Comments (32)

big brother ufa - June 29th 1999, 16:35 EST Lets not ignore all the other (and possibly even more dangerous) activities of MS: broadband / internet 2, Gates buying up rights to various artworks, their insidious inroads into the entertainment industry. They have the money and the resources as well as the business savvy to control more than just the desktop...

well thought out! dentar - June 29th 1999, 17:01 EST That was probably the most well thought out commentary that I have seen yet. Besides having a faster, multi-threaded tcp/ip stack and a killer office app, we need more kde/gnome apps that are full featured. star office and corel I don't think integrate with gnome or kde well like macrosloth apps do with their "os." A co-worker said something scary to me. What happens when Linux does get popular and lots of binary-only proprietary device drivers come out for it?

Protocol Patents Mathew Johnston - June 29th 1999, 17:25 EST Protocols used on the internet such as HTTP, FTP, TCP/IP, etc that are essential to the existance of the internet should not be patentable by companies. It would be nice if such protocols could be patented by standards organizations (the patent would have to be non standard in the sense that it would prohibit unauthorized modification, rather than unauthorized use - this would stop problems like differences between apache/IIS or explorer/netscape) - so that entities like Microsoft or even Apache couldnt make changes to the HTTP protocol standard. If they tried, the standards body holding the patent could force the modifier to cease, unless they paid a fee or something. *shrug* just a thought. proprietary protocols like ICQ and stuff scare me.

Pirate Websites and Corporate IT ThorPrime - June 29th 1999, 17:41 EST I think it is important to remember that, while there might be 100 million MS Windows machines out there (many of which already running IIS or IIS/PWS), many are behind firewalls. Network administrators deperately fear the idea of Joe Blow in marketing putting up his own pirate website, which could open security holes into the rest of the LAN, open the company up to content liability, might consume bandwidth for non-corporate purposes (translate: porno and mp3s), or worst of all, may leak corporate secrets. The "guerrilla upgrades" of Windows 98 pissed off more than a few corporate IT managers, and as a result, Win98 has been banned from many corporate networks. If Microsoft encourages folks to download free, personal webservers, they may very well end up shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to the market they need most. I think that Linux advocates should sieze on this ... Linux offers an excellent alternative in the corporate LAN. Linux workstations are easy to administer remotely and centrally, and easy to secure, insuring that end-users don't upgrade their systems to an unauthorized and unsupported OS, and insuring that they can't run unathorized network services. I agree that Linux and Apache advocates should work hard to make sure Linux and Apache are ready for the W2K competition, but we should also use this as an opportunity to go on the offensive, targeting IS/IT managers who are tired of the support and security woes that every new Microsoft product "upgrade" brings.

now that perl stuff makes sense frobozz - June 29th 1999, 17:46 EST So now we know why MS is sinking money into ActivePerl. It seems to me though Linux's big wins - Free Speach, Free Beer and GPL code aren't going to go away.

i'm not sure i agree djinn87 - June 29th 1999, 18:24 EST it seems to me that a more successful tactic from microsoft would be to just put apache on the windows 2000 computers for free. that way, they don't need to bother with the upkeep, they don't have to lose any money over it being free, and they've taken away users from linux. microsoft doesn't really care what webserver you run because that's not where they make their money. microsoft makes it's money from the desktop installations and oem charges. by putting apache, for free, on windows 2000, microsoft would make little investment of their own and offer superior service than just making a cheap, lightweight webserver. most importantly, though, a good webserver on a desktop machine doesn't really matter. most people don't run their websites off their own machines bandwidth and most people don't want to administer their own webpages. if anyone is going to run a large enough web site to have apache than they either need large enough computing resources (bandwidth included) to price themselves beyond most home users or enough expertise to choose the better solution instead of whatever microsoft gives them.

Linux isn't about winning Jason Straight - June 29th 1999, 18:57 EST Linux isn't about winning the war against microsoft, Just like I don't build my hotrod truck to beat top fuel racers, we don't build linux for the purpose of beating anyone, we build it to get the job done that we need to. It just so happens that it has gradually been molded into a super souped up operating system, that is costing very little to run the 1/4 mile, compared to what MS puts into their beast, and we are getting better times out of ours ;-) And although Apache isn't a company making server software, there are other server companies that are that will more than likely bring it to the attention of the DOJ. I just hope someone pulls their head out long enough to see that even though MS is in court they are still pulling things.

New target audience Alex Feinberg - June 29th 1999, 20:15 EST It seems to me that right now Microsoft is targeting a new audience - the cable modem script kiddies. The ones you see when you do an mp3 search on scour or audiofind -- all these anoying sites which never work. However, they are rather invisible, other then to few morons like themselves. http://strlen.net

its all about money. avantguard - June 29th 1999, 20:17 EST im not here to support or bag out either side. Microsoft is a business. It runs to make money. If it can make more money by muying out another company, or squashing the competition it will. They have done it before, but since apache is free they cant buy this out. Linux (or apache, GPL etc.) is not a normal business model, and this has thrown them off. Microsoft arent bad people, just greedy. One good thing has come of all this war and that is better educated people - thanks competition.

Microsoft [Jedi] - June 29th 1999, 23:21 EST Microsoft can go to hell. If they think they can compete with Linux they are waaaay out of line. I can imagine...Having windows2000 and the their so called new and good webserver...and after a few hours uptime..i can see it come...that horrible blue screen of death!! I dont get it..i Run Linux and windows 98..when running Linux its so great and stable, but windows..hey..crash me here crash me there. I only use windows for Playing games. And in the next few years all games will be released on Linux too..Scew directx and microsoft! LINUX WILL PREVAIL!

ISP zavadsky - June 30th 1999, 00:15 EST The main problem are ISP. We should have a very easy to maintain Linux/Apache distribution for ISP. It should have some CGI scripts to manage multihosting e-mail, be very secure and, optionally, self-upgradable via internet

personal webserver Donncha O Caoimh - June 30th 1999, 01:21 EST This article appeared on linuxtoday too. Someone there mentioned you can already get a stripped down web server for Win9x, the Personal Webserver with Frontpage. Issues of stability would deter most from using Win9x as a web platform anyway. Not at first of course, but once their machines have crashed for the umpteenth time..

Apache/Linux vs. Micro$oft JoHo - June 30th 1999, 06:26 EST Very nice article Conrad! One thing that leaps to (my) mind in all this is the question of whether anyone - including the "MS Crowd" - can actually "stop" the pea that is a snow ball that is an avalanche that we call Linux. I do, however, think that additional and better integrated software (read: applications) is required, as well as a standardized desktop environment for Linux to ever be considered a candidate for the current Win9x crowd. It'll be very interesting to see what happens to the Linux "world" when some of the "giants" (in terms of development assets and cash flow), who claim to be committed to Linux, finally unleash their latest offering for our favorite platform.

Let's do the Samba Strike again korpiq - June 30th 1999, 10:14 EST Well, they had this proprietary SMB protocol, which was over years adopted to pretty well by a certain free product. Once their proprietary 'extenstions' come out, it's probably just a question of developer time, need, and some extra apache modules. Unless they hit the world with some patentable protocols... To be seen. Though I tend to agree that this is not the way things should be developed. Development efforts should be targeted towards real needs.

Well Written. Robert Sanderson - June 30th 1999, 10:47 EST A Very well written article. :) I agree with the comment on a new target audience, but in my experience it's not just script kiddies who would want to set up their own site on their own machine, and not just SKs who use the newer faster technologies. Even here in the UK, British Telecom have been plugging the leased line internet kick - and we still have to pay about 2c a minute for local calls. More and more frequently I talk online who are using ISDN or similar. Microsoft can not only bank on fast line technology dropping in price, with their corporate power they can get on the bandwagon themselves - "New Windows 2000 with two click integrated support for your Direct Line to the Internet! Run your own webserver, just drag and drop blablabla..." By working 'together' (read, we'll support your tech to promote ours) with the companies who make it, M$ can help to lower the prices for the connection and the hardware even faster than it would already fall at. With the influx of either free or cheap DNS registry systems, it's becoming easier to have your own semi-personalised hostname. If Microsoft were to get onto this as well (cf. Hotmail) the combination would be a significant force. -- Rob Sanderson (no relation afaik)

Windows 2000 is NT5 Muness Al-Rubaie - June 30th 1999, 10:59 EST Windows 2000 is NT 5. It is not supposed to be a follow up to Win3/3.1/95/98. Hence, it will ship with as NT4 did with IIS for free. You are also ignoring the fact that there is a version of Apache for Win32. Not to mention - as another reader already stated- MS Personal Web server which is also free. Also, if IIS somehow becomes a better web server than Apache does, and it too is free, do the majority of web masters really care? (How many people have actually even looked at Apache's code, much less made changes to it?! Of course IIS I am willing to bet that IIS will never become a better server, for it is based on NT. The best Java environments currently are (supposedly) on NT. Would I ever run a production system on NT? No way. I'd rather use the (supposedly) inferior Java VM running on Linux any day.

May be we can do something RzN8rX - June 30th 1999, 11:00 EST Well, there is only one way to combat MS's tactics. Bring APACHE to Windows faster than MS. The same way ICQ took off like crazy, a lite version of APACHE can be ported to windows, a basic-home-user version that Joe Blow that just got his computer and wants to put up his small webserver or the-little-kid-who-just-got-his machine can use. But unlike MS Lite version doesn't mean giving up functionality. The little web server can be for dial-up users as well as dedicated (ADSL, Cable). People will eat up like crazy, the same little things like MP3 and ICQ spread through the net this baby can to, once it has spread Micro$oft won't be able to do anything about it. They are even trying to kill ICQ by putting up Microsoft Buddy List in their new OS. The only way to beat Microsoft is to create something compatible with their products only better and free, then no one can say oh don't use that software cause it won't be comptaible with your current Micro$oft products. The ultimate thing would be an OS which can run Windows products!

Anticipating the next move Ted Lemon - June 30th 1999, 11:03 EST If Microsoft's strategy is to come out with a cheap web server that provides proprietary features so as to lock out Apache and Netscape, the right solution is to provide a free, open solution to the exact same people. In other words, a version of Apache on Win98 that's just as easy to use as whatever Microsoft will be shipping. I realize this sounds like promoting Win98, but it's not actually that. What it actually is is promoting open source software and confusing the market so Microsoft can't take it over, and so that incompatible features Microsoft provides will be seen as non-competitive, and will not work to Microsoft's advantage.

But... Prisoner - June 30th 1999, 11:12 EST While your post makes some good comments, I think you're missing the mark on a couple of important points. 1) I'm glad to see you mention PWS in this version, although you still don't acknowledge that IIS is free with NT server. This means they're already competing with Apache when it comes to price. Since it ships installed, it gives IIS the slight advantage when it comes to atractiveness. 2) There are already features in IIS that only work with IE. Most notably, the NTLM authentication mechanisim that is missing from Netscape clients and Apache servers. This makes browing sites that require authentication, especially intranets, much more transparent to the user. This makes them more attractive. 3) MS is essentially saying "we will win the web server war based on features". This is no more evil than trying to build a better mousetrap. As one of the mice, I still want to get iron plating. Our challenge is much as you describe: - Show why open source and platform portability is a major feature -- Match the MS features one-for-one -- Improve our weakpoints as a server _and_ as a client

IIS free with NT server Kyle Rawlins - June 30th 1999, 11:40 EST True, IIS is free with NT server, but when's the last time you looked at the price for NT server? Not only that, if you want to run more than one server, you need site licenses, which significantly add to the price.

userfriendlyness and market shares. m. ernisse - June 30th 1999, 11:47 EST I was talking to a friend of mine and after a long conversation we finally decided that really the only reason people see windows as "user friendly" is because their 5 friends use it. Ignore the fact that Windows really isn't any friendlier than a nicely setup X environment. Anyone with a decent DOS background could end up with Linux/*Nix just fine. It seems that MS's main goal is to get that market share then keep it. I hear people talking about Linux dominating the market. I don't ever want to live to see that day. Because then the operating system we all love will end up becoming just as commercialized as Winblows. RIght now with about 5-10% market, Linux is free to do whatever it wants. If we ever hit 60% market, we become slaves to the users. Ultimatly what Microsoft does won't kill Linux/Apache... The life of Linux/Apache will probably outlive Microsoft.

Windows2000, the Internet, and You Reisu - June 30th 1999, 12:04 EST It comes to show that it's more than typical of the next 'wave' of M$'s attempt at total and complete market power. Is NT stable? No. In comparison to any one of my Linux servers, with uptimes of near-300 days, a 5-10 day uptime with NT seems somehow inadequate. The upshod is this: Uncle Bill will make you pay for a product, and pay dearly in licensing fees, setup fees, with all the hype, and one tenth the stability. Hmm...and was anyone aware the M$, much to their chagrin, found that there was an 'unfixable bug' with the software, which makes Netscape impossible to run on Windows 2000? Amazing.

Simplified Apache Setup and PHP Konmaskisin - June 30th 1999, 12:49 EST I wonder why Apache doesn' t just ship built with PHP. By default the server side parsing could be turned off except for one access restricted subdirectory where an abolutely killer easy to use GUI Apache configuration tool would reside. The very same PHP app could produce a wonderfully formatted interface for Lynx too. I realize there are similar web interface projects out there. And I guess yet another 6 or 7 KDE GNOME GUI thingie projects will appear - but a web server should be configurable through a web interface and it should ship with one. This doesn't have to be a security issue: make the Admin module accessible only from 127.0.0.1 then ssh into the box and use lynx. It'd be nice if this interface was set up so one Apache server could act as the "configuration proxy" for a series of machines ... Anyone know the rationale behind the default modules that get built or ship with Apache? Why not build and integrate PHP and some simple database for storing configurations (not a server just something like DB or whatever), easing authentication setup etc. I think Apache could kill IIS completely and do it right now with a little effort. If IBM dumped some $ into the kitty and someone finished and polished the port (with some of the above features) to NT and added an easy download, one-click install it'd be all over. Hmm s/Apache/apache/ for the above .. I think

Windows 2000 uptime Wonko the Sane - June 30th 1999, 12:57 EST I don't know where you guys got this crazy idea that Win2000 has an uptime of 5-10 days. I've been using Beta 3 of Windows 2000 Server with IIS 5 (which *is* far, far nicer than Apache), and the thing has been running smoothly since the day I first booted it up about 4 months ago. Windows hasn't caused a single problem, and so far there isn't a single memory leak. If you configure the system correctly (basically, if you just don't screw shtuff up), Win2000 is extremely stable...perhaps not as stable as Linux, but we'll see...

More suggestions... kavakave - June 30th 1999, 13:15 EST Interesting article. You make some good points. I think that on the suggestions side there are other things to add: 1. Make it very easy to download and install Apache. Use wizards to step novices through the process. This is true on other platforms of course, but particularly so on Windows. 2. Make the installation and configuration easy and intuitive for a 'windows person' to understand. By this I mean: use standard tools, like Install Shield, and standard controls that look modern, professional and are well understood. Users of Windows are so used to an insular way of doing things and looking at the world that anything 'foreign' is seen as a complexity and looked on with suspicion. 3. As part of the installation, offer to make Apache the only server activated at startup. (they would have to do this anywise of course, but offer to do it for them). Also, put Apache on the desktop. Offer to remove the MS icon. 4. Make Apache easy to upgrade. This could be built right into the server - doing a check of it's version number against an authoritative site and prompting the user to download/install any upgrades when they are available. On Linux boxes, the same is true of productivity applications. Make them easy to download and upgrade through wizards. 5. If you really wanted to be aggressive about it a machine could be set up that crawls the net connecting to servers and checking which vendor they are. If they come up non-apache, then email could be sent to addresses like webmaster@domain.name with text like "Try free Apache web server now" and links to downloads. Care would need to be taken to say this in a non-spam way, but addresses like 'webmaster' should expect unsolicited email from the public. 6. Maintain a steady stream of case studies, success stories and reviews. After all, the "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" mentality is very entrenched.

recommendations mento - June 30th 1999, 13:25 EST Forget the killer office application suite! Port InstallShield first if you ever want to grow the Linux user base! Office apps do no good if you scare the Joe Blow users away with the cryptic installation process.

Another take Kythe - June 30th 1999, 13:37 EST My take on Ballmer's comments is that MS means to bundle the full version of IIS with W2K (for free, of course), and/or break Apache functionality on the same platform.

admins know better Mario Koeppen - June 30th 1999, 13:49 EST Why should Apache compete with a web server placed on the end user's desktop? Setting up an own litte (pirate) website is surely not most common use for IIS nor Apache. All admins dealing with webhosting i know LOVE Apache and HATE IIS. Not because IIS is from MS but because it's hard work to configure IIS and Apache is not (having magnitudes of several thousand customers). Yes, you have several tools/facilities in IIS for this purpose but this make it even more complex (IMHO). As for reliability: even Frontpage server extensions run better with Apache...

MS Assault on Apache / Linux Could Be Good Charles Petrie - June 30th 1999, 14:24 EST MS may worry about Apache and Linux for servers, but MS has a lock on the desktop with Office. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint have unfortunately become de facto standards in industry. I personally reject such proprietary formats if they are sent to me, but they are, all too often. The MS monopoly is not the OS but Word. However, if MS really pushes people to send URLs of HTML docs on their personal web servers, in order to conquer Apache/Linux, they could very well defeat their own Office monopoly. I would love a world in which people understood it was better to ship URLs pointing to some standard format rather than ship around Word docs. And it would break MS's real monopoly if people did that. Unfortunately, I doubt people will . And if they don't, Apache will survive, and so will the MS Office monopoly. Sigh.

a few things Danish - June 30th 1999, 14:37 EST Just a few of my thoughts: Us Linux people shouldn't get overconfident about our stability and uptime. While it is outstanding, Windows may be getting better at it (who knows, maybe some M$ programmers were looking at the source for the kernel just for programming technique.. heh heh). We should recognize that the average Joe Blow user, and maybe even some network admins, will use something that's easy to use even if it is half as stable as the better-but-somewhat-harder alternative. Linux itself needs to be improved. All the stuff that everyone else has been mentioning - integrated Office-like apps (for both Gnome and KDE), easier configuration (the Apache/PHP frontend someone else mentioned, perhaps), etc., etc. Performance issues with the TCP/IP stack and others should be improved (not referring to the Mindcrap test, of course, but we want to be at least an order of magnitude better than Winblows, especially NT Server, in this area.) While Linux should not become heavily commercialized (e.g. binary-only drivers and apps everywhere, other similar calamities), I think it does need more support in this area: if end-users can see a 800/888/whatever number to call (with a website and links to good newsgroups/mailinglists & other sites, and a mention of this site on the hotline), then Linux would probably be on top. It's not that it doesn't have support, it's that people are used to companies with a unified support center like this. And maybe a Superbowl commercial would be nice... or just one subliminal frame showing a penguin and the text LINUX: Use it or die. might be nice. <g>. Hope I didn't miss anything.

Let's be fair... elpollodiablo - June 30th 1999, 17:24 EST In all fairness, I believe you misinterpreted Steve Ballmer's comment. He said, "It is our own fault if we do not offer enough features with our servers to justify their price. When it comes to hosting several sites on one server version, Apache is simply better. Windows 2000 will solve this problem." I don't believe that the problem he was referring to was Apache. The problem he was referring to was not enough utilities included with the server for the price. Windows 2k will address THAT problem. I think Microsoft recognizes Apache as a viable and well-written web server. However, they also recognize--from Linux's (and Apache's) success that people want the all-in-one product. Since Microsoft can't compete with the price of Linux, they'll focus on bolstering features for the price. I don't perceive this as a threat to Apache or Linux. Those who use Linux are going to use it regardless of what Windows offers. Winning converts is the true crux of the issue. Since the Linux learning curve is so monstrous, Windows remains the viable option. It's simple to set up, simple to administer, and simple to deploy. I think Microsoft's strategy will be one more of cooperation with Linux instead of opposition. It's hard to kill a phantom. And since Linux remains informal, there's no real way to attack it. Those who buy Win2k would have bought it regardless of the inclusion of a scaled back IIS. Linux is not losing anything with this move.

Kill Microsoft? TheSnowman - June 30th 1999, 17:43 EST A friend once told me a quote that basically said "Linux is for Microsoft haters, BSD is for UNIX lovers." While I want to see Linux more popular and more mature (kernel, RPM/InstallShield, X-managers, etc), my motive is not really to kill Microsoft. Microsoft sure can't kill Linux, so I don't feel threatened. Linux and Apache are free and have so many die-hard users that they will never die. I see other commerical UNIX operating systems such as Solaris taking hold of the high-end business market such as a corporate web server. Think about it. How many people are going to use a regular desktop computer to serve thousands of web pages a day, on a 10 megabit network? My guess is none. I don't care if you are using Linux or Windows, you don't run the "real" web servers from workstations. You buy four-CPU machines with RAID arrays and gigabytes of RAM. If Microsoft does include some new HTTP 1.2 protocol or certain IE-only extensions, one's first reaction is that of anger. But hold on: just because Microsoft includes some new feature, does that mean people either need or want it? Does anyone remember "Microsoft Bob?" That was a HUGE flop. Nobody needed it, nobody wanted it, everyone thought it was stupid. Just make sure you are more concerned with Linux's well-being than Microsoft's failure.