Believe me, your comparison of IIS with Apache or Roxen is not comparable.
I'm not trying to be mean/harsh here; I'm just pointing out the facts
bluntly, so pardon me in advance.
1.
IIS is not any more "heavily built into the OS" than Apache. I work on the
IIS team; I know. If you corrupt the right file, Apache or Windows can
become equally as useless. Murphy's Law simply corrupted some set of files
to make you think this is an IIS issue. In general, corruption renders some
part of the system useless. Trying to blame that part of the system for
being corrupted does not seem rational.
2.
Microsoft only supports certain versions of IIS on any given OS because we
test and certify those combinations. The random combinations aren't allowed
nor supported. It is very costly and impractical to support a big OS/IIS
version matrix. And believe it or not, Apache is not much better.
In theory, you can install any version, but in practice, you will find that
certain versions of Apache require certain Linux kernel versions, only the
latest and a few "blessed" builds have appreciable user base to have
community support. If you are not main-stream, you are on your own -- and
Apache is not going to backport security fixes, etc to the older builds --
your only choice is to upgrade to the latest to get everything.
You know what? Microsoft patches actually apply to the older builds and do
not force you to upgrade to get the latest patches, and these combinations
are all supported. And the few "blessed" Apache builds with appreciable user
base is not much different than the few OS/IIS combinations that Microsoft
supports.
In other words, the appearance of choice in Open Source is really no choice
for the masses. IIS has better QFE support than Apache, Microsoft tells you
up front the valid OS/IIS combinations while Apache leaves it up to you to
figure out, and IIS support can get you answers while the Linux crowd would
flame/ignore you. Free choice is one thing, but supportability is something
totally different. Do not confuse the two.
3.
In terms of reliability and security -- go ahead and compare against IIS6
(only fair to look at the latest generation). You will find that IIS6 is
more reliable and has had far fewer security infractions vs Apache. See
Michael Howard's blog
http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/ -- it's not
marketing/media blitz -- he keeps a pretty level eye. And it is not just
him -- Gartner and most analysts say the same thing.
So, I suggest that you stop looking through five year old biased lens. The
current world is a very different place. Linux is now the most hacked OS two
years running, and Apache is the most defaced web server along with the most
security vulnerabilities. The news media is biased toward only reporting
"monopoly and security vulnerability" when it comes to Microsoft; it fails
to disclose the dirty laundry in the other products... so you only have a
false sense of security/superiority.
--
//David
IIS
http://blogs.msdn.com/David.Wang
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
//
"Kerem Gümrükcü" <kareem114 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edGHTqITFHA.2256@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi David,
yes, i had a lot of experience in the past with murphy's law(s). My os is
stabilized for now, but the worse thing
is, that i cant run my iis and this makes development very unproductive and
a very long task (compile,
copy to another machine, register etc.). Sooner or later i have to bite the
bullet and build my system from
scratch, i know this...
Our customers run IIS, but this "iis-thing" is too heavily build into the os
and in case of (partial)OS or
component corruption....windows reaches the stage of uselessness as
web-server. Apache or Roxen for instance
are very secure and very stable servers and can be easily reconstructed in
case of system corruption.
I hate to worry...
Best Regards
Kerem Gümrükcü
>> Stay informed about: Free ASP Web Server Engine...