[linux-elitists] Netcraft reports Windows 2003 taking share from Linux

David Mohring heretic@ihug.co.nz
Tue Sep 16 19:23:10 PDT 2003


On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 03:26, Larry M. Augustin wrote:
> Interesting news day for Linux announcements.
> 
> Netcraft reports that Windows 2003 is gaining Web server market share from
> Linux:
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=620&ncid=620&e=2&u=/nf/20030
> 915/bs_nf/22290

The original netcraft article on the "Migration" to Windows Server 2003 
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/10/windows_server_2003_doubles_active_sites_since_july_5_were_previosuly_running_linux.html
mentions the fact that most of the migration is occuring on hosted
systems, where the hosting providers have received very favorable terms
( read as bribes ) to switch to Windows2003. See 
http://thewhir.com/features/microsoft-license.cfm

To quote  Aitvo
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=4526&limit=no#142938
"Myhosting.com continues to be the top hoster of active Windows Server
2003 sites, and now has over 98% of their active sites migrated to
Windows 2003." "Myhosting.com 32,810" last month "Myhosting.com 13,504"
There's your 5%, *1* provider. 

What the Microsoft spin doctors do not mention is the continuing market
share loss to Apache overall.  
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/september_2003_web_server_survey.html

> Has anyone spent time dissecting Windows 2003?  
Only the security aspects of IISv6
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6319-0.html?forumID=14&threadID=137511&start=0

> I haven't tried it yet
> myself.  Anyone try running half a dozen large sites with it?  I plan to
> bring it up on a couple of servers to test.  What Windows 2003 features are
> making it acceptable as a replacement for Linux?  

With Win2k Microsoft reached a stability plateau. Windows 2003 is not
that much better in either mid/low end server performance or stability.
A number of added features in Win2k3 are IMO mostly vendor lock-in
mechanisms. There is a lot of Win2k targeted software that Win2k3
remains incompatible with, including a few Microsoft packages.

Despite all that, Windows2003 is a little better in the security
department, but that is comparison to Microsoft former offerings.
Microsoft make much of the ease it takes to maintain their own products
in comparison with Linux, but following their own guide to security
would be a bit beyond a number of MCSE I know.
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=14845
Download and unzip the Windows_Server_2003_Security_Guide.exe
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=14846

For servers, Bastille Linux does a better job with Redhat and Debian.
http://www.bastille-linux.org/


> From the Yahoo story:
> 
> "The encouraging thing for Microsoft is that [the usage increase] is showing
> the world that there are some shared-hosting services on Server 2003," he
> [Netcraft director Mike Prettejohn] said.

You have to wonder what next months figures are going to be with the
fallout from the most recent worms.

David Mohring.







More information about the linux-elitists mailing list