IIS is more widespread within the Fortune 500 than Apache?! and by a serious margin.
July 19, 2000 3:50 AM Subscribe
IIS is more widespread within the Fortune 500 than Apache?! and by a serious margin. Is there any surprise that this comes from a Windows magazine? And as someone that works for a Fortune 500 company, let me add, these are the companies that don't know what they're doing...and by a serious margin. Sounds like another win for Apache to me.
I used to be dimly aware that Netscape Enterprise server ran 70-80% of the biggest websites. That was a couple of years ago. I wonder what that number is now?
posted by Dean_Paxton at 5:38 AM on July 19, 2000
posted by Dean_Paxton at 5:38 AM on July 19, 2000
I have always thought that netcraft's stats were a little misleading. Sure, the company I work for uses IIS on our external webservers, but we use Linux, Netscape, and Windows based webserver software for a number of applications internally.
What a company uses for external applications is not always a clear indication of allegiance to a particular platform.
posted by internook at 5:44 AM on July 19, 2000
What a company uses for external applications is not always a clear indication of allegiance to a particular platform.
posted by internook at 5:44 AM on July 19, 2000
Hey, this just occurred to me. This is at best 500 companies. And IIS is still only 41% of that?? I still think the 10 million Apache sites says something.
posted by jdiaz at 10:09 AM on July 19, 2000
posted by jdiaz at 10:09 AM on July 19, 2000
ApacheToday had a mini-rebuttal on ENT's article that pointed out the flaws in their methodology.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Microsoft-Centric Market Research
Apparently ApacheToday is working on a follow-up article that with actual phone contact to the Fortune 500 to find out what they're running. But I'm sure people will take issue with that as well :)
posted by kaefer at 11:09 AM on July 19, 2000
Lies, Damned Lies, and Microsoft-Centric Market Research
Apparently ApacheToday is working on a follow-up article that with actual phone contact to the Fortune 500 to find out what they're running. But I'm sure people will take issue with that as well :)
posted by kaefer at 11:09 AM on July 19, 2000
Personally, I'm not putting much faith in either Winfo's article or on the upcoming ApacheWeek article, because most sites are run on several platforms. I work for an ASP, providing computationally intensive image manipulation online. We run our appservers on Linux/Apache, but several of our clients serve other parts of their site from win32. That means those sites chalk up a point both for win32 and Apache. Multi-platform architecture is the norm in my experience; IT departments try to use the best tool for the job. Linux/Apache up front handling the http, and SQLServer or Oracle on the backside is a tried and true formula.
And Apache isn't the only server that runs on *n[i,u]x either. There are several applications better suited for certain tasks than Apache.
As for the phone interviews, well... I happen to know several sites that are running on Linux or FreeBSD, unbeknownst to the people upstairs.
Though, I must admit that Winfo lost a lot of credibility when the author admitted s/he didn'tk know what was driving any specific sites... I guess s/he doesn't get out into the real world much, that kind of info is standard industry gossip. And what, pray tell is BSD/OS? Is that a port of OS/2 to the BSD platform? ;) Or just a typo...
posted by katchomko at 5:17 PM on July 19, 2000
And Apache isn't the only server that runs on *n[i,u]x either. There are several applications better suited for certain tasks than Apache.
As for the phone interviews, well... I happen to know several sites that are running on Linux or FreeBSD, unbeknownst to the people upstairs.
Though, I must admit that Winfo lost a lot of credibility when the author admitted s/he didn'tk know what was driving any specific sites... I guess s/he doesn't get out into the real world much, that kind of info is standard industry gossip. And what, pray tell is BSD/OS? Is that a port of OS/2 to the BSD platform? ;) Or just a typo...
posted by katchomko at 5:17 PM on July 19, 2000
« Older Got a question for OJ? | c|net buys ZD Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
At least thats the reason I was given when I suggested that my department switched (never mind there are plenty of people here perfectly capable of maintaining and supporting it themselves). It's the 'if it costs a lot it must be better' mindset - annoying as hell.
posted by Markb at 4:41 AM on July 19, 2000