Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:51:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > Where, oh where have all the Apache servers gone?
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| At first glance, Netcraft's June 2006 Web server survey looks like bad
> >| news for Apache. And, since the vast majority of all instances of Apache
> >| run on Linux, bad news for Linux in one of its strongholds: Internet
> >| servers. A closer look, though, reveals a different story.
> > `----
> >
> > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3407542187.html
>
> This concentrates solely on domain parking. That doesn't explain why
> Windows grew by 4.5 Million new sites, but only 1.6 Million of those where
> parked sites.
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/06/04/june_2006_web_server_survey.html
>
> Windows grew active sites, that is non-parked sites that contain real
> content, by nearly 4% as well.
>
> Usually, when one side or the other loses percetage, they simply didn't
> grow by as much as the other. In this case, Apache lost more than 600,000
> sites from its total, though it grw it's active sites by about 500,000.
>
> Go Daddy only accounts for some of that gain. Not even half.
>From the above netcraft site...
"Apache's loss of hostnames is due to decreases for Linux at a number
of hosting companies. In addition to Go Daddy, six hosts reduced their
use of Linux by 40K or more, including leading UK provider PIPEX
Communications, Lycos and Zipa."
Do you think that accounts for it? 6 providers decreased their use of
Linux...
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
