Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft IT

IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache 395

Posted by Zonk from the old-dog-new-tricks dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to BetaNews, Microsoft is learning a few tricks from Apache for the next release of IIS, version 7.0. Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server. Also, the IIS metabase has been completely dropped in favor of easily editable XML configuration files. Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache More

IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache

Comments Filter:

  • About time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:12PM (#13570366) Homepage Journal
    Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server.

    I am shocked that it has taken this long to implement these features. Come on now. The rest of the industry has known that this increases stability, eases management and reduced computational overhead for years. Why is it do they think that an eight year old Linux box running Apache can serve up such huge volume versus a latest and greatest IIS server? Also, "simple configuration. IIS 7.0 does away with complicated the "Metabase" and replaces it with XML configuration files, Well, yeah! The fact that they are even talking about doing this rather than simply implementing the feature and then talking about it troubles me though. For myself, I am not running [utah.edu] anything sophisticated for the sites [utah.edu] I manage [utah.edu] but I want simplicity of management and therefore went with standard OSX hosting systems. For heavier lifting, an OS X server system for our scientific databases is not quite as fast as Linux based solutions for some data types, but it is certainly easier to manage than Linux or IIS. If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

    • Re:About time (Score:5, Funny)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:14PM (#13570389)
      If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

      Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now?

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Funny)

        by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:22PM (#13570462)
        I think he forgot the 'r' up there...

      • Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MrAnnoyanceToYou ( 654053 ) <dylan@@@dylanbrams...com> on Thursday September 15, 2005 @05:05PM (#13570825) Homepage Journal
        Simply aping the rest of the industry has always worked for them before. Why change now? Because the other option is:

        a) Free
        b) Easily modifiable if you figure out something else you want it to do
        c) More Stable
        d) Running on an OS that's Free'er than yours
        e) Kicking your tail
        f) Preferred by Developers
        g) All of the above

        It might be mildly intelligent to actually add features that people really want badly to overcome the rest of the problems there....

    • Re:About time (Score:2, Insightful)

      by turbotalon ( 592486 )
      The important thing to remember is the current install base. They don't need to innovate, only keep the differences in performance/features small enought that the hassles of switching are greater than the benefits. In other words, they need only keep people happy enough to stay. Many places (like where I work, UPS) are MS B****hes and it would take something VERY VERY major to convice them to go elsewhere, even if MS has a vasly inferior product.

    • Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)

      by toddbu ( 748790 )
      rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

      Well, let's hope that they can actually pull it off. Just breaking the system into modules isn't enough. What they're really missing is cool functionality like mod_rewrite.

    • My two cents... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:39PM (#13570622)
      If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.

      I'd settle for a better IIS-FTP component, the one in IIS 6 is a bit of a joke. As for the Metabase , yes it could be more transparent but it isn't that complicated and there is an excellent programming interface for it. Most of all I'd really like to see Microsoft cough up the ability to configure absolutely every aspect of IIS (and Windows it self for that matter) from the commandline. Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell. And this to the point where I don't have to see a Windows desktop for months should the need arise. Even in Windows 2003 the commandline toolkit that comes with Windows is incomplete although Microsoft does offer a bunch of administrator toolkits that help alot but I still fail to see why these have to be tracked down and downloaded seperately rather than being supplied with the OS.

      • Re:My two cents... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nachoboy ( 107025 )
        Most of all I'd really like to see Microsoft cough up the ability to configure absolutely every aspect of IIS (and Windows it self for that matter) from the commandline.

        What is your primary concern? Is it that tools are simply not available at all to do the work you'd like, or is it that the command-line tools are distributed separately from the OS?

        What tasks (in IIS and Windows) can you absolutely not accomplish via the command line today? (Please give as many examples as you can, I'm very interested in

      • Re:My two cents... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by secolactico ( 519805 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @08:19PM (#13572234) Journal
        I'd settle for a better IIS-FTP component, the one in IIS 6 is a bit of a joke.

        Heck, yeah. I don't even bother with it anymore and I usually go with a third party program for my ftp needs.

        But I wish IIS would allow me to authenticate against an external user database instead of the system's or AD.

        Other than that, I have no complains about Windows 2003/IIS 6. I also run Apache 2 on Linux and Apache 1.3 on Solaris. I don't see much of a difference in stability. Apache1.3/Solaris are a bit behind in performance but that's because they are running on a *really* old Sun machine.

        • Re:My two cents... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by delus10n0 ( 524126 )
          The mentality here is pretty funny-- most SlashDot people would get on Microsoft for "using their monopoly" to spread their software. Here we have people saying the FTP server _isn't_ good enough, and should be made better. While that's an alright opinion to have, you're also free to install any other FTP server you'd like. The excellent (and free) FileZilla server is one that I find myself using.

      • Re:My two cents... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by throx ( 42621 )
        Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell.

        If it's all configured through XML files, I don't see the difficulty here.

        In addition, MS is saying they are going to layer their management tools on top of monad so everything will be command line scriptable, but take it with a grain of salt as to when/if that all comes to fruition.

      • Re:My two cents... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dom2 ( 838 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @01:38AM (#13573867) Homepage
        The point about the metabase being xml is very, very important. How many people keep their apache config files in version control? Lots (the sensible people). How many people keep their IIS configs in version control? I don't know, but I'm betting it's a tiny, tiny percentage of the user population.

        Version control is essential for systems administration. You need a good, working "undo" button. That's what version control [tigris.org] gives you. But VC works best with text files, not the registry. So switching to XML config files will give IIS admins a chance to bring their practises closer to those used by Apache admins (and the rest of the Unix sysadmin world).

        -Dom

    • Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aktzin ( 882293 )
      I was really surprised when this came out in 2001:

      "Research group Gartner is advising businesses to "immediately" replace their Microsoft Internet Information Server software with a more secure server application, following attacks on IIS by the worms Code Red and Nimda."

      http://news.com.com/2102-1001_3-273461.html?tag=st .util.print [com.com]

      Gartner approves of Microsoft more often than not, and this was by far the most negative opinion I've ever seen them express about MS. Too bad hardly anyone took their ad

    • Re:About time (Score:3, Informative)

      by DJ-Dodger ( 169589 )

      The IIS metabase is already an XML configuration file. It has been since IIS 6.0 which ships with Windows Server 2003. It sounds like they are just making some changes to it. Located at systemroot\System32\Inetsrv\Metabase.xml They also provide a schema file for it: MBSchema.xml

      See this [microsoft.com] article for technical details.

  • XML Config (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mysqlrocks ( 783488 )
    I link the XML configuration. Hopefully Apache does this soon. Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

    • Re:XML Config (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:16PM (#13570408) Homepage Journal

      I was thinking the exact opposite. I like editting a plain ol' text file by hand. Editting XML is a pain; yeah it's all text but then so is Postscript.

      • Re:XML Config (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nos. ( 179609 ) <andrew@@@thekerrs...ca> on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:24PM (#13570494) Homepage
        I tend to agree... sort of. Once your familiar with httpd.conf, editing it tends to be quite simple. However, trying to write an application front end to do that is a pain. This is where XML is nice. Its structured and formatted. The idea behind using XML isn't to make your life easier to edit it by hand... its to make it easier to make automated tools to edit and query the config files.
        • XML is also good for converting a config file to a new format without (too much coding).

          Anyway, you don't have to edit XML by hand. It's easy to do so if it's formatted towards a user, but I asume there are better ways. And the best thing; once you are familiar with XML, you know the syntax (not the semantics, but at least the syntax) of all the other XML configuration files out there. Especially if they adhere to the schema standards for formatting data values.

          I loved editing my channels for the (linux) tv
      • Yeah, a sendmail configuration file is almost as annoying as editing an XML file...

    • Re:XML Config (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Crowhead ( 577505 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:19PM (#13570443)
      Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

      Heh, I worked with someone who thought it was a pain to edit too. His solution - he erased every single comment from httpd.conf. (He thought it was a pain because it was too long. Needless to say, tempers flared.)
      • Would have been nice had he done one of these first:

          mv /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf.bak

        I hate it when anyone changes a conf file and doesn't move it somewhere first, at the end of the day you're grabbing source files and unpacking them just for a default config file.
        • Would have been nice had he done one of these first:

          mv /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf.bak

          Heh, fat chance with that guy. I usually append a bind type serial number (2005091501) to the end of a copy. If you just use .bak you can accidently write a bad copy over a good one. Even worse is finding things like:

          httpd.orig.bak3 or
          httpd.conf.this.one.works2.bak

          in the conf directory.
          • You bring up a very good point, and I have to admit that at times I've been guilty of putting goofy tags at the end of backup conf file names as well.

              I think I'm going to create a full backup of my /etc/ directory in /conf/backups or /conf/defaults from now on to avoid confusion. Then if I need an older, presumably working Apache conf file I'll just head for that folder and there it is. Maybe make it readonly just to be on the safe side.
            • I think I'm going to create a full backup of my /etc/ directory in /conf/backups or /conf/defaults from now on to avoid confusion.

              Another trick you can use is to check all of your config files into RCS (or CVS, if you swing that way). When you want to change something, you check it out, and once it works you check it back in. If you need ANY older version, it's always there.

      • Re:XML Config (Score:3, Informative)

        by Just Some Guy ( 3352 )
        His solution - he erased every single comment from httpd.conf.

        I worked for a small ISP, and we used a heavily-commented named.conf and associated zone files to keep track of configuration information, explanations for non-obvious things, etc. Since we were a small shop and worked well together, this was fine. Until we merged with another ISP. Whose admins "helpfully" slaved their BIND to ours, made it the master, and then slaved ours to theirs. Without changing the zone filenames in named.conf. I thi

    • I link the XML configuration. Hopefully Apache does this soon. Editing the httpd.conf file is a real pain.

      No problem. Most of the apache systems can link to any XML config file.

  • Also, the IIS metabase has been completely dropped in favor of easily editable XML configuration files.

    Apache's configuration is not XML. In fact, it has been my Biggest Request [slashdot.org] for a while now.

    Apache is great when it comes to some things, but is lacking when it comes to others. Running in prefork MPM is fine for the most part, but I really wish perchild would get off the ground so that PHP scripts won't be all running as the same user. Now if only all of PHP's modules were thread safe...

    • "...easily editable XML configuration files."

      Great. Now instead of checking off a box in a dialog I need a 500 page reference manual to figure out what entry I need to add to what node to get the same result.

      • Yeah. God forbid you be able to set something up with something so archaic as a script.
      • I always thought a config file would be easier to admin than IIS's illogical checkboxes scattered all over the place. What's the point of an admin GUI if I have to hunt through multiple dialog boxes in multiple places just to make one small change? Finally they are getting a clue. Now if they could just do away with the Windows registry...

    • Re:Not XML (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:29PM (#13570542)
      Running in prefork MPM is fine for the most part, but I really wish perchild would get off the ground so that PHP scripts won't be all running as the same user. Now if only all of PHP's modules were thread safe...

      suPHP will take care of that for you. Well, the user bit, not the thread safety bit.

      http://www.suphp.org/Home.html [suphp.org]

  • so... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by intmainvoid ( 109559 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:13PM (#13570375)
    so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache?

  • How about multiple versions? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzy12345 ( 745891 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:14PM (#13570393)
    Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses? Install or uninstall without rebooting? Change or inspect the source code?
    • Hell, I'd like a version that I can run without a GUI. Wake me up when they get that going ok?
      • IIS runs without a GUI. You can configure it* without a GUI by editing the XML config file. Have been able to since IIS6. 'Bout time to wake up and get a clue, don't you think?

        I won't completely flame you for sounding like a Windows-ignorant Linux zealot, because you're a fellow climber.

        * Although why the hell would you want to?
    • Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache? Other than, perhaps, if you're hacking on the source.

      You can have as many sites running as you like under different ports and addresses in a single version of IIS or Apache.

      • Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache?

        I believe the appropriate question is: Why can't you run two different versions of IIS? Maybe one writes a web-portal or some such that will need to be run in different versions of IIS? Who knows?

        It is to the user to decide what they want to do with software, not the developers.
      • Why would you WANT to run two different versions of Apache? Other than, perhaps, if you're hacking on the source.

        You can have as many sites running as you like under different ports and addresses in a single version of IIS or Apache.

        I can think of three reasons: speed, simplicity and security. Say, one web server that only serves up static files, nothing more - and is fast at it, with a locked-down configuration. Another for dynamic content, with all the complications that ensue.

        Ideally, you'd put t

      • Why would you WANT to run two different versions?

        Thanks for a perfect example of the type of thinking which will keep IIS and other Microsoft type stuff in the dust. Rather than just doing the job, software that checks for other versions of itself, because of programmers with attitudes like yours, inhibits the flexibility of people like me.

        I'm not going to answer your question, because if you can't figure it out yourself, you are undeserving of enlightenment. Suffice to say that I do, I can, and I have goo

    • Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses?

      What would be the need? Using the latest and greatest is the smart choice for 99.9999% of the people.

      Install or uninstall without rebooting?

      You can already do that.

      Change or inspect the source code?

      Of course not, and I don't really care. I have no care whether IIS is open source or not, but I imagine you'll conjure up Bill Gates as Satan and vomit in disgust at anything closed-source. As we all know, using

  • Copy Cat (Score:5, Funny)

    by sheepoo ( 814409 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:15PM (#13570395)
    Is M$ becoming a mass copy store...First Firefox (for IE7.0) then Apple OS X (for Vista) and now Apache (for IIS). Are they going out of business of innovation?

    • Re:Copy Cat (Score:5, Funny)

      by Saiyine ( 689367 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:17PM (#13570422) Homepage

      Are they going out of business of innovation?

      Well, to go out you first have to have been in!

      --
      Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
      Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).
    • This is one of the major ways Microsft has stayed on top. The are great at collecting the best ideas from many sources and implementing them in their own software. Often implementing these ideas better than the orginal. Microsoft isn't stupid. They're always watching the market to learn how to do things better.
    • These IIS changes are directly in line with Microsoft's .NET architecture. They may sound similar to some Apache features, but that is probably not the driving force behind them.

    • Re:Copy Cat (Score:5, Funny)

      by MrDomino ( 799876 ) <mrdomino AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:44PM (#13570662) Homepage

      They were in the business of innovation?

    • Is M$ becoming a mass copy store...First Firefox (for IE7.0) then Apple OS X (for Vista) and now Apache (for IIS). Are they going out of business of innovation?

      Where have you been for the last 20+ years? Microsoft has never tried an 'outside the box' idea in their life.
    • Can you please let us know as to what all things are being copied from firefox?
      I haven't used IE7.0 so I can't comment
      but if you're going to say that they're flicking tabbing and rss, I'll have to say sorry (probably at the expense of some karma). Neither did firefox invent them; guys like opera have been having them from ages
      And did I mention that the tabbing in firefox is far from perfect. Guess you'd have been to atleast one of those innumerable sites, the links in which always tend to open new firefox w
    • Huh? MS is just doing what they are good at - copy the competion - that is their business model - always was - still is.

  • Security? (Score:3, Funny)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:16PM (#13570403) Journal
    Here is to hope that security will be job #1, rather than job #10.

  • Erm (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vlad_Drak ( 20809 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:18PM (#13570428)
    IIS 6.0 utilized an editable-during-runtime xml configuration file, metabase.xml. The new stuff is more integrated into a .Net Framework style config.
    • Finally something pointing this out. However, it's still monolithic (not completely true if combined with ASP.NET, but still), so the point is more that the config can be located together with the files. On the other hand, this requires that you have properly secured a greater number of config files, if you allow it.
  • Henry Spencer

    "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly".
    • Henry Spencer

      "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly".

      Repeat after me, Apache is not UNIX. Apache is a web server. It's a web server that's not even exclusive to the UNIX world since it runs on Windows.
      • What?
        A daemon that reads it's config from text files rather than a nasty database is certainly more UNIX-like than it is Windows-like. Not to say sensible.
        Also, Microsoft are doing lots more UNIX-like things recently, if you care to find out about them.
        • Yeah, Windows never used text files for configuring apps.

          cat >slashdot.ini http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/tool s/logparser/default.mspx)"

          • sigh, remind me to preview because slashdots "plain old text" is more like "screw up your post that was plain old text".

            --
            Yeah, Windows never used text files for configuring apps.

            cat >slashdot.ini <<__EOF__
            [Slashdotpost]
            Sarcastic=1
            MyAssholishness="Unneeded"
            __EOF__

            Microsoft has a lot of good devs, and a lot of good marketers. So while windows has always had some really great features, they never bothered to market them because it doesnt help sell it, and anyone that cares will find out about it on t
  • When one installs a new module in Apache, one needs to restart the server for the install to take effect. That is, when I install PHP or PostgreSQL, I need to restart Apache before I can use either of them. This is something many Apache users dislike.
  • For his example, he changes a directory listing into a FLASHY WIZBANG DIRECTORY LISTING??? Wow, good job creating useful modules

  • 1996 Called (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...they want their webserver back. =)

  • THIS JUST IN - IIS 6.0 does most of that crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BattleRat ( 536161 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:21PM (#13570457)
    wow, I guess that most slashdotters REALLY hate MS enough to not even know the characteristics of their current offerings...

  • Saw a demo of it a few weeks ago.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Johnno74 ( 252399 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:27PM (#13570524)
    ... At TechEd New Zealand. IIS7 looks really smart, with pluggable modules to provide all of its functionality, as the submitted mentioned. Ouf of the box pretty much everything will be disabled, and you enable only the modules you need.

    IIS6 (win 2003) has already done away with the metabase and gone to an XML file for all of the configuration settings.

    IIS7 goes one further, by allowing you to put configuration files in each virtual directory or website to over-ride the parent setting (if permitted) - this allows a website owner to configure their own website, without affecting the other websites on the box, or having to ask the administrator to make the changes for them.

    The MS guy told me they are trying to make management as easy as possible for servers containing thousands of seperate sites. He also said they hope to release IIS7 for Win2003 R2.

    Loads of other management things are coming in too, such as the ability to examine currently execting requests, and kill them without restarting the site or server (VERY usefull if a script is looping)

    MS's new approach to security seems to be really paying off - IIS6 was re-written from the ground up, and how many security holes have there been? I can't remember any.
  • Did anyone at Apache remember to patent hot-swappable web server modules?
  • I've heard Windows advocates make fun of me for running Apache and configging a text file. Now the irony is that they themselves will have to do the same thing.

    But this could be a positive. Windows developers and sys admins may find it an easy transition from GUI- system administration to file based and thus wil find Linux and Apache a bit less daunting.

    If this keeps changing like this, you could see Windows system administration moving more toward *NIX administration principles.

    This could be a good thing i

  • Apache Browser? (Score:5, Funny)

    by krgallagher ( 743575 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:31PM (#13570562) Homepage
    From the article:

    "The popular open source Apache Web browser takes a similar approach to features."

    Does it support tabbed browsing?

  • 3 people shocked to learn of Microsoft copying other people's ideas.
  • Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration.

    This has been around for ASP.NET web apps since the relase of .NET (Web.Config files). Vanilla HTML sites on the other hand..

  • Not new... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sliptwixt ( 606116 )
    " Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration." This is not new. web.config (each web app) changes override machine.config (system-wide) already.

  • IIS 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bitserf ( 756357 ) on Thursday September 15, 2005 @04:48PM (#13570685)

    Okay...So I guess the OP fixated on one thing (modular configuration snippets) and wrote off all IIS efforts as copying.

    It is this complacent attitude that will get Apache's ass handed to it.

    When I last checked, Apache has no way (short of parsing the config file with your own crappy scripts using unreliable regexen ) for you to inspect the current configuration. IIS has this, the entire object model of the server configuration is available for inspection from the scripts, guaranteed to be accurate.

    Apache needs to provide (if not a more structured file format), a set of script-callable APIs for configuring and managing the server.

    Grepping the config file and making one or two changes then restarting may be sufficient when you're running 10 or 20 sites in production, but when you're hosting 1000s, you need something better.

    IIS is also completely manageable from scripts, and I cast envious glances at the things our IIS admins are able to do with scripts. Create new vhost: Check. Temporarily disable vhost: Check. Modify vhost properties at runtime without bouncing the entire server: Check.

    Apache doesn't have anything equivalent (unless you count the big-hammer apachectl START/STOP/GRACEFUL) as "management". Or you write your own. (Yeah, we all have time to reinvent that wheel.)

    Apache is playing catch up here in every sense.

    And this comes from someone who runs tonnes of sites under Apache in production.

    Believe me, generating Apache configuration from a canonical source (i.e. a database) is a royal pain in the ass, but currently the only way you're really going to manage 1000s of sites with Apache if you're offering hosting services.

    This management is the single biggest thing missing in Apache today.

  • I thought, because everyone says it, that Microsoft was innovating and FLOSS just following up.

    Now I'm confused, this cannot be true. Pure Slashdot FUD.

  • Backward (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 15, 2005 @05:49PM (#13571201)
    You've got this backward. Apache doesn't have an XML configuration file. It also doesn't have hot-swappable modules. If IIS now has these features, then it will be Apache that needs to catch up.

    Apache has plenty of good features. I don't honestly know how it compares to IIS and I don't much care because I want to run on unix. But it is not perfect. These are two areas where it could improve.

    (Why do so many people here think that Apache does have these features?)

    • Re:Backward (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bulln-Bulln ( 659072 )
      Well, maybe Apache does not have these, but other OSS web servers have. Eg if I understand the feature list correctly Roxen WebServer [roxen.com] does have at least hot-swappable modules.

    • Re:Backward (Score:3, Informative)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      Apache doesn't have an XML configuration file.

      And thank the gods for that! I believe the feature they are referring to is the concept of having configuration files at all (which you can then easily scriptify, version, etc). As far as I understand IIS was strictly pointy-clicky for config.

      That MS chose to do their in XML isn't a feature, just an annoyance for whoever has to work with those files.

      (Same thing with modules: having modules is the new feature, that they are run-time loaded is a pretty useless

Slashdot Top Deals

One half large intestine = 1 Semicolon

Close