https://techrights.org/n/2024/03/27/Microsoft_s_Collapse_in_the_Web_Server_Space_Continued_This_Mon.shtml
I remember trying to setup a web server in IIS in the 90s and it was one of the reasons why now I am a full time Linux engineer.
I still blame Balckberry’s downfall on their deep integration and dependence on Microsoft server tech. A few weeks of dealing with that in the mid 2000s and I was sure the end was written for Blackberry.
Non-MS Web servers and services have evolved significantly since IIS was originally introduced. Back in the mid 90s when the web was growing up authentication was significantly more primitive. Active Directory didn't exist yet. OpenSSL didn't even exist. Linux as an accepted business server was much more rare. Your options for OS were Windows, IBM (AS400 or AIX), SCO Unix, Netware, AT&T or Berkley Unix, and a few others mainframe OSes.
Among other things, IIS allowed a way to leverage existing user directories for auth on top of an OS you already had deployed and supported in your org. It was a simple, primitive, horrible insecure and exciting time.
Dude, I learned how to write HTML in the 90's and even back then everyone knew that apache2 was clearly fucking superior. IIS has been a joke since the 90's when it was released.
I had to do it for work at some point in the late 90s and IIS did actually had a pretty good configuration application whilst Apache was all text configuration files.
The problem was that IIS compared to Apache was heavier, less performant and scalable, not as stable and it required Windows (if I remember it correctly it was even heavilly tied to other MS software such as their database).
Apache did require a bit more expert knowledge to get going, but in all else it was already superior to IIS.
I'm surprised anybody still uses IIS.
Except that's not what was happening. IIS came after Apache and played a catch up for a while. It almost surpassed Apache in 2007, but GFC happened and its popularity dropped rapidly. If not for GFC, there would be no Apache today.
Nginx also increased in popularity around that time, giving more competition to IIS. Most of the web stacks I've seen recently are running Nginx.
(I'm an HAProxy man myself.)
NGINX is rarely used as a web server, it's usually used as a reverse proxy, cache and SSL terminator. Just like HAProxy, Varnish, etc.
How are we defining a web server? Because to me it's "the thing listening on Port 80 or 443 that responds to HTTP requests."
And, yes, I know they do more than that, but they also do those things quite a bit.
There's a pretty clear distinction between a web server and a reverse proxy if you work in the field.
I'm honestly not even sure what the author's point is since IIS isn't exactly popular, or even any sort of default these days.
I build using Microsoft technologies, and haven't touched IIs for more than 8 years. I almost entirely use OSS projects, on linux.
From writing, to testing, to IaC, to the runtime, the server OS, the webserver, the proxy....etc is all FOSS projects these days.
The only proprietary things I used is the hosting provider itself and their services, and my IDE.
All that said I want to see Microsoft to succeed simply to spite AWS. We have to have competition, and for the love of god I do not need AWS taking over more of the ecosystem. More competitors more better.
Seriously, who other than a god damned masochist uses Internet Information Services as a server?
I work for a completely fucking dumbass shit for brains company that internally uses it for some of our intranet sites, and those are always having issues. Whenever someone wants to talk about "gubment waste" I would really like to show them our enterprise stack and the boondoggles of the corporate world where we fuck shit up, have no accountability, and fail upwards while leaving messes too big to clean up.
The only thing private corpos are more efficient than government at is funneling money into already rich people's pockets.
Depends on the government. For example, the Russian government is not only more efficient than any private Russian company, but it is also one of the largest drug dealers in the world.
Because people already had a server to run Exchange, which is actually pretty good, and if you're already paying a fortune for Windows, why not use it?
Linux is definitely not free, you need to hire staff who know how it works and you probably also need to pay a support contract for someone even more qualified where necessary (e.g. Red Hat, who can patch the kernel if that's what it takes to fix your problem).
Since you're already paying for both of those with your Exchange server, it was cheaper to use IIS as well. These days Linux is a lot lower maintenance and support contracts are cheaper, so it's less of a concern.
If you need to have the kernel patched to run a web server you're doing it very wrong, then or now. 🤣
I wonder if they still even teach windows server in school these days. Back in my days 10ish years ago we had separate courses for windows server and Linux. But when I got a job all the windows server was doing was AD and now even that is either gone or on it's way out.
Can confirm that Windows Server is taught in school IT programs, and can confirm that Windows Server is still being used for both Active Directory and on-premises virtualization (Hyper-V). I interned at a large international organization with networks on 6 continents and it was moving its server infrastructure back to its own datacenters because of rising costs of cloud hosting. It used Hyper-V on Windows Server to host every thing.
And yet, half of my website is hosted on Azure Storage. That little unsolicited remark about Microsoft's valuation at the bottom is clearly the result of smoking too much copium by the biased author.
This is the part, and obviously not just about IIS.
Yes, Microsoft is in trouble and it is totally faking its worth while mostly losing money in many of its divisions. When will the bailouts stop?
That's exactly it.
As BaldProphet wrote above:
That little unsolicited remark about Microsoft’s valuation at the bottom is clearly the result of smoking too much copium by the biased author.
The response to him by Starman that it's only about IIS is false and completely missing the point BaldProphet made. Which is what I showed with the quote from the article.
Who cares? Because I assure you, Microsoft doesn’t.
20-25% of those webservers are running on Microsoft Azure hardware. Microsoft is the #2 cloud provider and has been slowly but closing their gap behind AWS in recent years. All of that is in large part due to them embracing Linux and open source support on their platform.
Software isn’t the battleground, and hasn’t been for a decade. The people behind Apache and Nginx aren’t making bank on their web server dominance. Microsoft and AWS still rake in money hand over fist regardless of what software runs on their servers.
The author of this article’s apparent attitude that this is some kind of indicator of Microsoft’s market failure is one of the most ridiculous conclusions I’ve heard in a while.
Microsoft released both IIS and IE with the goals of controlling the web and trying to ensure that customers didn't leave their ecosystem.
This failed, but that is the reason they are in the web server market.
so, servers that use microsoft technology is what is failing? if so azure isn't counted right?
Cloudflare, like Akamai and others, provides a number of services that include proxying, CDN, web security (WAF), bot detection & protection, image optimization, and more.
Cloud providers like AWS, Google, and MS provide similar services as well, but typically to a lesser extent. I’ve worked with Akamai, Cloudflare, and AWS, and find Akamai’s to be the most powerful/flexible/customizable.