From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jun 14 17:46: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from k0r3.reflektor.cz (k0r3.reflektor.cz [212.24.129.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EC8E37B403 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:45:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cynic@mail.cz) Received: (qmail 17379 invoked by uid 202); 15 Jun 2001 00:45:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zvahlav.mail.cz) (212.24.143.100) by k0r3.reflektor.cz with SMTP; 15 Jun 2001 00:45:54 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615024211.02135168@mail.cz> X-Sender: cynic@mail.cz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:53:32 +0200 To: "Mark Hughes" , "Jonathan M. Slivko" , "rootman" , From: Cynic Subject: Re: Justification for using FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <02b401c0f52d$f9aef4a0$0200a8c0@mark2> References: <01061417404103.00261@blackmirror.xmission.com> <003301c0f52c$76f52f80$9865fea9@equinox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Playing a bit of devil's advocate here.. :) At 01:58 15.6. 2001, Mark Hughes wrote the following: -------------------------------------------------------------- >> NT (4 and 2000) both require a huge proccessing power investment with alot >> of RAM and alot of other hardware thrown into it. However, on the other >> hand, FreeBSD will run perfectly (or at least in working order) on 8MB of >> RAM. If you wanted to point out that FreeBSD is *free* and that NT needs a >> license for each copy that your running, including upgrades, etc. Also, NT >> isn't built as rock solid as everyone thinks, it *can* be demolished >> totally. > >Given though, that he obviously already has the licence for MS IIS and NT, and the >computer to run them on.... A licence for NT Server (which comes with IIS) only allows you to use the IIS on intranet. If you want to use the IIS as an internet http/ftp server, you gotta pay extra. >I'd be looking at things like stability (as you've mentioned), number of concurrent users >possible to support on the two architechtures (if that is an issue). Scripting languages >like PHP and Perl are easier to run (and IMO learn/use when compared to ASP) on >Apache/Unix. ASP isn't a language; it's a "technology". You can write ASP at least in three languages: JS(cript), VBScript, and Perl(!). I seem to vaguely recall seeing other interpreters usable in ASP, but forgot which those were. >As to justifying using TWO web servers, one of each, that's more difficult. Apache is >easier to integrate with database information from either platform, whereas I assume (but >don't know I have to admit) IIS only integrates well with MS products....so if you need to IIS is easy to integrate with any RDBMS that has a win32 ODBC driver (through ADO). Now, whether ADO is a plus or minus is a matter of personal preference: some praise it, because you can easily plug in any RDBMS without changing your application, some hate it, because you get only the common denominator (plus some ODBC drivers are really limited themselves when compared to native APIs of that particular RDBMS). cynic@mail.cz ------------- And the eyes of them both were opened and they saw that their files were world readable and writable, so they chmoded 600 their files. - Book of Installation chapt 3 sec 7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message