IIS vs. Apache

[moonshield]

Which server does everyone like better.

Personally I like IIS, while it may not be as robust as Apache I think it is easier to maintain and manage. I like ASP better then PHP also.

[The New Guy]

I think the biggest problem with both ASP and ASP.NET is the availablility of scripts. For example their is no substitute for Vbulliten for ASP as of yet.

[moonshield]

indeed... one could make a killing coding a very good one

[Westech]

I agree with you that IIS is much easier to manage than apache, but for a server platform I'll take speed and stability over ease of management any day.

[moonshield]

is the difference in performance really a big deal? Or is it like just a little different. Im using Windows 2003 server... does that make any difference?

[Chris]

Apache Apache Apache.

Windows is slower.

Windows is less secure -- all those worms and viruses, those affect windows servers.

Apache is easier for virtual hosting type situations.

Apache & Linux all the way.

[moonshield]

Question: Are you using linux right now on your desktop?
Just how much slower is Windows? Are their servers as insecure as their desktops?

[Chris]

Yes. Back with Code Red Windows servers were crashing all over.

I use windows as my laptop, games and compatibility and all. All my servers are linux though.

Windows requires more resources to just stay afloat, meaning less to run the web server.

[moonshield]

good points... hehehe It would be funny running an ASP scripts site off a linux server :)

[r2d2]

Linux and Apache is definitely the best server environment (there must be a reason why its the most common!).

Windows is better for most users as a desktop OS though.

[moonshield]

i have heard that FreeBSD is the best server enviorment... Does anyone run their servers at their house?

[The New Guy]

I don't with .NET and Web Server 2003. Microsoft is making up ground. Its becoming harder and harder to argue things like security and price, as its seems they are both equal now a days.

[Westech]

good points... hehehe It would be funny running an ASP scripts site off a linux server :)

How's this for funny: At one of my previous jobs, we were running a Windows 2000 server that ran Apache with a buggy third party extension to let Apache run our ASP scripts. :confused: It was like that when I got there, and wasn't open for discussion.) With Windows' bloat and security issues combined with Apache's poor ASP support we had the worst of both worlds!

[tomek]

look at my avatar :)
I think LAMP is great for a webserver - and for a webdeveloper it's a great desktop too
and Quanta Plus from KDE 3.3 is great for php scripting...

Managing the Apache webserver is pretty easy - it just seems to be difficult for people with no linux background...

and it's much easier to manage a linux server from a linux desktop compared to a windows desktop - everything is included

where are the good ssh, sftp clients for windows?

[moonshield]

Disclamier: I used linux for several years... Mandrake, Red Hat, Slackware, and Gentoo. I was forced to uninstall them and revert back to M$ to use Dreamweaver. I am not very good at HTML tables :). I like Visual C++ better for programming then using VIM and GCC. Maybe its because Im lazy. :) The KDE Programming Enviornment(I forget what its called) is good, but was too slow on my computer.
Quanta is a good editor but the WYSIWYG editing part was bad. I could not do tables properly. Maybe I should use CSS but im not that smart.

Linux is a good operating system. A worthy foe for Redmond. But they need to blaze their own trail and not try to copy windows so much.

Windows Server is getting better and better. M$ says, keyword says, they are fixing holes. Their server does not seem to be as insecure as the desktop. I like the ease of .Net(I know the opensource is creating a program called Mono that does the same thing).

Im not going to be running Yahoo or Google or something of that magnitude. If I were I would definintly use FreeBSD or a BSD variant. But for my purposes the Microsoft works fine. I have not had a problem yet and I hope I do not.

[Westech]

I will give Microsoft credit: Windows Server 2003 is a huge step forward from their previous server os's. IMO, the best feature is that they now have most features disabled by default and the user has to purposely turn them on if they want to use them. Of course, this is the way Linux has been doing it for years...