this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
94 points (92.0% liked)
Technology
59137 readers
2267 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never understood how they had any in the first place.
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.
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.
If you need to have the kernel patched to run a web server you're doing it very wrong, then or now. 🤣
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.
(+Solaris, HP/UX, DG/UX, Irix, etc)
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.
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.
I remember trying to get it to work with MySQL, failing, and moving to apache.
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've got over 20 years of experience in the field. I've configured both of them as reverse proxies and web servers.
If Nginx is accepting connections on ports 80 and 443, terminating SSL, and responding to HTTP requests, that makes it a web server. Especially if it's responding with static content.
Oh my...
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.
"Corporate would like you to find the difference between these two pictures."
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.