| What OS do you prefer for hosting? |
| UNIX, Linux, etc. |
|
100% |
[ 11 ] |
| Something from Microsoft |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Other? |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
Euler
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 109
|
|
|
|
I agree with you Thermit. I wanted to come in here and adopt the contrary POV just to provide an entertaining debate. But I'm at a loss for arguments.
What more should be said? Choose IIS because it's more expensive? Because it has chronic recurring security issues that have caused the Gartner Group to recommend against its use since the week after 9/11/2001, stating "you can't keep up with the security problems of IIS. It's like a car: Don't buy a Fiat unless you are prepared to get it fixed a lot." ?
Because activeX was only halfway completed and then left in the center of the road to rot like roadkill? Because .net is an artificial tarbaby that reinvents all of the wheels... for no marketable gain?
Because your server machine should be forced to run a GUI console as well as host websites?
Because MS rolls out their own "MS Search" on IIS... only to crash repeatedly over the next three days - so that the press can't even be bought off the story? This was MS using their own tool. It should have been a flawless launch. What happened here?
I didn't even really try here and it already sounds so negative. Pls don't get me wrong. Great things might be possible with Windows services.
|
Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:47 pm
|
|
|
Thermit
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 272
|
|
|
|
>> I didn't even really try here and it already sounds so negative
Man, I'd hate to see you try! Wait that could be fun! 
I do appreciate some of the nice features available in the Windows development environment over UNIX, but then again I never used a development tool under UNIX, if there is more than "vi" or "vim", I guess I was just missing out.
And I also credit old Bill and his Windows with helping to bring the Internet to the world, that old Netscape on UNIX just never worked to good. IE's got bugs and holes too, of course.
Here's one, any IE users please tell me if you've seen this... I close an IE window, and then it goes nuts spawning new instances of the IE EXE over and over again. I've seen this about 5 times in the last year, it's crazy, there is no way you could ever close them all thru the taskbar, you must quickly go to the Task Manager and look for the IE process with high CPU, there may be 25 other IEs by this time, so this is the only way to find the culprit. My wife even ran into this yesterday, and may have had to reboot just to get control back over the machine.
I keep hearing about FireFox.... hmmm.... Plus there's that IE bug right now where a malicious site could wipe your harddrive clean.... hmmm.....
|
|
Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:46 pm
|
|
|
Euler
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 109
|
|
|
|
Mozilla.org.
It's so good to have a standards-compliant browser. Stuff looks the way it was designed. No popups. Tabbed browsing rocks. So do the extensions.
I've logged a few miles in visual studio 1.5, 3, 4, 5, 6 and then a bare smidge of .net stuff. While the IDE's are nice, they really hit their stride in 1998. Since then MS has been reselling the same thing covered with a dense mktg gloss of new jargon.
New acronyms and buzzwords are a tri-annual event. And then they're gone within three years, just in time for the new generation of jargon.
It's difficult to estimate the amount of human effort wasted on propogating such fad concepts. Nothing lasting comes from them. It's just marketing churn for the sake of appearing new, relevant and crucial. It takes so much effort to maintain the illusion that the actual technology never matures.
Remember these?
MFC, AFC, DDE, DCOM, OCX, OLE, ODBC, COM, VJ++, ODL, VB/VBA, ActiveScript, ActiveX?
ALL of this is obsolete for everyone except support engineers. Why? It's all been replaced by new MS techs for which you must pay in time and money for the privilege of learning.
Contrast the MS jargon with the lasting memes you get from Unix:
Regular expressions, hashes, shell, TCP/IP, multiuser, multitasking, shared memory, multithreading, mutex, semaphores, pipes and for brevity's sake, I'll stop here.
|
|
Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:24 pm
|
|
|
UnXpected
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 58
|
Linux Rulezz
|
|
Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:49 pm
|
|
|
paradoxic
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 18
|
UnXpected said it perfectly and start to the point. I love Linux.
|
|
Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:01 am
|
|
|
Orion
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia |
Linux is absolutly great to host on, but i wouldnt want to be building the server and hosting it myself. I just cannot use the linux console yet, so i am glad to have cpanel and WHM.
|
|
Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:01 am
|
|
|
Arura
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 18
|
The reason I have chosen Linux from start is because of the price and open source solutions and after getting used to it I have found no reason to switch.
|
|
Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:40 am
|
|
|
TFH
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 9
|
IMO, Unix with all the open source is sooo configurable, its the hands down choice. I'm always willing to try new/other things, but nothing has stood the test of time like nix!
|
|
Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:13 am
|
|
|
contactsonia
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 26
|
Lol!
Nobody has voted for Windows Server as yet. Microsoft Team must see this thread 
Anyway, as far as Webservers are concerns nobody can beat Linux/Unix 
|
|
Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:34 am
|
|
|
WireNine.com
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 7
|
I recommend Unix hosting, it's more secure
_________________
WireNine.com - Superior Hosting Solutions
WHM/CPANEL Shared and Reseller Web Hosting w/ Fantastico/RvSkin
Visit us at http://www.wirenine.com
|
|
Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:26 pm
|
|
|
bytech
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 38
|
Linux / Unix 100%. Windows is too expensive, not just on servers but on desktops too. Never mind that Windows still hasn't included any security with any of their software... I pitty the poor soul that hosts anything on Winblows.
|
|
Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:59 pm
|
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 19, 2012 8:13 am
|
|
|
|
| |
