Much less is a new release indicator that Zdnet will be "eating their words in a year or two" regarding Ngix/Apache market share.
On the contrary, if this release DOES improve performance a lot and reduces memory usage, on top of all the other savings, it would make it even LESS possible for NGINX to win over Apache.
Besides raw performance, there are lots of reasons to use Apache still, from the fact that it's a battle tested server with tons of documentation, know best practices, tools and modules support, knowledgable admins etc available for it. So, if performance is improved, many people won't bother switched that otherwise might have.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2012/02/07/february-2012-w...
The main reason is: I don't care for that much performance in the raw one standalone server case, and I can always put Varnish on top. But I do care for easy of installation, breadth of documentation, etc, and with Apache you got that in spades. This can be in even very simple things, that I can solve in Nginx in 15 minutes, like, say, Wordpress having specific rewrite rules and support for Apache built-in and not for Nginx. It's trivial to solve, but if I used Apache, I wouldn't even have to.
Given two platforms, one of which is better than the other but less popular, I usually stick to the most popular one (within reason. Like, I won't go for PHP, but I would go with Rails, not Padrino or some even less known thing).
Fewer problems down the road, and if you get into those, people have already encountered them.
Is it just me or the more you pay for software, the more it hurts you these days?
I am using and administering it from 6 years, seems pretty much okay to me if you use the .NET stack. If 18% of the top million sites are using it over completely free alternatives, they must be doing something right.
edit: forgot the "burn, karma, burn" line...
VBScript must be the hottest programming language, right?
Netcraft confirms it.
Do you really think most MC* people are eager to move on to tools that make their certifications worthless? When they move, they do along Microsoft's designated path and rarely stray from it.
Better tools like what?
Maybe there are many people out there that think that ASP.NET/C#/MVC and Visual Studio are actually better tools for them?
I know that could be an alien concept around these parts and for you but that doesn't make it any less true.
Saying that they should discard their knowledge and move to Ruby/PHP/Node is as idiotic as saying Ruby developers should ditch Ruby and move to Visual Studio/C#/.NET since it might be one of the best platforms around.
>Do you really think most MC* people are eager to move on to tools that make their certifications worthless? When they move, they do along Microsoft's designated path and rarely stray from it.
Microsoft has been building up support for Python, PHP, Node and github. Anyway, the reality is nothing close to the dystopian light that you paint them in. The jobs are no more dead-end than Java or PHP or Ruby jobs.
And no, sorry, VBScript is barely around in maybe in around 5% of companies running IIS, people have moved on to new technologies, unlike constant MS bashers who seem to be stuck atleast a decade back in their criticisms.
Except that VS/C#/.NET isn't one of the best platforms around unless you code for Windows. And that's one more reason not to move to other platforms - because the tools they use don't support the alien technology as well as what they've been using.
> The jobs are no more dead-end than Java or PHP or Ruby jobs.
You obviously have a different idea of what constitutes a dead-end job. I imagine it's a job at a company that thinks of IT as a cost of doing business, something competitive advantages are not to be derived from. Those companies will not invest in new things until everybody else is doing it and hire the same kinds of professional other companies hire. They use certifications instead of interviews because then the whole hiring process can be done within HR. I've seen a lot of them.
> VBScript is barely around in maybe in around 5% of companies running IIS
I know it's not a thorough review, but I see plenty of .asp URLs around within corporate confines.
>Except that VS/C#/.NET isn't one of the best platforms around unless you code for Windows. And that's one more reason not to move to other platforms - because the tools they use don't support the alien technology as well as what they've been using.
Code for Windows? As oppposed to what? Code for the Mac or Linux? These days most of the effort is in coding for the web.
And it doesn't really really matter to the user if the website is running on Windows Server, Linux or BSD.
>You obviously have a different idea of what constitutes a dead-end job. I imagine it's a job at a company that thinks of IT as a cost of doing business, something competitive advantages are not to be derived from. Those companies will not invest in new things until everybody eles is doing it. I've seen a lot of them.
Sure there are, but if they ran on Ruby or PHP, they would be doing the exact same thing, I don't see how IIS is relevant here. The companies want a well supported product, with an available developer base and some of them choose the .NET stack based on MS' really long support cycles.
>I know it's not a thorough review, but I see plenty of .asp URLs around within corporate confines.
If you're seeing more ASP URLs than ASPX URLs, I would say your corporate selection is skewed. There have been and continues to be a massive number of migrations away from asp over the past ten years.
Go compare the number of job listings on Dice for classic ASP developers vs. ASP.NET, it's not even a contest.
Since when exploring and using different, possibly better, technology is "on a whim"?
> Code for Windows? As oppposed to what? Code for the Mac or Linux?
I don't think Mac is a popular platform for running server applications, but I am sure Linux is a very relevant one, if not so popular in environments that reject "new" technology.
> And it doesn't really really matter to the user if the website is running on Windows Server, Linux or BSD.
Actually, it does. If your choice of technology implies higher prices, longer time for bug-fixes or added features or lower reliability, it directly impacts user experience. If your choice of technology fails to attract the best developers, software quality will suffer. That will impact user experience.
> The companies want a well supported product
If they are exploring competitive differentials through the adoption of newer technologies, they'd better realize it's not possible.
> with an available developer base
This certainly impacts the price of your labor. If you chose a technology that has lots of developers readily available, you'll be able to offer them lower compensation.
> Go compare the number of job listings on Dice for classic ASP developers vs. ASP.NET, it's not even a contest.
Job listings reflect open positions, not the number of people using a given technology.