> GT> Roughly 1/3 of the web servers on the internet these days run IIS > GT> Roughly 2/3 run Apache in some fashion > > I know you said roughly, but it's less than 1/3 running IIS, quite > a bit less infact. The latest Nov. 2004 Netstat survey puts it at > well under a quarter (21.25% to be exact) with Apache at 67.77% > > http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/11/01/november_2004_web_server_su rvey.html Yeah.. "roughly" hah. I'm sticking to that phrase. :) And yes, Netcraft was one of the sites I was looking at for the information I mentioned earlier. Thanks for the link. > Ok, let's also assume that 100% of the IIS sites out there use ASP, > that's still "only" 11.9 million sites which doesn't give them an > equal market share in my books :) Ahh.. What about +/- ?? % margin of error? (devil's advocate hah) > The problem of course is that while all IIS hosted sites have the > ABILITY to use ASP, I would be utterly stunned if anywhere near half > of those actually did. Just in the same way that while all Apache > servers *could* run PHP if they wanted, I'd be amazed if all site > owners used it. > > There are millions and millions of static HTML sites out there, I > don't think you can accurately gauge it on server software alone. I > know that you weren't trying to, but I'm just saying. Agreed. Very good point. > GT> ASP and ASP.NET are free, just like PHP.. If you already run MS > GT> servers. The good development tools might be another story, > > It's the total cost of ownership though. True. Then let's look at average salary of a Windows server admin versus un*x server admin. I'd be curious to see how they stacked up. That'd have to be part of your total cost of ownership as well. Unless you were totally starting from scratch and were doing it all yourself (learning whatever tech you needed to learn to get it all done). Then you'd have to factor in how much maintenance time each OS required on a regular basis, etc. Too much math for me right now. But in general, I think it's fair to say that free OS + free scripting + free web server probably beast out pricey OS + free scripting + free web server. But something has to be factored in for "we need this OS for other things/requirements too". That's a bigger and more complicated question. I don't know anyone who has set up a server specifically for web hosting and no other purpose (ok, before you jump on me about people having dedicated web servers... Chances are, they have other servers on the same network that handle ActiveDirectory, DNS, mail, etc and their web server choice was highly influenced by their choice in other servers.. Please take my above statement as "one server, one function, no other influences" or something. The phrasing I want isn't coming to me right now so I'm going to be lazy and send it out just like this.. Hah). In general I do agree though. Total cost of ownership is PROBABLY less with free OS + free scripting + free web server. > Look at the number of IIS related security issues on Netcraft, > Bugtraq, etc. Even with a 20% market share it's still got more > holes than a piece of Swiss cheese, although I dare say the majority > of those are down to using Windows as the host OS in the first place. True.. Not like other OS's DON'T have security issues though. Running Sendmail on your un*x box with Apache + PHP? Running SunOS or IRIX? How about the recent Mac OS X un*x based security issues? Again, devil's advocate.... I'm not a huge MS fan, but it's not like they're the only OS and general platform that provides security issues. PHP and Apache have had their share. Maybe MS has more in general, or maybe certain bits of MS's collection of apps have had more, but how does that add up to all the little ones that various un*x components have had? How do you quantify "how vulnerable or unstable is your OS?"? It seems like MS might be more vulnerable, but how would you honestly measure that? > I'm not trying to start that holy platform war here, I'm just saying > IIS could be the most awesome piece of coding ever, but it'll still > always fall foul to that which it sits upon. Yup.. I agree. Again, I'm not trying to start any holy wars either. I use whatever OS or scripting language or whatever you put in front of me. I have my favorites, but there's good stuff in most systems. And I don't take your comments as being flaming or antagonistic at all. But the question remains in my mind, how does someone really, fairly, measure all this stuff and give an accurate comparison between the various system setups and configurations? I don't care to find out really. I let the evengelical users of one system or another go on about how great their system is (even PHP) and usually stay out of the discussions that I feel are more opinion based than hard-facts based. Whatever people choose to use is cool with me. I have my reasons for using what I use.. And so do they. Whatever gets the job done eh? > Best regards, > > Richard Davey Cheers, Richard! -TG -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
