What platform do you use?

Quote:
I imagine there's going to be alot of responses with PHP/MySQL

Yes there will. Allow me to be the 1st

At home, I use a lot of PHP & mySQL.
At work, I use mostly ASP & SQL Server 7 (2000?!? grrrr)

Which do I prefer? ehhh.... for basic, everyday stuff, I prefer the PHP combo. But for the more complex stuff, it depends on the project. (I'll bet you knew someone would use a 'but')

Let's see I can setup a server using Linux, Apache, MYSQL and PHP and have to pay no money at all for something that is very robust, never crashes and quite a bit more secure.

Or

I can use SQL Server, and all of the accompanying programs and pay through the nose, more than once for a system that crashes more frequently and is not as secure.

I think that I will take the former any time.

mairving,

Let me guess, you don't like Microsoft very much.

Obviously there are advantages to using products that are cheap or free, compared to products that are more expensive. One thing I don't like though are the "blanket" statements like, "it's unsecure", or "crashes more frequently". With Windows all the technologies have the ability to work together (SQL,IIS,ASP,MTS,COM,etc) and you can control all of those to the system level, if you have someone that programs or installs them improperly then yes the system as a whole is not going to perform optimally.

I run many complex (SQL,ASP,COM) sites on Windows NT/2000, most of which have been up for months. I had an NT site that I recently transferred to Windows 2000 which had been up for almost a year.

I guess it's whatever you're more comfortable with, and a lot more people are exposed to PHP/MySQL first because of the cost. As a reference I came from a VB/SQL background, then learned HTML/JavaScript/Perl, then learned ASP/IIS. I just like the way ASP/IIS keeps everything together and organized.

I think it's dangerous though to ignore certain things just on idealogy (Netscape comes to mind...). It will be interesting to see how things turn out over the next couple years:

Can MySQL challenge Oracle/SQL Server?
Can PHP run as fast as ASP on Windows Server?
Can ASP run as fast as PHP on non-Windows Server?
Will the .net platfrom change anything?

You may have guessed wrong. I really don't hate MS. In many areas they are the only choice. At home I have four computers, a P200 running Slack Linux, a T-Bird 900 running Windows 2000 Pro, a PII-400 running Windows Me and an IMAC running OS 9.0. So as you can see I am an equal opportunity kind of guy. I probably spend most of my time on the Windows 2K machine. For a desktop environment Windows is still pretty far ahead of Linux even though the Linux desktops are getting better. For a server, Linux or BSD wins hands down every time. It is hard to believe how fast this Linux server runs on a Pentium 200 w/64MB RAM.

There are many people who despise Microsoft so much that they will not run any version of it. I believe that you have to go with the one that will make you the most productive. I do most of my web development in Windows because simply it is the most productive way to do so. Nor am I in favor of the government trying to break up MS. I think personally that MS will do that themselves eventually.

For instance, in Windows 2K, I receive periodic out of memory messages. This is spite of the fact that I have 768MB RAM. I have never had a problem in the Linux machine with 64MB RAM. My Windows machine has locked up on occasion. My Linux box has run steadily for several months without a reboot.

As far as the security issues, if you have been reading about how many MS IIs machines have been hacked lately you wouldn't even consider it.

It is what you are comforable with. Like I said I do most of my HTML coding on MS. Perl is better in Linux.

Can MYSQL challenge Oracle/SQL Server? No, but is there anything that runs faster than the Oracle/Solaris combo.

Can PHP run as fact as ASP on Windows Server? Why would you put it on a Windows server?

Can ASP run as fast as PHP on a non-Windows server? again why would you want it to.

Will the .net platform change anything? Who knows.

Again I mean no disrespect by any of my opinions but you did ask.

Quote: As far as the security issues, if you have been reading about how many MS IIs machines have been hacked lately you wouldn't even consider it.

I have not read about these instances, but I wonder... how many of these victims actuall had a MCSE managing their network?

You are probably right about that one. Most of the exploits used were ones that MS had issued patches for but were never patched. Just can't get good help any more. Of course, I have seen plenty of MSCE that wouldn't know what a patch is. Nothing against anyone that is a MSCE but I have seen some that have no computer skills or knowledge but took a $4000 crib course and passed the test.

I can't remember where I saw that a bunch of the IIS servers are being hacked. The New York Times hack relied on a IIS exploit.

There was actually a good link on my companies homepage regarding the security issue , check out:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-201-4578373-0.html?tag=unkn

It was a pretty good article.

Well the best way to stay ahead of the crackers (not hackers, they are a different breed) is to make your system harder to crack than the other guy. It's kind of like an old joke.

Two guys are out camping. They are asleep in their tent when they are awakened by sounds outside their tent. They look out and see a very ravenous grizzly bear. One guy doesn't say a word. He simply starts putting on his running shoes. The other guy looks at him and says "Man, you can't outrun that grizzly bear." To which the other guy replies " I don't have to outrun that grizzly bear, I just have to outrun you."

So it is with security, your system merely has to be more secure than the other guys.

lol.... nice story

First, I want to say that was a great story!

I can't help but comment on this. I am neither a Microsoft nor a UNIX fan. As most, I use whichever is going to do the job the best. I work with both types of software every day of my life and I can, with confidence, say that neither one is superior. It's like comparing shovels.. A small gardners shovel and a large shovel. Both do the same thing, but I would rather dig a large hole with the larger shovel because it does it faster... but I would rather plant a flower bed with a gardners shovel because the big shovel will just make a mess.

I think it is ridiculous for anyone to deny using something simply because of who makes it. Microsoft is a monopoly - it's been determined. But am I going to stop using their software because of that? No. Because their software does the job I want it to best.

Mairving, you say that you get memory errors on your W2K machine every once in a while even though it has 768 MB of memory but that your linux machine doesn't have that problem... are the two computers doing the same thing? Are they running the same programs?

I can attest to W2K being a very good OS. I purchased a new workstation early January with W2K and 1 GB RAM. I have yet to reboot the computer... I have never turned the computer off. The computer has been up solid with absolutely no OS problems for nearly three months now. Sure, programs have crashed... But W2K allowed me to shut them down and resume my work, without any impact on the OS.

At the same time, I have a FreeBSD machine that I use for a lot of work that I do on our UNIX hosting servers and that machine has been online for over a year now, without being rebooted either. I use both machines equally as much but I use them differently and they both perform their tasks. I wouldn't use the FreeBSD machine to design graphics and I wouldn't use my W2K machine to access a UNIX telnet prompt.

And as has been mentioned about security, all OS have security problems... Not because of the OS but because of the crackers that want to cause problems... If everyone was perfect, we wouldn't have to worry about security - but that's not reality. The reality is that all OS have problems with security. Just recently, there was an issue with BIND that was a very large exploit. There are just as many UNIX exploits as NT but because Microsoft has this notorious reputationt of being absolute evil, people only notice those problems.

Quote: Can PHP run as fact as ASP on Windows Server? Why would you put it on a Windows server? Can ASP run as fast as PHP on a non-Windows server? again why would you want it to.

You would be able to answer your own questions if you worked in the hosting industry. I think we both agree that each should stay on the platform that it was originally designed for... but I'm not a consumer that makes that decision. That's why we have ChiliASP and that's why PHP runs on NT... Because consumers want them to. Because someone wants to use PHP and ColdFusion on the same site (don't ask me why!).

Quote: Can MYSQL challenge Oracle/SQL Server? No, but is there anything that runs faster than the Oracle/Solaris combo.

Is there a comparable solution for the same cost as Oracle/Solaris? It's all about choices and what needs to be done...

As Dennis Miller says "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

And in reference to the actual post: I prefer PHP/MySQL because I have more experience with it. But it boils down to the resources at my disposal for the job.

Chad, I liked the shovel story.

It is sad to see the heights that some have elevated their OS. I get sick if seeing "Windoze" in the Linux forums. I also get tired of people that complain about how bad Linux is because they couldn't get it installed in five minutes or less. And then there are the Mac people (no offence meant). But really an OS is only a tool. I am a Linux fan but someone please beat me if I ever use the term "Windoze" or ever belittle someone because of what OS they use.

"The shovel story" is what I am going to name the movie

No, it wasn't funny but it was analogy that I hope got my point across.

I wasn't trying to step on anyone, but just expressing my own views.

I think everyone who has posted in this thread so far has the same understand that they are all tools... each has their own job and each does something better than it's opponent.

I'm not personally a Mac fan and try not to work on them more if I don't have to... But I will work on them and they are excellent for graphics design. Plus, have you seen the new notebooks they are releasing? Wow! If they do what they are supposed to in that little "notebook" than their sales should grow.

I am like you - I really can't stand forums where someone has only one opinion and they aren't quite willing to submit to the fact that Windows (as it seems to be the one that most "hate" without reason) really is a good OS for it's own purposes.

The whole Mac thing confuses me... You know that 'Chooser' thing? Why can't I have all my printers available at once (like windows)? Why do I have to keep going to the Chooser to change the printer? I wan't to do it from the app I'm printing from. And why do you have to 'throw away' your ZIP disks before they eject? Who can up with that idea?

I've not had much experience with Macs. Mostly at the computer labs at school. But that has been enough to keep me away...

Well I guess I'll add my bit in too. Windows definitely has Linux beat on the finer points of the OS. Windows kills X Windows, hands down. MS products are very tightly integrated, which is a good thing, but also a bad thing.

Personally, I stick to the LAMP [Linux + Apache + MySQL + Perl/PHP/Python] approach for web servers. My philosophy is that if you're going to pay the extreme amount of money that it costs for Oracle and Solaris, you might as well have a pair of clustered, maxed out linux servers. I think LAMP has Windows beat in one big area - it's customizable. It requires more expertise, but if you're a compitent Linux developer then you can really integrate your applications very well. So Linux definitely tops my list of server os.

Windows however is a much better workstation. It's very friendly and is definitely easier to use on a day-to-day basis. I like to use Windows for all of my designing and creative work.

What windows sucks at is networking. I'm MCSE certified, so I know all too well the problems windows has with networking. Its main problem is that it's selfish. It only wants to see Windows computers. And if you need to make the slightest networking config change, it requires a reboot. That's just unacceptable when you're a network admin trying to get things up and running. Linux lets you change your IP address whenever you like, without restarting anything.

So what I'm getting at is:
Server = Linux
Workstation = Windows

I never knew that Linux didn't need restart for changing IPs... that can be very usefull!