Apache Web Server (Apache HTTP Server) is an open source HTTP web server for modern operating systems including UNIX and Windows.
N/A
IBM WebSphere Hybrid Edition
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
WebSphere Hybrid Edition from IBM is a collection of WebSphere application runtimes and modernization tools that provides support for on-premise and major public cloud deployments, in virtual machines, containers and Kubernetes. The user can choose any WebSphere edition and deploy Liberty and application modernization tools to help move to a cloud-native architecture, modernize existing applications and support an existing WebSphere estate.
Apache HTTP Server has more stability and features than the other products. It is also more secure. Apache HTTP Server has a more developer base so it is easier to find resources on it.
I has a lot more features, except that IIS is more integrated in a Windows environment. But now with .net core also possible from Apache it would work anywhere really. Only in a full Windows environment where full integration is needed I would chose to go for IIS. Otherwise …
IIS has a clear advantage over Apache: Configuration can be done through a convenient visual editor. But, sometimes, IIS can be tricky to use for serving other things than asp.net.
We had bad experiences working at scale with IIS7.5 while serving PHP websites. I know that more …
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the Nginx web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a …
Apache is more simple, also it tends to be more stable and it is less complicated to use, comparing with other complex solutions that are difficult to troubleshot. So wherever possible I select Apache HTTP Server for own/enterprise use also advise consumers to select the Apache …
By having a similar purpose, which is to publish and manage access to services, sites, and/or web systems, I have had to implement them to analyze their qualities and virtues, but stability, the power of implementation of different solutions and to be able to expand through own …
Apache lacks the scalability and feature set of NGINX but our team was not only far more experienced with Apache HTTP Server but was relying on tools and frameworks that required Apache HTTP Server. We've recently considered moving to NGINX but the workload to migrate and train …
Oracle WebLogic /Tuxedo is great when you are using it to install Oracle stack on top including other Oracle middleware and applications. Similarly, if you have IBM applications that need to be configured with IBM DB2, IBM WebSphere is better than Apache Web Server. Red Hat …
To be quite honest I often select Apache because it is the world's most commonly used web server and I have been using it for more than 20 years across many organizations. I have never been burned using Apache. Apache rises above IIS in functionality, configurability, and the …
Against Nginx: Mainly- it's been in the field the longest. There's not really a reason to move to Nginx on it's own. Apache has a mountain of documentation and how-tos that extend from the Foundation itself, to Individual Developers, spanning over 20 years, and most of it …
We chose Apache because it handles dynamic content better than Nginx and it's very well supported. Nginx does handle high traffic sites better, but most of our sites do not get thousands of visitors or more a day as we are a small company serving niche markets. It is notable …
Apache Web Server is the oldest among all of these above-mentioned web server solutions provide a wider range of tools and support available which is of great help when creating a web app because less investment of time and money is what contributes to the success of a project …
I have loved Apache and the brief experience I had with IIS wasn't as good. Nginx I have heard good things and though we use it heavily for our servers now without problems, I haven't configured it myself.
Apache is often used in conjunction with Nginx, with Nginx in front of Apache to serve static assets like CSS and JS. Both are easy to configure. IIS is pretty cumbersome and is not as flexible as Apache.
Keep portability. Web Server machine provides an option to the person to complete their own updates along with deploy their unique application. If live mirroring is not used, some users will have to wait for renewed content. More servers equals …
Apache is far superior to Microsoft's IIS. The only reason to consider IIS would be for compatibility with a given software package that is made exclusively for IIS.
Both NGinx and Apache are trying to accomplish the same thing, with the exception that NGinx is a much faster product. It allows for multi-threading which spreads out the traffic around the server. Apache is typically enabled by default and due to the high volume of websites …
I've used Microsoft's IIS and IBM's HTTP server. The major and a clear advantage of Apache web server over these products is that it’s free and has no licensing issues. Being in the industry for quite sometime (oldest web server) a lot of products and customizations have been …
Apache is terrific. Zeus is actually built on Apache and adds a mediocre at best interface to controlling it. IIS is only good on Windows. Netscape servers are probably not even around anymore, but when they were, were the absolute worst. I couldn't move my office off of them …
Plesk provides assistance via its community forums, knowledge base, and premium support plans. Additionally, I had trouble integrating a new website onto the hosting, which was a bit of a frantic operation because it uses more server resources than other control panels. The …
IBM Websphere was better suited for our needs as we are a primarily Java shop, and it provided better customization and potential ROI. It also requires less downtime, and support is easier than Weblogic. Also, Websphere is better suited for a hybrid environment.
Cleo Integration Clould has many bells and whistles; however, when we added more maps and trading partners, it really slowed down. We found that the Cleo support was very slow to respond and there was a language barrier. IBM Websphere had better customer support and its …
IBM and weblogic are equally robust and support JVM's very well but where IBM is better is its out of the box integration with active directory that makes it easier to manage access control and security posture. In addition, the licensing model for IBM is lot more flexible for …
I like the well built hybrid edition that is very favourable for our cloud apps and real-time monitoring of our applications deployment and development. I like it support real-time visibility a complete and clear view of our applications development and application awareness. I …
Both Apache Tomcat and Hybris have been in use, and we have provided support for both tomcat and IIS-based systems. Companies with a substantial investment in IBM technology will find this application particularly useful. Support and licensing fees might be prohibitive, …
WebSphere Application Server admin console is very detailed and there are a huge number of configurations available to maintain and configure. JBoss is complex where stand vs full configuration is confusing sometimes. Modularity proved complex there, so I love WebSphere …
Websphere Application Server provides better Security, high availability, easy troubleshooting, and good 24/7 support. Websphere Application Server has an easy to use interface.
WAS is an IBM product and gels with IBM database product. So, we have decided to go with IBM WAS. WAS supports more data sources than Oracle web logic. So, ideally it can be used with multiple databases.
IBM support is better than Oracle, from past experience. Weblogic and WebSphere Application Server are somewhat similar versus the open source JBOSS. For many applications we had selected WAS to have a supported platform and used some of the competitors in other various use …
I have worked on JBOSS and WEBLOGIC Application servers apart from Websphere application servers. WebSphere Application Server has a more user friendly admin console GUI. I believe WAS administration and maintenance activities are more easy and effective as compared to other …
Websphere Application Server supports enterprise Java open standards, streamlines deployment, has very flexible management capabilities and better reliability and availability.
I did not choose IBM WAS, it was a coporate decision. We are glad that we have been using this for a number of years and are quite happy as a corporation. However, it does take more time to learn WAS because of its complexity in terms of installation, various features and …
Well Suited: Perfect for hosting your own website. And, I don't mean just an individual with a port of MySpace. I mean an industrial strength, commercial grade replacement for Microsoft IIS. If you need a web server that provides a feature-rich environment with support for multiple sites (hosted in the same server), with such features as virtual hosting, and modular feature design, than Apache Web Server is right on the money. Less Well-Suited: Single page, small feature-set websites. Apache is a lot of trouble for developers to set up, just to send/receive JSON strings of a few bytes. You're really better off using something smaller and faster/simpler (lighttpd for example).
IBM WebSphere Hybrid edition is well-suited for the development and deployment of large enterprise-level applications such as Electronic Health Records that are used in our organization. IBM WebSphere is appropriate for organizations that require strong security and compliance as it provides a high level of security and compliance features. This works well with organizations that are subject to strict regulatory requirements, such as hospitals.
Apache is Open Source, governed well (the foundation) and probably the most stable computing platform ever.
Apache is probably one of the most customizable and configurable pieces of software that I have ever run across in more than 30 years of development.
If there is something that Apache can not do, then you need to ask yourself; should I be doing that? The point here is that it is a solid solution and seems to only integrate other technologies that are of the highest caliber.
Apache will live forever and you can not go wrong with it.
It works out of the box. Its basic functionality is all there and everything works with no adjustments.
The functionality is there for fine tuning, to allow applications to be easier to access and quicker with some tweaks, but again, these aren't necessary for basic running.
Mostly we will be renewing unless the strategic direction changes drastically or there are other complelling external circumstances. We've been on a multi year project to modernize our legacy applications and that effort will continue for the foreseeable future.
WebSphere Application Server is used across our organization. Most projects use this for Java products and applications. Being robust and scalable makes it even more usable. We love using WebSphere Application Server due to its configuration management ability made simple and vast across all java related parameters. It is dependent on the features and upgrades and IBM releases some great upgrades to WebSphere Application Server.
I give this rating because there is so much Apache documentation and information on the web that you can literally do anything. This has to do with the fact that there is a huge Open Source community that is beyond mature and perhaps one of the most helpful to be found. The only thing that should hold anyone back from anything is that they can not read. RTFM, my friend. And I must say that the manual is excellent.
IBM was quick to respond when we had an issue with our specific infrastructure. We raised a PMR, which they picked up quickly and updated us about every step of the way. We had an appropriate fix for quite a business critical issue within a fortnight, which was impressive!
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the NGINX web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a paid Plus version of NGINX. This has extended support and special functions.
I did not choose IBM WAS, it was a coporate decision. We are glad that we have been using this for a number of years and are quite happy as a corporation. However, it does take more time to learn WAS because of its complexity in terms of installation, various features and special deployment and packaging needs.
Apache web server helped us in building client applications without much investment in the underlying server configuration which gives us the ability to start on a new project quickly and upgrade its resources as and when needed.
Using software which is well-supported by a community of open source contributors makes tasks easy and affordable when need help since a couple of minutes on Google saves a couple of dollars every time and you don't need a specialized support person unless there is something significant needing to be changed.