Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:53:32 +0200 From: Cynic <cynic@mail.cz> To: "Mark Hughes" <mark@dvdnews.co.uk>, "Jonathan M. Slivko" <jonathan.slivko@lotuscom.net>, "rootman" <rootman@xmission.com>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Justification for using FreeBSD Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615024211.02135168@mail.cz> In-Reply-To: <02b401c0f52d$f9aef4a0$0200a8c0@mark2> References: <01061417404103.00261@blackmirror.xmission.com> <003301c0f52c$76f52f80$9865fea9@equinox>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.1.0.14.2.20010615024211.02135168>