On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, RustIndy wrote: >> We had to make that call. We're dealing with a brand new >> application that is made of brand-new, >> written-from-the-ground-up code. That means it's new to all >> of us, which in turn means that we have to keep the number >> of tech and support variables to a minimum. Hence >> the limited number of supported configurations. We decided >> to go with the most likely combination, which on Windows >> would be going with IIS as the web server. > > IIS is indeed popular with the Windows set, no argument there, and Frank (from > support) has told me pretty much the same thing you have. > > But I wouldn't have thought it possible to write code that worked on > Apache/Linux > and IIS/Windows and not on Apache/Windows. I write *all* of my sites from the > ground up and I've never come across that particular problem. > > Bad decision, IMO.
I agree. Windows folks that have already (smartly) switched to apache shouldn't be forced into using IIS. I can understand keeping things simple enough to manage, but I think that was carried too far here. -- </chris> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) _______________________________________________ domains-dev mailing list domains-dev@discuss.tucows.com http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-dev
