Peter J. Schoenster wrote:
>
> On 31 Jul 98, at 12:24, Robert Morse wrote:
>
> > Need to keep track of a lot a data. Getting a hefty NT server soon. Up
> > 'till now, most everyone used Linux/Apache. So we're bucking the trend.
> > Actually, we're just interested in using what technology suits specific
> > need. Not abandoning the Linux world, just complementing it.
>
> I am curious. My preference is to unix/linux but I am not "against"
> using windows. I tried to use a windows solution.
>
<<SNIP>>
>
> Would someone please say that their NT box works wonderfully as
> a fully-functional webserver that is running asp, connecting to
> databases, etc. etc. A static web server of course I can install.
>
> Peter
>
I have spent the past two years working with an NT server and M$ IIS
(including FrontPage). Setup was problematic. It did take several days
and attempts before I finally found the right sequence to get everything
loaded and configuired. BTW, those instructions were found in a extra
cost NT Resource Kit covering covering Network Administration. I can
get it to do static html pages. I was never able to get asp running. I
was never able to get ODBC working. Java and JavaScript have been
problems. Stability of the NT as a server platform is very
questiopnable. As a workstation, I find it much more stable than
Win95/98.
I am currently moving my web pages from the NT platform to our main
Unix/Apache server. The primary reason is stability. Our Unix/Apache
has been on-line (7/24) for the past four years without a crash. The
only downtime has been a scheduled maintenance downtime of per week.
The NT IIS server or the NT OS will crash every 2-3 days resulting in a
45-60 minute downtime period.
In addition, I have been using FrontPage and the authoring tool. While
it does the job and provides a usable page quickly, I have experienced
several problems when trying to move the FP devloped pages to a server
that doesn't support the FP extensions. Image maps and body tags have
been a continuing source of irritation. The quick way to do thing in FP
with the built-in "bots" doesn't translate well outside the M$ paradigm.
We have three individuals that have spent their full time the past year
trying to integrate and Access database into a web-based solution with
no success. During that time, another individual was able (as a
part-time effort) to create a web-based database using Apple (NeXT)
WebObjects that would interact with an Access database, a FoxPro
Database and a Sybase database. Imagine the success he would have if
provided training and allowed to spend full time on the project.
IMHO, complimenting our web-based efforts means reducing the use of M$
solutions at the server level. I have seen no evidence of stability and
scalelability from the M$ solutions. They require more dedicated
servers to provide simple network functions that are inherent within a
Unix server. The cost in hardware and software far exceeds the cost for
the same funcitonallity in Unix. (BTW, by Unix, I am including Linux.
Whether it is a Mach kernel based or other, Unix still behaves in an
understandable and predictable manner!) I remain unconvinced their
solutions are even effective at the desktop.
--
John Stewart
SUPSHIP San Diego
Information Systems Security Mgr
--------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
