On 5/31/05, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 5. IIS is easier to maintain and work with than Apache > > > > I disagree with this. Once you play a little with the Apache > > config files it is a lot quicker making changes to it than IIS. > > This is kind of silly. If you spent the same amount of time playing with > IIS's feature set, there's no reason to believe that you wouldn't feel just > as comfortable making the exact opposite statement. For example, it's nice > to be able to write a batch file to create new virtual servers with the > exact configuration you want them to have, then run it when needed.
Agreed -- this is a silly aspect of the discussion. Both are easy enough to script if you understand how to configure them. I doubt the crux of the client's decision between LAMP nd CF/MS-SQL is how easy the web server is to configure :) Ironically, it's also barely even germane since you can easily run the CF/MS-SQL combination with Apache. Or the MP part of the stack on Windows, at least as long as "P" is Perl or PHP (I can't speak to Python). > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ -- John Paul Ashenfelter CTO/Transitionpoint (blog) http://www.ashenfelter.com (email) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:208131 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
