[UCLA-LUG] Linux vs Windows 2K

[Frederick Lee]

On Mon, 1 May 2000 04:42:12 -0400 (EDT), said Matt Helsley <larva@lillith.mit.edu>:
>On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, David Braginsky wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> 
>
>There are at least two different solutions to running ASP on linux.
>1) Convert to PHP - scripts exist that will do this automatically, making
>me wonder why ASPis ever used...
>
>2) Buy a commercial ASP solution (yes, it runs under Linux as I said). I
>bet this would STILL be cheaper than IIS or many other commercial-only
>solutions.

And let's not forget #3, the mojo ad-hackery: ASP under Apache.  That would
be Apache under non-MS-OS, too.

>
>I object to the idea that IIS is easier to configure than apache. Take the
>most common distribution of Linux - RedHat. Using the Linuxconf GUI tool I
>can get apache installed and running in 5 minutes. 
>	And it doesn't involve any more Voodoo than simply installing an
>RPM and then clicking "enable" in Linuxconf. (Of course, just like Win 2K,
>there is a requisite investment in learning the operating system you are
>installing under - but this is a common factor to all operating systems
>and is thus irrelevant.)

I'm reserving my judgment until I can actually faff around with IIS config.
Still, I'd point out that familiarity with software is as much of a factor in
ease as pretty faces; especially knowing capabilities, limitations, and
hackability.  If you can envision large parts of a programming problem in your
head in C, a language chock full of syntactic sugar is not going to make
things easier.  Likewise with seeing LISP and using Pascal.  Ad nauseum.


>
>One other point: the fact that IIS runs under only one operating system is
>a disadvantage. Customers are then tied to one hardware platform, and even
>more they are tied to one operating system. As you might imagine, added
>degrees of freedom are a big bonus to businesses which need to be able to
>change rapidly - especially in the web industries. This is why I must
>admit that I find it difficult to understand how anyone could depend on a
>closed solution like IIS.
>
>Anyhow, I should avoid platform advocacy since it tends to make me
>obsesive- the last time I engaged in such arguments I did not stop
>arguing for 4 years... no wait... I don't think I've stopped yet. :)
>
>L8r.

-Fred