IIS or Apache

**Tommy Boomfiger** · 01-21-2003, 08:32 PM

a friend of mine want to set up a website and run the server from his home. he want to have a site where he can post and update news and whatever just like on G|A for his sites. he wants to know what is easier to setup and run. he isnt limited to iis and apache, but is fixed on using 2000 or xp pro

**Jcranmer** · 01-22-2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Tommy Boomfiger
a friend of mine want to set up a website and run the server from his home. he want to have a site where he can post and update news and whatever just like on G|A for his sites. he wants to know what is easier to setup and run. he isnt limited to iis and apache, but is fixed on using 2000 or xp pro

My Vote is for Apache.

Although I suppose IIS might be considered easier, if you don't count the endless hours of patching it to keep it from getting hacked.

**Jeffbx** · 01-22-2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Tommy Boomfiger
but is fixed on using 2000 or xp pro

Then IIS is a logical choice. Don't be fooled here - you need to be just a vigilant with Apache as with IIS:

Aberdeen Group says Linux/UNIX is as vulnerable as Windows

You may need a TechRepublic membership to read the article, but it's free to sign up.

**Jcranmer** · 01-22-2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Jeffbx

Then IIS is a logical choice. Don't be fooled here - you need to be just a vigilant with Apache as with IIS:

Aberdeen Group says Linux/UNIX is as vulnerable as Windows

You may need a TechRepublic membership to read the article, but it's free to sign up.

Point taken. I guess I should have phrased that a little better, rather then just bashing windows in general. Apache/Unix/Linux and the lot, do require a lot of patches as well to keep up with security.

What I do tend to like about Apache and Linux is that it's open source, which usually means there are more people looking for security problems, and when they are found, they get fixed faster, then say waiting for an offical patch/service pack from Microsoft.

On the other hand I suppose one could make the argument that since everyone has access to the source code that security exploits will be found and used more often with open source software.

If I am ever given the choice between Windows and Unix, I always stick with Unix.

**Jeffbx** · 01-22-2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Jcranmer

If I am ever given the choice between Windows and Unix, I always stick with Unix.

Heh, I do the opposite. I guess it all depends on what you're familiar with, eh? Ten years of Microsoft experience won't go far in helping me set up an Apache server!

**marchk** · 01-23-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Tommy Boomfiger
a friend of mine want to set up a website and run the server from his home. he want to have a site where he can post and update news and whatever just like on G|A for his sites. he wants to know what is easier to setup and run. he isnt limited to iis and apache, but is fixed on using 2000 or xp pro

What did your friend decide on using? Apache or IIS?

**Tommy Boomfiger** · 01-23-2003, 08:18 PM

after what was suggested here and from the techrepublic article my friend decided to go with IIS. it just seems easier to run since it is practically built in to windows. thanks

**rajatQ2** · 01-28-2003, 01:09 PM

Its true. Its very sad how much its built into windows. And to a degree IIS is more versatile. We run apache on a win2k server at work, and we have Major incompatability problems. Like coldFusion server (dont ask ) refuses to run with apache, and there are no obvious conflicts, just non stop errors and crashes.

If he uses IIS, make sure he gets that Windows Auto Updater though, and keeps up with it. Otherwise its just asking for trouble

**mojo** · 01-28-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Jeffbx

Then IIS is a logical choice. Don't be fooled here - you need to be just a vigilant with Apache as with IIS:

Aberdeen Group says Linux/UNIX is as vulnerable as Windows

You may need a TechRepublic membership to read the article, but it's free to sign up.

for one thing, this is an article about linux/unix vulnerability. i believe the question was about apache on windows.

but since we're on the subject, i'll have to say...

let's just assume that the article is accurate. hard to say irl tho...because one week this test says one thing and the next we have one that contradicts it. but yes, let's assume it's accurate.

i dunno how servers and services run in xp or win2k. last i checked (and it was a while ago) the server (hardware) needed to be rebooted in order to restart services and servers effectively. in linux you could just restart the services after inserting a module. this means less downtime in the end. over the course of a year...assuming you have the same number of patches...this could come out to minutes or hours of downtime in windows more than in linux or unix.

but it's not really an issue here since he's talking about apache on windows...which is a port of the original apache to begin with.

**Jeffbx** · 01-31-2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by mojo
i dunno how servers and services run in xp or win2k. last i checked (and it was a while ago) the server (hardware) needed to be rebooted in order to restart services and servers effectively. in linux you could just restart the services after inserting a module. this means less downtime in the end. over the course of a year...assuming you have the same number of patches...this could come out to minutes or hours of downtime in windows more than in linux or unix.

but it's not really an issue here since he's talking about apache on windows...which is a port of the original apache to begin with.

True, I missed the point of running Apache on Windows there... good point.

W2K does not have the limitations that NT4 did. You no longer have to reboot it every time you look at it wrong. Most updates to the OS don't require a reboot anymore, and neither do the silly things like changing IP address, etc.

I think everyone is still looking at Windows security & stability as it was back in NT4, before MS was serious about security. W2K is light years beyond NT4 in terms of uptime, stability, reliability & maintainability. MS has also been forced to make system security a main focus in their OSs today, which is worlds better than it was before.

Bottom line is that different OSs have different advantages & disadvantages. It's best to look at all the choices & go with what suits your environment & more importantly, what you're comfortable administering. Your OS is only as good/stable/secure/reliable as the administrator is!

**mojo** · 01-31-2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Jeffbx
W2K does not have the limitations that NT4 did. You no longer have to reboot it every time you look at it wrong. Most updates to the OS don't require a reboot anymore, and neither do the silly things like changing IP address, etc.

this is good to know

**StonedWheat** · 02-09-2003, 12:45 PM

Apache for windowsXP dosen't work too well for me. I host mp3's for my friends to download, and they can see the files about half the time. I had no problems running IIS on Win2k before. I wouldn't recommend Apache for windows at all.