• db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I never understood how they had any in the first place.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you need to have the kernel patched to run a web server you’re doing it very wrong, then or now. 🤣

      • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • BaldProphet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.