httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: Microsoft compares IIS4 to Apache 1.2
Date Fri, 19 Dec 1997 17:16:24 GMT
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:

> There's a bunch of other blatant bollox(tm):
> "Monitor multiple host machines simultaneously"
> "Per Web site applications"
> "SNMP Support" (there's a module for this, isn't there?)
> "Auto log closing and start new log based on time interval" (should be
> yes)
> "Compile-free server side scripting"

Yet they say Apache can "log to any ODBC database" even though Netscape's
server supposedly can't.

Wow.  Funny, no one but Microsoft supports all their buzwords.
"Applicaiton and component process isolation."  "oh no, Apache for Unix
doesn't support WinCGI(!?!?)"  "Oh no, Apache for Unix doesn't have NT
server security integration"  Oh, no "flexible file management".  

Cool, Apache doesn't do "one button publishing"  Funny, I thought content
creation tools published to web sites.  Same with "graphical HTML web page
editing".  Good grief.  They can't find enough misleading information on
their own, they have to repeate "Integrated with Windows NT Server file
security".  Oh, and Apache isn't "programmable".   Oh, and no online
support for Apache.

Well, this is worse than typical marketing junk so I don't think anyone
who has ever used Apache will have any problem determining that it is a
load of junk.  I would guess that 50% of the comparisons don't make sense,
25% it is actually a good thing to have "no".

Interesting that they have to compare against the latest IIS beta vs.
production versions of other servers.   Interesting that they don't
mention the minor detail that Apache runs on Unix.

Funny, their performance comparison goes through and compares IIS to
itself (v3 vs. v4), CGI to ASP to ISAPI, etc.  Nowhere do they mention any
other web server.  Their conclusion, of course, is "IS 4.0 provides the
highest level of performance for deploying Web-based applications."  Yup,
I won't argue about that when the only other option in the running is

View raw message