[UCLA-LUG] Linux vs Windows 2K

[David Braginsky]

It is my understanding that Apache runs on Win2k, at least it did on NT. IIS
certainly does not run under Linux, and it is not a bad webserver by any
means. So if you have time/money invested in asp you cannot easily switch to
Linux. However, as Apache runs under all common OSes, servlets or jsp can
still be used under Win2k. If money is an issue, Win2k is more expensive by
far, however its much easier to configure than a Linux based solution. I do
not know anything about performance.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-admin@linux.ucla.edu [mailto:linux-admin@linux.ucla.edu]On
> Behalf Of Matt Helsley
> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 4:07 PM
> To: linux@linux.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: [UCLA-LUG] Linux vs Windows 2K
>
>
> It seems to me that Linux gives one a much greater choice in terms of
> WHICH web server a potential user would like to use. About the ONLY two
> web servers that I know of which do not run on Linux (AFAIK) are:
> WebStar - the old MacOS-based server
> Netscape's ole' server- I haven't heard any news about it in a long time
>
> Other than that, there are lots of open source web servers out there,
> including Apache (most well-known web server) and AOLServer. How many
> other platforms can make such claims? Certainly NOT Win2K.
>
> Also, I'd like to point out that support costs for the upgrade to Win2K
> are significant- considering all of the broken software generated by the
> latest OS from Redmond, I'm glad I use predominantly Linux software. I'm
> sure this point is relevant when it comes to running commercial web
> servers under Win2K.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UCLALUG Linux mailing list - Linux@linux.ucla.edu
> http://linux.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux
>