> You're probably right, and I should be more proactive in only > applying patches that apply to my configuration. I should > also probably be testing the patches on a development server > first. However, I would rather spend the time doing real > work than worrying about patches. Why can't Windows patches > be more pain free like Linux patches? In my experience, they > are, but I believe many of you have been burned by bad MS > patches in the past, which is why you feel the need to test > the patch before applying it. > Testing the patches should be the MS's job, not ours.
If it's my job to keep the server running, it's my job to make sure that patches work. I haven't seen any MS folks coming by my office to test for me, on my specific servers, with my specific mix of applications and settings. If you administer servers, this is REAL WORK, regardless of platform. If I told my friendly local Solaris administrator that he should just install patches on his production servers without testing them first, I'd get laughed out of his office. For what it's worth to you, I think your emphasis on patching and uptime are seriously misplaced. You should be more concerned about configuration management and unscheduled downtime. If you're a developer, you'd much rather be writing code, which brings me back to my original point - if you're a developer, and you don't want to be a server administrator, learning Apache or Linux or whatever can be a distraction from your REAL WORK. That's really what caused me to react in the first place. I like Apache. I like Linux. I don't think there's anything wrong with using either one. I think in many ways, they're superior to their Microsoft counterparts. But the evangelism that accompanies them is often misguided, I think. > You're right and rewriting using CF for dynamic content > probably doesn't make much of a difference, although you > should agree that it is slower, even by a few milliseconds. > My point was about static content. Lets say you want to set > up a sort of proxy server where: http://www.example.com > actually pulls content from http://www2.example.com. In > Apache, you would just put in something like: > > RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.example.com $ [NC] > RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www2.example.com/$1 [P] > > This will proxy all the requests through www2, while the url > in the browser will appear as www. It will proxy images, as > well as any pages. I doubt you can do this with ISAPI > rewrite, and with CF it would be pretty difficult to do as > well (if not impossible). Apache handles this type of stuff > out of the box. Why do you doubt that you can do this with ISAPI Rewrite? Because it sure looks like you can to me: http://www.isapirewrite.com/docs/ I'm pretty sure you can do that with IIRF, too. And of course, I can turn this around to point out the things that IIS has and Apache doesn't (at least without additional modules): - web, GUI and scriptable API management interfaces - live configuration editing without restart - ability to run ASP/ASP.NET apps - authentication against Active Directory - support of MOM, SUS/WSUS and third party configuration management tools Now, you might not be interested in any of those things, but that doesn't mean they're valueless to everyone else. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:267159 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
