Re: Why did Microsoft limited itself to Windows?
From: Nick Malik (nickmalik_at_hotmail.nospam.com)
Date: 08/29/04
- Next message: LEBRUN Thomas: "Dataset : Error when using ReadXml the 2nd time"
- Previous message: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\): "Re: DirectoryEntry.Invoke("SetPassword") slow"
- In reply to: olopez: "Re: Why did Microsoft limited itself to Windows?"
- Next in thread: Richard: "Re: Why did Microsoft limited itself to Windows?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:36:01 GMT
Your statement appears to fly in the face of Eric's statement. You are
stating that it is common for corporations to host on Unix. Eric is stating
that is it more typical for large corporations to host one or two sites, all
on Microsoft, but that really small companies, with no resources, pay for
ISPs to host their sites on Unix.
I do not believe that it is an +increasing+ tendency to use Unix. Apache is
well entrenched among ISPs, no doubt. However, the most recent version of
IIS is much more managable, and there are more ISPs now using MS Windows
than ever before (according to Boardwatch).
There is strong demand for MS Windows-based ISP hosting, and I expect the
trend to move the other way, as Microsoft addresses the managability issues
surrounding IIS.
The weight of .NET is pushing this demand. If we can all write ASP.NET
apps, and we want to host a few on the open internet, we are going to need
more and more Microsoft-based ISPs to host them on. The fact that Unix
based hosting is now a commodity business, with nearly no margin, means
that smaller ISPs hosting only in Unix will be disappearing as the ISP
players merge and acquire eachother (a normal part of the new-technology
adoption cycle).
>>we must face the thruth: supporting secure and stable sites running on
Windows is a time consuming task. Unix is better ainmed to these tasks.<<
I guess it's what you are used to... I've built and delivered over 30
public web sites to large corporations, government agencies, and small
businesses. Dozens more in the intranet space. Exactly one ran on Unix.
Why only one? Because I found Unix to be much harder to work with than IIS.
I switched years ago. None of the sites I created has ever been hacked.
While one of them was too popular for it's own good for a while (easily
fixed with a network load balancer), none have crashed because of poor
stability.
Based on my experience, I do not agree with your assertion. I find IIS to
be much more powerful than Apache, while being simple to manage, and getting
simpler with ever release.
--- Nick
"olopez" <olopez@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FC04B07-88F9-451D-859B-A32BBAE36D22@microsoft.com...
> It is very interesting, when people put servers that host their domains
(and
> so host their corporate presence and image) on the Internet, they put
> Unix/Linux servers. This is a ever increasing tendency to date, we must
face
> the thruth: supporting secure and stable sites running on Windows is a
time
> consuming task. Unix is better ainmed to these tasks.
>
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:36:06 GMT, Nick Malik wrote:
> >
> > > You are correct about the market penetration of Apache servers on the
> > > Internet:
> > > http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200407/index.html
> >
> > Actually, these numbers look very close to the netcraft numbers, which
lead
> > me to believe that they aren't actually counting servers, but rather
> > hostnames (as Netcraft does).
> >
> > The problem with this kind of survey is that it doesn't count actual
market
> > share of installed servers, it only counts how many host names are
running
> > on those servers. Most ISP's have traditionally run Unix, and the vast
> > majority of sites are hosted by ISP's running multiple (usually
thousands)
> > of sites on a single server, though most of these sites are not very
high
> > volume or very complex (and not usually running any kind of dynamic
> > content)
> >
> > When Netcraft decided to count physical servers on the internet,
something
> > interesting showed up. Roughly 50% of the physical servers ran Windows.
> > This is because corporate sites tended to host only a few sites specific
to
> > their corporations, and the vast majority of corporations ran Windows
> > servers. Thus, even though fewer hostnames ran on Windows, more actual
> > servers did.
> >
- Next message: LEBRUN Thomas: "Dataset : Error when using ReadXml the 2nd time"
- Previous message: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\): "Re: DirectoryEntry.Invoke("SetPassword") slow"
- In reply to: olopez: "Re: Why did Microsoft limited itself to Windows?"
- Next in thread: Richard: "Re: Why did Microsoft limited itself to Windows?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
