I love it, is it Friday yet? Axton
On Feb 7, 2008 9:55 AM, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So let me summarize: > > If you're an anti-Microsoft zealot, use Apache (or whatever the open > source/competing product is) each and every time. > > But if you're not really concerned about all those politics, IIS is a > fine choice for Windows operating systems. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS > > > If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. > > There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that > the > web server itself has been time tested and beaten to death repeatedly on > web servers all over the internet. It has seen the best and worst that > can > be offered by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in > the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets the job > done. > > Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an 'explorer' to do > the > job with eye candy and mouse clicks. There is a configuration file, and > a > text editor. Really that is all that is needed. If you've got something > in > front of you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling > something > again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, give them a boot in the > wazoo and close the door. > > Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the ability to > expand and change platforms if your situation changes at some point in > the > future. Likewise, there are enough modules and methods of customization > for it which give it a significant amount of flexibility. > > Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - the source > code is available for review and not locked away in someone's internal > source server because it 'represents a source of IP,' or because 'they > want to ensure a significant return on their investment for the > shareholders.' (Jeez... Just typing that makes me feel the need for a > shower.) > > Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe against IIS, is > that the <bleep> web server is *not* divorced from the operating system > that it sits upon. Thus, there is no single installer or package > available > in which you can install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an > older > operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be one less > reason > to upgrade, right? > > In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me silly but > why, ohh, why should an operating system patch affect a web server so > that > it causes it to crash because both file system permissions have been > changed and the internet guest account gets messed up? We had that > happen > with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. > Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS servers > for > a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) > > An Apache/Tomcat combination is a beautiful thing. Why break them up and > try to install something like Atlanta in there anyway? Apache is best > suited to serve static content, such as images and regular files, html > docs and the like. Tomcat is best for JSP. The connector that bridges > them > together is conceptually a work of art. All major implementations which > I > have been a part always use this combination. IIS and Atlanta are left > to, > well, smaller installations and I honestly sometimes consider them - > ahem > - toys. (When something goes wrong, I can be seen headed into the IIS > server room with baby whipes, a warm bottle and a diaper, or a 40 > mega-joule crash cart depending...) Similarly, running Tomcat withouth > Apache in front of it just seems, well, wrong... but that is a whole > other > topic and I digress.... > > In the end, setting my obvious opinion aside for a moment, you may not > have the choice in the end. Your environment will most likely dictate > which platform to use, simply by the ability that is present to support > it. If you have a few good *nix people running around, chances are you > could make an Apache/Tomcat combination work just fine. Even if it is on > a > Windows platform, supporting the application is similar enough that the > skillset can be used. > > By the same token, if the current terrain in which you find yourself is > dominated by funny-lookin', primary colored flags on everything and > people > with a strange fixation on blue polo shirts and khackis, well, IIS & > Atlanta may be your only choice because the point-and-click crowd is 'in > the house' (Hey, did I get the reference right that time?). > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt > > for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security > .. > > we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load > > balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any > with > > running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? > > > > Many thanks > > frexpopo > > > > -- > > Will Du Chene > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.myspace.com/wduchene > > ________________________________________________________________________ > _______ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
