OK wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:44:16 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >April 2007 Web Server Survey
> >
> >,----[ Quote ]
> >| In the April 2007 survey we received responses from 113,658,468 sites,
> >| an increase of 3.2 million sites from last month's survey. Apache
> >| continues to be the most widely-used web server, powering more than
> >| 66.9 million sites, compared to 35.3 million sites using Microsoft
> >| server software.
> >`----
> >
> >http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/04/02/april_2007_web_server_survey.html
> >
> >
> >Related:
> >
> >Open Source Fights Back
> >
> >,----[ Quote ]
> >| Question: The OpenSourceParking.com announcement cites a Netcraft
> >| report, which found that GoDaddy.com's migration from Linux to Windows
> >| caused Apache to lose server share. Was this event the sole impetus
> >| for OpenSourceParking.com?
> >|
> >| Perens: Not the first. It's part of a continuing behavior pattern by
> >| Microsoft that I think it's fair to call "dirty fighting." GoDaddy was
> >| using Apache (I assume on Linux) because it was a great technical
> >| solution. They didn't switch to IIS on Windows Server 2003 for any
> >| technical reason. The switch was accompanied by a press release by
> >| GoDaddy, containing Microsoft promotional language. Now, I've changed
> >| many servers from one thing to another, but I've never made a press
> >| release about it. GoDaddy wouldn't be doing that unless Microsoft had
> >| offered them something valuable in return. There has been talk in the
> >| domain business that Microsoft has been offering the large domain
> >| registries a wad of cash to switch their parked sites. There is no
> >| other reason to do this than to influence the Netcraft figures.
> >`----
> >
> >http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=15108
>
> Yes, most parked sites are hosted on Apache, that's no secret.
>
> On the *active* sites front, IIS is gained over Apache in the last
> month:
>
> Apache -0.08%
> Microsoft 0.46%
>
> That's 751'102 new active IIS (and presumably .NET) server apps in
> March, while Apache regressed only a tiny bit: new stuff is built on
> the Microsoft platform.
Are they counting number of sites (host names), number of servers
(physical hosts) or traffic volume? It makes a big difference. I'd also
like to see stats on traffic volume per host. That would be the most
telling in terms of how host system performance drives server selection.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong lane.
|
|
