IIS vs Apache

[John Beschler]

IIS for 2000 Pro and XP pro have some limitations built in.

For example, you can not configure multiple sites, and
they do not support SMTP. Also, the performance may
suffer. I've heard rumors that IIS for Pro/XP is limited
to 10 concurrent users.

You do not need CALs (user licenses) for people accessing
your web site via the internet/intranet. The CALs are for
users connecting locally (via your LAN/WAN).

HTH,
John

>-----Original Message-----
>In the past I have used Apache with php for simple active

server pages.

>
>I am looking into using IIS but do not understand the

issues related to it.

>
>If I use the IIS supplied with W2K professional or XP

professional, are

>thier any significant differences relative to the

versions supplied on

>W2K server or the XP server 2003?
>
>How many users can connect? Do I need licences for the

number of users

>like you do with users in a Windows domain?
>
>.
>

[George Hester]

"they do not support SMTP" - Not correct in Windows 2000 Professional.

"Pro/XP is limited to 10 concurrent users." - True but can be hacked and that's all I know about it..

--
George Hester
__________________________________
"John Beschler" <giles@geewhiz.com> wrote in message news:69db01c35845$a974fcf0$a001280a@phx.gbl...

> IIS for 2000 Pro and XP pro have some limitations built in.
>
> For example, you can not configure multiple sites, and
> they do not support SMTP. Also, the performance may
> suffer. I've heard rumors that IIS for Pro/XP is limited
> to 10 concurrent users.
>
> You do not need CALs (user licenses) for people accessing
> your web site via the internet/intranet. The CALs are for
> users connecting locally (via your LAN/WAN).
>
> HTH,
> John
>
>
>
>
>

> >-----Original Message-----
> >In the past I have used Apache with php for simple active

> server pages.

> >
> >I am looking into using IIS but do not understand the

> issues related to it.

> >
> >If I use the IIS supplied with W2K professional or XP

> professional, are

> >thier any significant differences relative to the

> versions supplied on

> >W2K server or the XP server 2003?
> >
> >How many users can connect? Do I need licences for the

> number of users

> >like you do with users in a Windows domain?
> >
> >.
> >

[Ashis Govind]

Hi,

We have various sectors in our organisation arguing over
the virtues of Apache over IIS, the primary argument is
that IIS is insecure out of the box.

Q's:
Can IIS and the OS be made secure to rival Apache on Linux?
Are the arguments put up by the IIS detractors well
founded?
Is this a common argument in other organisations?

Any information on comparisons between the two Web Servers
would be valuable.

Thanks

Ashis

[Kevin T. Price]

Without getting into the "religious" battles here, it is possible to make
IIS/W2K or W2K3 as secure and scalable as Apache/Unix using similar
hardware. It cannot be said enough that poor system administration is not a
product flaw. This is not to say that there have not been major flaws in
both products - just that many of them would never have been as widely
exploited had sysadmins actually kept up with patch management. And yes,
this is a VERY common argument. Presently the shift is not so much which one
is more "secure" rather which one is more "open". This is another
misinformed argument as something that is both "secure" and "open" does not
always make sense. If you're interested in documentation on hardening
Windows 2000 Servers and IIS 5, let me know. The document for W2K3 and IIS6
is almost complete as well.

Kevin T. Price
Co-Author ".NET Framework Security"
Co-Author "Database Access with Visual Basic .NET"
[email]kpcrash@patriot.net[/email]


"Ashis Govind" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02c901c3a7c4$00436030$a301280a@phx.gbl...

> Hi,
>
> We have various sectors in our organisation arguing over
> the virtues of Apache over IIS, the primary argument is
> that IIS is insecure out of the box.
>
> Q's:
> Can IIS and the OS be made secure to rival Apache on Linux?
> Are the arguments put up by the IIS detractors well
> founded?
> Is this a common argument in other organisations?
>
> Any information on comparisons between the two Web Servers
> would be valuable.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ashis