Looking for a good website host

Hi I am helping a friend get his comedy website up and running but I need help to find a good server to host his website. He is looking for a good server that allows for high traffic. Any suggestions?

 

How much traffic are we talking about? 300gb/month or more?

How much web space does he need?

What is his budget?

 

I say lunarpages.

5 bucks a month for unlimited data and bandwidth. I just made an account myself issetstyles.com literally 15 minutes ago.

 

https://www.godaddy.com/

Cheap, secure, and reliable. All the web servers are using MS technology.

 

I use to use www.Emphasys.com years ago, but I had https services for secure tranactions. I had them setup up my site because I did not have time and knew the owner Darren Dittrich. They are in the DFW area. Have no idea what the fees are these days, because I shut it down over 5 yrs ago.

 

I've been in the site design and hosting business for 12 years now, since the early days when the 'net first started to be more than just a BBS network. Like many companies, I sell space rather than use my own equipment as it's a lot cheaper, especially when it comes to E-commerce sites these days. Since I was forced to retire on disability from my regular job as a Federal QA Inspector, I've since limited my business to referrals and word-of-mouth. I maintain one large travel site/corporation on the west coast that keeps me busy, as well as a charity site I built when it began and I’ve maintained it free of charge since. Still, as a consultant, I do help people daily to try and see through the BS to make a decision on what to do as far as online service goes. While you won't find hosting package information or services on my site anymore (in fact I've just got my email address anymore), there are links to the 2 sites that I still maintain. Most of the info I'm going to write down likely won't affect everything you do, but may help someone else looking to setup a site, and that's why myself and other professionals contribute to Forums.

First off, despite comments here to the contrary, stay away from any online service that still uses MS server based hosting as its primary hosting equipment, assuming you can even find any anymore. For the past several years the industry has been moving more toward Linux/Apache based servers, mainly due to the inherent problems with security that MS Servers have, but also because more maintenance is required with them. Assuming you can find a hosting company that still uses MS Server, you'll likely wind up paying more for your hosting fees because nobody wants to deal with them. ASP based commerce sites are old news, given the many security requirements that have been enacted over the last few years that sites are required to have in place.

There are several things that you need to consider besides just traffic, amount of space and cost that many people don't consider when considering site hosting. One thing you should know is that many sites like GoDaddy and others that offer unbelievable amounts of space, bandwidth and hundreds of email accounts do so because they know they'll never have to deliver on any of those statements. The kinds of space and bandwidth that the offer are only seen my by the most busy of E-commerce sites, so understand that they’re just marketing ploys designed to lure you to their services. The key to any hosting operation is their customer service, and this is especially true of E-commerce setups. If you have a problem with your site, whether it be a security scan flag that drops your PCI compliance level, your site not being seen on the ‘net, email account problems that you can't fix and need help, etc., you don't want to wait for an hour on the phone to get to a tech, or have your email request sit in a queue for a day or two before someone gets around to dealing with it because you're not a high dollar site.My hosting packages may cost a little more than most, and I’ll never offer absurd amounts of space and bandwidth, but the offset is that if there's any problem a quick phone call or email will have it dealt with within an hour or less - usually less than a ½ hour, or in the time it takes to call and relate the problem.

While service problems with these kinds of hosting companies isn't always the case, unfortunately it’s the norm and not the exception. One way to get an idea of how good or bad service might be is to Google the company and add "customer service problems" in the search phrase. Google spiders don't miss much on the 'net. In fact, to illustrate my point, use GoDaddy as the hosting service for the search term “GoDaddy Customer Service Problems” and you’ll see exactly what I’m referring to.

1 . Hosting Account type and duration - The type of account you get will depend on the type of site you're building - brochure, E-Commerce, community (Forum site), etc. It's important to decide beforehand because certain kinds of sites require certain server elements to be available, and not all hosting accounts will have those. Account specifically designed for commerce or community type traffic will already have the server elements needed taken into account, and will be reflected in the price. Many inexperienced site builders will go for the cheapest account they can get, then scratch their head when they don't have access to the server's cgi-bin directory or secure server. Always decide what you're going to build now, and plan ahead for the future for site expansion. Make sure the company you choose doesn't charge you extra for switching account types in the middle of your subscription term, or at least find out how much they do charge.

You should also initially do a quarterly payment to see how things go and if the hosting company is worth the money, and if their service is good. The first 3 months of a new site are usually when you’re going to be making the most changes and dealing with problems that might arise. Better to only commit for 3 months and find out if they’re worth paying for a year. If they are, then annual hosting usually gets you a discount. Make sure the discount is tangible - for example, for annual payments my clients get 14 months of hosting, not 12.

2. Primary Domain Registration, Mirrors, and Domain Account Maintenance - Many people assume that it's just the website that requires maintenance - I wish it were that simple. Domains are easy to register, but there are many considerations when choosing the name and extension. A major mistake many people make that leads them to fail on the 'net is that they believe in the saying "Build it and They Will Come".

Wrong - Build it and it'll just sit there with no traffic except you going to the site every day to see how much traffic isn't going there. A good domain name will take into account all aspects of Search Engine Optimization, Search Tags & Keywords, etc. Also, a successful site is highly dependent on traditional marketing methods - a business should have the domain name printed on everything that it uses that interacts with the customer or potential site user. You've seen enough marketing I'm sure to have a good idea of what I mean. Business cards are the most obvious, but pens, stationery, and other things can get your site URL out as well.

It's important when choosing a domain name to keep traditional marketing methods in mind as well - although ICANN changed the rules several years ago that allowed domain names to have a lot more characters than before, an very long domain name, while it may be catchy or memorable, will also likely be difficult to put on items used for traditional marketing.

Domain Registration Info - There are 3 domain registration account representatives that must be decided upon prior to actual registration - one person can fulfill all 3, or it can be combination. The most important legally is the domain Registrant - the legal owner (individual or business) of the domain name. It's extremely important that this information isn't screwed up or the wrong person is entered, although it's become much easier to make changes than it was in the beginning. When Network Solutions still had the government contract as the sole domain registration company, if you put down incorrect information in any area you were pretty much stuck with it unless you got a lawyer to deal with it - and of course 'net law back then didn't exist. It's much easier as I said to make changes today, but with that change comes a much higher chance of your domain being stolen if someone gains the access info for your registration account.

Administrative Contact - This is the person most responsible for the domain registration’s maintenance, and is the primary legal contact of record for the account. Transfers, changes, etc. to the Registration and Contact info must either originate or be authorized by the Admin Contact. The Admin, if not the Registrant himself, is the Registrant’s legal representative for domain name matters.

Technical Contact - The Tech contact usually deals with exactly what the term implies - the tech aspects of the domain, such as DNS server transfers, domain problems, setup issues, etc. The Tech Contact can be the Admin Contact as well.

Billing Contact - Exactly what the name implies. The Billing contact receives all correspondence relating to registration renewals, service, offers to buy, etc. The Billing contact can be a different person (like an accountant) or can be either one of the other two, or both.

In my particular case, I act as Admin, Tech and Billing contacts for all domains that I maintain, about 16 in all. All billing notices come to me, which I then forward to the Registrant under my own invoice. By being all 3 I’m also in a better position to be aware of any potential fraudelent activity or attempts at trying to steal my clients’ domain names, which is much simpler than most people realize. Of course if a client wants to deal with it, that’s fine too, and I have a couple that do so.

Domain extensions - The vast majority of 'net surfers still search for .com sites, so that should be targeted first. But registering other extensions other than the primary one should also be considered depending on the site's primary focus. If it's an E-commerce site, the more extensions the better, unless you want a competitor to snag one of the unregistered domain extensions having your domain name and stealing business. Typically though, .net, .org (for non-profit businesses, though anyone can use them - the only extension registrations that are closely screened are .edu, .gov, and similar type extensions that can be abused), and .com are the most widely used mirrored domains. I recently registered 8 new domains for my primary client (one used an international extension) that will be mirrored to the current 4 domains (1 primary, 3 mirrors) already in place.
Something that will be offered during the registration process is Private registration, which typically costs about $9/yr per domain name. Private Registration is actually a great service, as most spammers and even telemarketers get your information from public ICANN domain registrations. Privatizing it makes it invisible to the public and 'net search/spambots. It's especially helpful if you use several email aliases (Webmaster, Privacy, Security, Admin, Info, Billing, Accounting, Support, etc.) either because you want to look big or if you are big. Once a domain name is known, spammers will automatically target the most common site email aliases. I get approximately 400 emails daily for the 8 or so POP accounts and aliases that I monitor for clients in addition to my own domain email accounts. Of those, close to half is spam sent to the various email aliases (this is because until just recently the domain registrations were public). For those who are wondering how I manage all the email, I use Mailwasher Pro (Firetrust.com) and Thunderbird's ability to distribute to multiple accounts and filters.

Domain Account Maintenance - Aside from Billing, there's always the inevitable attempt by other registration companies (Registrars) to steal your domain name registration account. I deal with this several times a year. What happens is that one of the many Registrars out there will send a "Billing Statement" to the domain account registrant, saying that the domain is either up for renewal, or needs your signature for something. In all respects it looks like a real billing statement, and for inexperienced owners who don't remember the exact registration date, the "domain service termination" and similar language designed to scare the owner into paying to avoid loss of their domain name, it's real enough. You have to look closely at the fine print that says it's not a bill and you don't have to pay them, but they're cleverly designed so that inexperienced owners don't see it. By responding to them, the owner legally transfers their domain registration account and account authority to the other Registrar without knowing. For my clients, I make it easy for them since I handle all domain account services and billing, and I tell them that if the bill isn't from me, it isn't valid and to trash it.

The other aspect to Domain Account Maintenance is who has control of the domain service account, you or the hosting company. You should NEVER let a hosting company do your domain registration and billing under most circumstances. If you have a hosting, billing or service dispute with them, they can literally hold your domain hostage if you don't pay them what they want by suspending traffic to the site. You may have a difficult time transferring your domain to another service if you decide you want to switch and they have domain registration authority. If they don't have it there's nothing preventing you from transferring it back to the registration company's hosting server.

There's a legal process you can go through to get control back, but it's a pain. It's always better to register and service your own domain registration account. There's not enough room here to go into it, but if anyone wants to know what to do or how to do it PM me and I'll respond to it. It's pretty easy.

3. Site Creation and Maintenance Service - While it's relatively easy to register a domain, and there are many user-friendly templates and tools to create simple sites, there is still the question of who is going to do the site layout and design work, be responsible for site maintenance, and be legally responsible for the site's legal and financial standing. Maintenance typically includes site content updates of course, but there's also Billing (both domain and hosting accounts), email account setups/aliases, forums (if you're going to use one), E-commerce, site use and privacy statements, user email response or complaints, etc.

Whoever is responsible for site maintenance should at least have a working knowledge of Unix directory structures, file/directory permission settings (numerical and alpha character), cgi-bin usage, individual and group file FTP processes, website legal issues pertaining to users, information, and if the site is going to be E-commerce ready, PCI Standard compliance. Having a basic understanding of how information laws affect your website is a must today for any site owner or administrator, no matter how simple or complex the site - all it takes is one person to file a lawsuit because their information was misused or they suspect your site is responsible in some way for their problems. As the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and isn’t a very good defense. I’m afraid the days when anyone could put up a simple site with any information without any fear of legal hassles has been taken care of by the liberals.

Site Copyright Ownership - Think you own your site’s content?
If the site owner decides to use a professional company for hosting and design (or even just design), one key question to ask them is who owns the site pages that they design for your site, you or them? Sounds like a no-brainer right?

Wrong. Most people don't realize and are usually shocked when they find out that the majority of design companies retain copyright control over anything that they design for your site, excluding any proprietary information that belongs to you, your business, etc.

What this means is that if you go to a company to host your site, and they design your site for you, if you later decide to switch services you can take the domain name with you but not any of the site contents itself - they retain copyright control of all elements of the site, which means you have to start from scratch.

It's complete and utter BS and the one thing that I’ve refused to buy into. I tell any client up front that anything that I design that they've paid for belongs to them (excluding graphic elements that might be used on more than one site). I've never felt comfortable with that particular industry practice because it's just plain wrong, and when you get right down to it it's a form of extortion.

4. Site Legal Statements - If you have a system for collecting site user information (guestbook, forum, e-commerce, etc.), by State and Federal law you must have a Privacy Statement on your site that tells how that information is going to be used. Same goes if you're actively using statistics to follow traffic, which the majority of hosted sites have access to. Even if it's just the log files and not a statistics program, it counts as user data collection for legal purposes. If you have an email registration list for a periodic mass emailing (newsletter, etc.) you must have instructions posted that tells the user how they can unsubscribe from that email list. At the very least, a site should have a Terms and Conditions statement, regardless of how simple it is. Privacy statements are required by law in most states for websites, in some cases even if the site doesn't collect user information. You can find this information by going to your State Attorney General's website. There are also Federal laws concerning site statements that you should be aware of - they're at FTC.gov.

It costs a small fortune to hire a lawyer to draft up custom legal statements, so my advice is to do what most people do - check other websites that are in your site’s particular niche, and download copies of their statements. Take the best elements of what you find, and customize it until you have something you can use for your own site. Why pay someone when others already have?

5. Site Design Software - I've used Dreamweaver since before it was called Dreamweaver, and Photoshop since version 4. But of course like most people I started with much less - hosting site templates and basic design tools and a bootleg copy of Paint Shop Pro. While you can start with tools offered by many hosting companies, at some point all site owners want to upgrade the design as there's only so much you can do with basic tools. DW still remains the top design program, bar none.

Whatever you use, the programs need to address 4 elements of site construction and maintenance; Text, original art/illustrations (logos,buttons, etc.), photos/pictures, and FTP (file transfer). Professional programs like Dreamweaver have their own site FTP interface built in, and it’s been developed enough that it’s just as good as WS-FTP. However, if you need the ability to change server directory and file Unix permission settings, then WS-FTP is the better option unless your hosting company has an Account or Site Manager that allows you to do the same thing.

Another option besides the tools offered by your hosting company are the many sites that offer site templates at good prices. One of my favorites is at Swishmax.com - they have Flash-based site templates that are cool looking and modern that can be customized by just dropping in pictures and info. The catch is that you need to use Swishmax to edit it, but SM only costs around $180. If you buy it with a site template you get a discount as well.

Regardless of what you build the site with, you'll always need to have a graphics/photo editing program. As I mentioned, Paint Shop Pro is still a good low-end program that does a lot for a simple site. However, it's geared more toward pictures than original art, and sites typically need both. There are so many art illustration programs it's impossible to list them all, but Corel isn't bad. You can even get away with using free graphics (buttons, navigation panels, etc.) on sites dedicated to those. One site I used to use when I started used to be called Andy's Art Attack!, but he's since transformed it into a moneymaking artwork and training site. It's now called ScreamDesign, and you can view it at this URL: http://tinyurl.com/2ls4gl

He still has a lot of good stuff that anyone can use for site creation, plus good tutorials on site creation/editing programs.

Many beginners make the mistake of using the wrong file format for graphic elements, i.e., using .jpg when they should use .gif, and vice-versa. Rule of thumb for website graphic elements - if it's original artwork or illustration, use .png or .gif file format; if it's a digital picture or scanned photo, use .jpg.

Site Design Considerations - Common mistakes that beginning designers make are: Designing for only one browser type, designing for only one type of monitor resolution, using non-web safe color schemes, using lots of multimedia items to make the site look "cooler" or busy (background music, button clicks, etc.) - the list is long but these are the 4 most common.

Browsers - Most beginners tend to only design with one browser in mind, which effectively can cut out a good portion of the site's intended audience. While it's true that the majority of users might still use Internet Explorer, a lot also use Firefox, AOL (ugh), and others. I still use Netscape 9 even though the buttheads at AOL stopped supporting it (I knew those jerks were going to do it as soon as they bought it too). A problem since the dawn of browsers has been that none of them conform to a single standard (Microsoft makes up its own as it goes along and ignores anything else). This means that even though you've spent countless hours getting the site to look perfect, when you go to look at it at a friend's house that's using a different browser it might look like crap because you didn't check it against different browsers.

How to check your code against browser types and versions? A good design program will already have that check utility built into the program. Anything else and you’re on your own.

Monitor Resolution - Beginners don’t normally think about other monitor resolutions besides the one they happen to be designing in, but if you’re designing in a resolution not used by the majority of potential visitors, any work you’ve done making the site look good will go away the instant a visitor with a different display resolution hits the site. Alignments go out the door, along with pretty much anything else you’ve done to make it look good.
It’s impossible to design for all monitor resolutions, so the best policy is to choose the most widely used and target those for design consideration. You can also do a design that centers the site elements in the display regardless of resolution. Even though many people are going to flat screen monitors, there are still a lot of 800x600 displays out there, so think about targeting that and 1024x768. Designing for higher resolutions will make your site look ridiculous on lower res displays.

Multimedia - Using multimedia just for the sake of having multimedia creates a distraction, and does nothing for user experience. You have anywhere from 10 15 seconds or less to get a visitor’s attention before they move on. If you hit them with music (that might blast them at high volume if their setting isn’t what you expected when you added it to your site), or anything else that isn’t there specifically to sell the site’s message or information, then don’t put it there. The first instinct most users have when faced with multimedia displays that aren’t part of the site’s message is to either close the browser tab or browser altogether. At the very least they’ll hit the mute control. Use MM for specific reasons, and when appropriate to enhance the site, not inundate it.

Color Schemes - Lynda Weinman, of Lynda.com fame, years ago came up with what is knows today as the “web safe” color palette or scheme. Essentially they are groups of colors known to be okay to use with any browser. Many beginners don’t realize that when sites are designed, the colors they use that look good on their display likely will look different on site visitor’s display. This is due to many factors, but the point is that web safe colors are guaranteed to display on a visitor’s display the same way they do on the designer’s display.’
You can also add fonts to this group, even though they don’t fit the definition of colors of course. Fonts used in a site design should be fonts that are common on the majority of prospective visitor systems, or you risk having their system use a substitute font that may change the appearance of your site for the worse, not better. Of course today with broadband speeds you can embed fonts into the site, but it’s just easier to use common fonts as not all low-end design programs will give you that ability.

I realize there’s a lot more here than what you asked for, and there’s a lot more I could cover. I’ve consulted with many clients who didn’t have a clue as to what they were getting into when they started a website, and it was usually after they started and were already having problems that they came to me. Hopefully this will help you avoid some of the problems so many have dealt with because they didn’t do their homework.

If you’re interested, the hosting company I use for reselling space is Lexiconn Internet Services (Lexiconn.com). Higher priced than most, but the best service I’ve ever dealt with, far and above what even I expect out of a company. They’re worth it.

If you have any specific questions, you can either PM me here or send me an email from the link at CyberVisions.com. Good luck.

 

Oh really? Is this why some of the largest websites in the world run on IIS? Oh wait, I've better you've never used IIS 7 which is a very able server platform.

 

Gotta agree with you on that one. At least as of June 2008, Microsoft IIS ran approximately 35.54% of active sites according to Netcraft's June 2008 Web Server Survey; what's more, that represented an increase over May of '08 of 0.38 percentage points, as compared to a decrease of 1.07 percentage points for Apache. To the casual reader, then, it would appear that the converse of Cybervison's statement is the current state of affairs - people are moving away from Apache and, at least in part, to Microsoft.

 

My statement was that the industry has been moving away from MS Server and MS based systems to Linux and Apache based systems for several years based on security problems and increased maintenance issues associated with those platforms. I'll also add here the primary reason I didn't add before and that's overall cost factors of using open source programs to anything Microsoft. I said nothing about stability, which isn't the issue.

Also, I'm not a "casual reader" so your attempt at trying to use techno-BS in your response. I guess I forgot to mention that before I had to retire on disability I was an Aerospace QA Rep for DoD, and that one of my particular jobs was Statistical Data Analysis of all business processes of the contractors I was assigned to. Manufacturing, QA, Admin, IT, Inventory, whatever. Granted, they were small companies - Martin Marietta, Lockheed, Grumman, Fairchild, Orbital, Unisys, SAIC, just to name a few.

I don't normally like to be rude and condescending, but since the two of you are obviously going out of your way to be just that, I'll make an exception in your case. It never fails - there's always at least 1 or 2 Bill Gates cult fans that just can't resist defending what can't be defended. I'll bet you guys are voting for Obama as well.

The question asked at the beginning of this thread is about Hosting Companies, and my response was directly related to hosting resellers like myself and their parent services. It had nothing to do with whether or not IIs is being use by certain websites, as private business network systems do not apply in this discussion - we're only talking about Hosting systems. What's the difference?

The difference is that private corporations that have their own IT departments can't necessarily afford to use whatever they want, and typically they don't switch from what they've been using historically unless there's a good reason as there's too much disruption. Also, most businesses use MS Server simply because they're businesses that use MS applications in their daily routine - they're not hosting companies in the business of reselling space to other hosting companies or to potential site owners and online storefronts with no B&M location. They use MS systems because it's more expedient for them to do so given their particular IT situation, not because it's better.

As an example, one of my clients still uses MS Server on their local office network, because they use many MS Office applications as many others do. However, for their online presence and due to PII and PCI concerns, all online commerce activities are completely separate from the local system and uses a Linux/Apache based server. Funny how they always seem to have problems with the local server and none with the online one. And no, I don't deal with their local system as I'm on the other coast.

Your Netcraft "Evidence"

Aside from reading and comprehension skills (since you obviously didn't read and understand what I wrote), you and your buddy need to take another look at those graphs again Sparky, along with some of the other more telling data surveys on Netcraft that illustrates my point. You might also want to think about retaking statistics again since you were obviously asleep during the semester and don't know squat about data and trend analysis.

The blue line in the graphs is Apache, and the data point you referenced is for a one month period. Regardless of a month here or there (which statistically means squat over an 8yr span of data collection ) the plain fact is that the graphs clearly show that for the past 8 years, Microsoft has consistently lagged far behind Apache every year in market share and total systems used, save for a small dip in 2007 that again is statistically insignificant. Current data shows Microsoft at almost 25 million below Apache, consistently across the 8 year data collection period. In fact, the data shows Apache beating MS systems beyond 2000, but the data here doesn't archive that far back.

You're absolutely correct about one thing - to the "casual reader" who isn't smart enough to understand the data he or she is looking at, and is stupid enough to think a one month data point is a "trend" that controverts my statement, it might seem like valid argument. But in Statistics and Trend Analysis, you need a lot more data over time than one month's worth to show a convincing trend either way. The graph shown is for an 8 year period, and the data trend shows that Microsoft isn't even close to Apache. There have been a couple of minor shifts in the data, but they're small enough they can be attributed to market factors and not an overall shift back toward Bill Gates' world.

But lets not just analyze data for the current month, or just web survey data. If one goes back and looks at previous months and years, Apache still consistently comes out ahead of Microsoft by a significant margin, not only overall, but across all major domain extensions surveyed. Hardly a trend back toward Microsoft. But that's exactly what the graph shows - the archive data is just the numerical representation of that graph.

Personally, being a reseller myself, I liked the Reseller survey - it was very informative. Here's a survey result from the top 10 resellers using Verio for their hosting:



Gee - only 2 out of 10 dentists prefer Microsoft. Even though all services aren't for Linux, they aren't for Microsoft either. And the ones who aren't using Microsoft aren't using them in a big way.

atbnet, you commented that "some of the largest websites in the world run on IIS" - let's check that out.

Of course the term "largest site" can have many connotations, but you would think that some of the "largest sites" would have a good amount of traffic as well.

Of the top 50 requested websites surveyed by Netcraft, only 6 use IIs. 2 of those sites are Microsoft.com servers, and 3 are international sites. The 6th site uses IIs, but running on Linux, not MS Server. Oops.... http://tinyurl.com/g9lvr

So realistically only 3 sites out of 50 are using MS completely - you can't include the 2 MS.com servers as an independent data point, but even if you did, it wouldn't change overall statistical data anyway.

It's also interesting to note that this survey also includes Netcraft.com itself, which uses Linux/Apache, NOT IIs.

Maybe your reference to some of the "largest sites" using IIs included Microsoft.com?

I guess the best evidence is Microsoft itself - as of July 2008, Microsoft has begun funding the Apache Software Foundation projects. In fact, that particular article so conveniently used the graph you've presented in your argument, except their analysis is a bit different than yours. There was one comment in that article I found particularly interesting:

"When it began, Apache didn't have too many projects under its umbrella besides the HTTP Web server that has surpassed Microsoft's competing products in market share since at least 1995, according to Netcraft's Web server survey."

So much for data points.

As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, fund 'em. http://tinyurl.com/6blshn

There's a great article on the IIS vs Apache debate, and although it was published in 2002, the information is still applicable today and illustrates why Apache has maintained a comfortable lead over Microsoft for many years.
http://tinyurl.com/6r6b74

But again, this thread is about Hosting Companies, and the evidence you yourself provided clearly shows the hosting industry does not favor the Bill Gates way of life. Evidently, neither does Microsoft, since they started giving money to the Apache foundation not long after he left the Board at Microsoft.

The next time you want to use a condescending attitude and use techno-BS in your argument to appear smarter than you are, you might try understanding the material you're trying to BS with before using it as a debate reference.

 

After that bit little morsel your credibility flies out the window. For your information I admin both Linux and Windows systems, so you can take your giant wall of text and shove it.

Most hosting companies use Apache because there is low barrier of entry into the market. That does not automatically assume it is a superior product. That being said you have not used IIS 7 which is much more secure than its predecessors. Microsoft also funded Apple a while back, what's your point?

 

Oh dear, another victim of serious-itis. Should I have included the annotated version, wherein the existence, and point, of humorous remarks was set forth in dense academic prose? You give me far to much credit by confusing humor with condescension.

Debate? whose rules apply, Roberts Rules of Order, Mason's, or Erskine May? However, I'm quite certain that, notwithstanding the tone of your post, that the Marquess of Queensberry rules do not apply.

Techno-BS? What's that? If you would, please quote for me anything in what I posted that was in the least bit technical - whether or not related to BS - I don't think you'll find a jot or tittle to quote.

On the substance: I've got no beef with the claim that non-Microsoft server setups are generally preferable to Microsoft setups in many ways - not least since I run my own little internal server on Apache (although, I have to admit that it runs on top of a copy of XP Pro which I've been too lazy to swap out for a linux variant of some sort). Clearly, Microsoft is not the dominant player in the server market, as the facts contained in the Netcraft article I pointed out clearly demonstrate.

However, the mere facts that (i) Apache on top of a *nix is better than a Microsoft IIS iteration, and (ii) servers running Apache on a *nix far outnumber those running on MS IIS do not support the assertion that MS IIS is being abandoned so quickly that the OP is going to have to pay higher fees because no one wants to deal with them.

At bottom, any company that writes the OS that currently runs 35% or so of all active sites cannot be said, by any reasonable person, to be being abandoned in droves, the clear implication of your statements notwithstanding. That is all that I needed to get from the Netcraft article, and that's all I got from it.

Finally, it's very nice that you were

However, as someone much cuter than I once said "that don't impress me much;" not the least because the OP isn't any of "Martin Marietta, Lockheed, Grumman, Fairchild, Orbital, Unisys, [or] SAIC" and doesn't need the sort of services or support those companies do.

Finally, this last one just made me chuckle:

Then don't be, particularly when you've made the basic mistake of confusing someone else's humor with condescension. Trust me, when I feel like condescending to you, you'll know it, without the slightest shred of doubt.

 

Lots of god info in this thread, especially by cybervisions that I wouldn't have readily thought about.

Weird though that it turned into a Linux Apache versus MS debate. It's pretty much common knowledge that IIS on windows is less secure than Apache on Linux. which would partly account for why apache is in use more than IIS.

Was it really worth nitpicking the statement about an alledged moving away from IIS? I don't know, maybe. But the point I got was that cybervision was advising on using the most secure setup possible. I think it's always nice when someone points out what's best.

Anyway, so there can be less of an argument, here's a chart of percentage share of installed server OSs:



As you can see, there were periods of moving away, for both. Currently, since summer '08, Apache has seen a slow overall growth while IIS is declining.

 

IIS less insecure?

IIS 7.0
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/17543/

IIS 6.0
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1438/

Apache 2.2.x
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/9633/

Apache 2.0.x
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/73/

 

Drill down the info. A DOS attack and cross site scripting vulnerability (which require great resources and coordination) is somewhat less serious than a privilege escalation (which requires only 1 computer and less resources to exploit).

But what's more here's a caveat that secunia states on each link:

Let's just move past the oneupmanship plays and nitpicking and just go with the general consensus (common knowledge) of the networking IT community that Apache, especially in the right hands, is more secure overall than IIS. It's beyond the scope of this thread to hash out the strengths and weakness aspects of the respective server OSs per application and deployment. Can a case be made that in a certain application(s) IIS is a better fit and more secure than Apache? Yes, you bet. And that's one of the reasons it's chosen over Apache. But overall, for many applications and deployments Apache is considered more secure.

And let's not forget, the OP has a question than needs as much on topic input as possible so he can make an informed decision. He doesn't wholly need nitpicking and critiquing of points that really won't affect his decision. Though, any glaring discrepancies that will critically mislead would need to be addressed.

 

Ok and in the hands of a competent person IIS is perfectly capable as well.

 

I'm perfectly happy to move along, though I'd add one more big plus in Apache's favor - it's free (plus, no naggy little auto update agent that goes scurrying off to Big Mama all the time carrying who-knows-what with it ).

 

Whatever you do, do NOT use godaddy. They have very shady practices(borderline illegal IMHO) and have horrible service, and the only reason they use MS software is most likely because of behind the scenes skulduggery.

I personally prefer Dreamhost and have been VERY happy with their support and competence.

As for the arguments between IIS and Apache, my experience has been that most hosts charge more for you to have your site hosted on an IIS server rather than on Apache, which would imply that IIS takes a lot more work from a systems management standpoint.

 

Ooh, you're an admin for both platforms - been there, done that. BFD.

Your inflated points are inflating your already inflated ego. Just because you can BS people who come here and don't know anyything doesn't mean you can BS those of us that do.

That "little morsel" was a response to your intentional rude and condescending behavior, so don't talk to me about being professional and having any credibility. If you're going to sling it, then be prepared to receive it in kind. I've been in the industry longer than you've been alive, so spare me any speeches about credibility. Yours went out the window when you turned a simple post about information and my opinion into a mudslinging event. If you didn't like the response to your attitude, then maybe you should consider changing it. I'm sorry if you're used to the typical poster who would normally tuck their tails and shut up after a response like yours. Sorry to disappoint. And At least I'm not letting my past experience with server administration bias my viewpoint - you're so jaded toward your MS experience you lost focus of the thread topic early on.

I'll try keep the text down this time, and try to use small words so you can understand, not that it'll make much difference.

The thread question was about hosting companies, not whether the latest MS server is worth anything, or whether as you say, the "top sites" use it. It's about hosting services, something you obviously don't know about.

Just because Microsoft has finally gotten around to making a decent platform makes no difference as it's not enough of a change to shake the industry, and doesn't change the fact that Linux/Apache has been leading MS solutions on all market fronts for 13 years. You're defending it because it's something you deal with regularly and don't like any criticism about, whether right or wrong, which tells me that you're likely MSCE certified and got your training on MS systems.

My post was from my experience as a hosting services provider and hosting services user, not my experience as a Server Administrator. Regardless of what you think or like as a server platform, the fact is that most hosting sites charge more for MS Server hosting. Most hosting companies are service and space resellers, and we don't use Apache because it's a low barrier for market entry - we use it because the top site coding languages are open-source, and Unix based systems have been thoroughly proven for many years.

Historically, MS systems have NOT been stable, have NOT been as secure, and have been more costly to implement than open source solutions which is one reason why the industry started moving away from Microsoft in the first place. The other reason was Bill Gates' complete and utter contempt for the Open Source community. And I'm not talking about businesses in general that typically stayed with the MS systems they originally bought and didn't have the cash to hire top server talent rather than dime-a-day MSCE Certified talent for less money.- I'm talking about the Hosting services industry, resellers and primary suppliers whose focus is website services. All brick and mortar businesses are concerned with is a server that will run their business and office applications, and for them, MS is okay, even if they are getting repeatedly hacked into oblivion because of it.

While IIS 7 is much better and more stable than its predecessors, it's not a silver bullet that is going to make the hosting industry start moving in droves to replace their current systems with it, primarily due to the costs involved. You're defending it because of what it is now, but it's only that way because Microsoft has finally started realizing that they need to make serious changes in the way they do business or they'll always take a back seat.

What's the point of Microsoft's funding of Apache? Anyone that really knows anything about the industry (any aspect of it) wouldn't even have to ask that question. It only goes to the core of the last 15 years of Microsoft' and Bill Gates' attitude in dealing with open-source solutions.

Unlike Apple (who no one of consequence really cares about anyway), Apache is an open source organization, and until recently Microsoft has completely vilified anything open-source, preaching the Gospel of Bill Gates to a world that could care less about his viewpoint, which is partly responsible MS Servers being second fiddle to the open-source community. With Bill Gates gone, and this recent overture to Apache, it's clear that the new board running Microsoft is going to do whatever it needs to do to make amends with the open source community, and the Apache partnership is also a sign that the industry is now willing to entertain dealing with Microsoft now that Gates is gone.

The Gospel of Bill Gates said that everyone should bow to the Microsoft juggernaut and listen to his ideas and everything he had to say when it came to computers - a bit like your attitude. The part of the IT world that counts (programmers, engineers, developers) kindly told him to take his Gospel and shove it, d and came up with their own solutions, as they did before Gates and as they will always do.

Next time try responding to the question, not with your opinion about how great MS servers are, and without a knowitall attitude, and maybe you'll get treated differently.

As for your buddy with the "humor and statistics":

1. He doesn't matter enough to rate a separate response.
2. "Humor" my a$$ - he tried to be a smarta$$ by throwing statistics into his response to try and look like he knew something and I didn't, and it got handed back to him in spades.
3. I agree with his statement that who I used to work for means absolutely nothing - except to illustrate the fact that I know how to interpret statistics and he doesn't.
4. I was in the Navy for 13 years, 5 of that riding attack submarines - if he really thinks that I or anyone else cares about how nasty he could be if he wanted to, he's got an even more inflated opinion of himself than you do.