurable, and of course open source is good for the world.

> IIS is great if you want your webserver to get hacked or infected by viruses.

Oh, bull. Either server is only as secure as the person running it. I will grant
you that IIS is more susceptible to ignorance.
--
Crash
Running: Windows 2000 Pro - IIS 5 - Apache 2.2.4 - PHP 5.2.1 - Perl 5.8.8

> If I were going to learn either Apache or IIS, which should it be, and why?

Why do you want to learn either? Are you planning a career as a server manager?
Do you have a specific application in mind?

I learned about IIS first because my web site was hosted on an IIS server, and I
wanted to learn the nuts and bolts. My Windows 2000 Pro system comes with a
"lite" version of IIS, which I used as a classroom and test bed. Then I lost the
IIS host and had to move my website to an Apache host. That meant converting all
my ASP (not .net) server side scripts to PHP, and other changes. So I installed
Apache, PHP, and Perl on my home machine and am climbing another learning curve.
I currently have both servers installed, and I really can't say which is
"better." They both work, if set up properly.

The point of this autobiography is that there is no simple answer to "IIS or
Apache?" Which to use depends on your circumstances. If you just want to learn
for some unspecified future application, learn about both. If you are running XP
Pro, I believe there is a server included, although you will have to install it.
Apache is available for free online.
--
Crash
Running: Windows 2000 Pro - IIS 5 - Apache 2.2.4 - PHP 5.2.1 - Perl 5.8.8

Thanks to all for the info.

I have practically zero experience with either IIS or Apache. But I will
soon be responsible for a web site. (Someone else will write it and I will
maintain it). The site will require rather extensive database use. There
will be e-commerce, plus subscription tracking, encrypted downloads, and
similar tasks. It was recommended to me to use Apache on Linux, PHP, and
MySQL. I have used none of those previously, but I've been programming for
many years.

I am responsible for choosing the hosting company, server, database,
everything (offsite shared host so far, dedicated later if things go well).
At this point, the decision is close to being set in stone, but I didn't
want to go into it without at least some knowledge of the alternatives.

I use WinXP Pro for development, so a free stripped-down version of IIS is
available. And of course I could specify IIS on the production server too.
I'm only trying to make things as easy as possible on myself, while still
making decent decisions keeping future requirements in mind.

Thanks again to all.



""Crash" Dummy" <dvader@deathstar.mil> wrote in message
news:eSTCi.1$cz5.0@newsfe12.lga...
>> If I were going to learn either Apache or IIS, which should it be, and
>> why?
>
> Why do you want to learn either? Are you planning a career as a server
> manager?
> Do you have a specific application in mind?
>
> I learned about IIS first because my web site was hosted on an IIS server,
> and I
> wanted to learn the nuts and bolts. My Windows 2000 Pro system comes with
> a
> "lite" version of IIS, which I used as a classroom and test bed. Then I
> lost the
> IIS host and had to move my website to an Apache host. That meant
> converting all
> my ASP (not .net) server side scripts to PHP, and other changes. So I
> installed
> Apache, PHP, and Perl on my home machine and am climbing another learning
> curve.
> I currently have both servers installed, and I really can't say which is
> "better." They both work, if set up properly.
>
> The point of this autobiography is that there is no simple answer to "IIS
> or
> Apache?" Which to use depends on your circumstances. If you just want to
> learn
> for some unspecified future application, learn about both. If you are
> running XP
> Pro, I believe there is a server included, although you will have to
> install it.
> Apache is available for free online.
> --
> Crash
> Running: Windows 2000 Pro - IIS 5 - Apache 2.2.4 - PHP 5.2.1 - Perl 5.8.8
>
>

"Paul Pedersen" <nospam@no.spam> schreef in bericht
news:CpidndChK_Uq3EHbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> I have practically zero experience with either IIS or Apache. But I will
> soon be responsible for a web site. (Someone else will write it and I will
> maintain it). The site will require rather extensive database use. There
> will be e-commerce, plus subscription tracking, encrypted downloads, and
> similar tasks. It was recommended to me to use Apache on Linux, PHP, and
> MySQL. I have used none of those previously, but I've been programming for
> many years.
>
> I am responsible for choosing the hosting company, server, database,
> everything (offsite shared host so far, dedicated later if things go
> well).
That's just a minor change your hoster will force you into when your site(s)
overload their shared server.
The change is minor as the hoster still takes care of the machine and its OS
and probably the daily backup.
You probably won't be able to tell the difference, but by checking the
invoice. :-|

> At this point, the decision is close to being set in stone, but I didn't
> want to go into it without at least some knowledge of the alternatives.

> I use WinXP Pro for development, so a free stripped-down version of IIS is
> available. And of course I could specify IIS on the production server too.
> I'm only trying to make things as easy as possible on myself, while still
> making decent decisions keeping future requirements in mind.
For the forseeable future you are not in full control of the server and will
have to bend your mind in the same twist(s) the hoster did to get a
development system behave like the real thing anyway ...
To this point there is only 1 way to bail out: obtain a hosting contract for
TWO sites, one for real -optionally dedecated- and one for test.

BTW Apache, MySQL and PHP are available on Windows too ... been there, done
that !!

HansH

"shimmyshack" <matt.farey@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1188810986.038462.17580@w3g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
On Sep 3, 7:08 am, Christian Stüben <cs.st...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> I myself prefer iis, because i am familiar with, because apache has php
>> (a
>> security nightmare, imho) built in, because iis has asp.net built in.
> just to set the record straight, php isnt built into apache, you have
> to deliberately run php as an apache module if you want php. Php is
> also not a security nightmare! ...
> Apache has a module called mod security which is an extremely
> advanced web application firewall.
For the records, mod_security is a third party module too and thus has to be
installed seperately and intentionally aswell.

HansH