>My question to you is, how might NT be a better OS than UNIX for hosting a
>web site? Or would a UNIX server really do the better job? I'd be most
>interesting in hearing back from grrls who have used both for web servers.
>I'm looking for practical, somewhat quantifiable pros and cons, to help me
>make a decision (read, MS bashing wouldn't be helpful, unless it has a
>point).
for straight file serving, under low/moderate load, the differences between
unix and NT would probably be minimal. the two biggest advantages to
unix, IMO, are stability under high load, and ease of integration between
the webserver and other software.
Windows and the Mac OS are designed around the concept of a computer which
interacts with a user sitting at the keyboard. the generic term is
'single-user context'. SUC is great for highly interactive applications,
especially those like graphics development, which involve making lots of
small, arbitrary changes to a base document. the defining feature of
single-user context is the stepwise ability to undo the last action, and
try something else.
unix, OTOH, is designed for multiple simultaneous users OR no users at all.
its specialty is batch processing applications, where a well-defined set of
actions are applied to a large set of documents. multi-user contexts tend
to follow a pass/fail model, rather than an undo/retry model.
single-user machines have a built-in tendency to want user interaction.
that can certainly be minimized, but it exists nonetheless. their
ultimate fail case is generally to present a screen which tells the user
what went wrong, then wait for a reboot. multi-user/blind machines
generally try to fail a single process in ways that don't require shutting
down the entire system. nobody wants their private machine spontaneously
rebooting in the middle of their work, and nobody on a shared machine wants
to stop working and wait for a reboot because somebody else had a software
failure.
the basic assumptions of a multi-user context imply a resonably clean,
blind protocol for passing information between processes. single-user
contexts can get away with messier protocols and pulling more shortcuts,
because they assume the user knows what's happening, and is willing to live
with the consequences.
a webserver is basically a blind system, and if it serves dynamic content,
prefers to do so in a pass/fail manner, with protocols that allow it to
communicate with other software cleanly and simply. as part of its
character, the application wants a multi-user context. it's certainly
possible to port most of the important features of that application to both
single and multi-user contexts. the multi-user context will offer the
most support for unexpected demands and flexibility for growth, though.
mike stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 'net geek..
been there, done that, have network, will travel.
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
