Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: IIS or Apache

  1. #1
    Rear Admiral Lower Half Tommy Boomfiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Chi town
    Posts
    2,348

    Question IIS or Apache

    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

  2. #2
    Commander Jcranmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Pekin, IN
    Posts
    1,377

    Re: IIS or Apache

    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.

  3. #3
    Fleet Admiral Jeffbx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,405

    Re: IIS or Apache

    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.

  4. #4
    Commander Jcranmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Pekin, IN
    Posts
    1,377

    Re: Re: IIS or Apache

    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.

  5. #5
    Fleet Admiral Jeffbx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,405

    Re: Re: Re: IIS or Apache

    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!

  6. #6
    Lieutenant marchk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO
    Posts
    378

    Re: IIS or Apache

    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?
    "This ain't no burger flippin job!"

  7. #7
    Rear Admiral Lower Half Tommy Boomfiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Chi town
    Posts
    2,348
    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

  8. #8
    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
    Find some free Comcast or Verizon on-demand movies to watch at home tonight:
    www.movie-cat.tv

  9. #9
    Fleet Admiral mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    about 15 min away
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Re: IIS or Apache

    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.
    say "hi" to lumbergh for me

  10. #10
    Fleet Admiral Jeffbx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,405

    Re: Re: Re: IIS or Apache

    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!

  11. #11
    Fleet Admiral mojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    about 15 min away
    Posts
    8,171

    Re: Re: Re: Re: IIS or Apache

    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
    say "hi" to lumbergh for me

  12. #12
    Commander StonedWheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Bay Area, Ca
    Posts
    1,268
    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.
    "Cynicism is knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing."

    -Oscar Wilde

  13. #13
    Fleet Admiral Speedfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    I am here, so there I am.
    Posts
    8,027
    Call me Fleet Admiral §pêêЃrêák™! Go get me some coffee.
    CoolSpeed

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •