I personally prefer Windows server, since they run asp and .net on top of php, mysql and perl, but what is your preference? Esp. since windows server are more expensive.Windows is not necessarily more expensive. Personally I prefer Unix machines, but this is mostly because I usually tend to use Unix technologies. However I consider Windows as just as good as hosting platform and hosted a site some years ago on a Windows machine with absolutely no troubles - contrariwise I experienced a bunch of problems with certain Unix based hosts.
Somehow however I suppose this thread will turn after 5 to 8 postings once again into the typical "Unix is more stable", "Windows sucks" thread without any proof for the made statements.I used to think that Windows server hosting sucked, till I looked at windows 2003 server.. I don't think windows 2003 server hosting sucks at all and I'd be mad to not do it, as Microsoft continue to target hosting providers clients, with free tools to develop websites. Check out the universities and what all the up and coming grads are using for their desktops..
Linux still rocks, but imho, you need both (unless you have enough money alreay .. and don't want more.)
I would host on a machine, windows or linux depending upon the needs of the site - I would keep both eyes open.I think use something other that MS if you can. They have enough control already right?I use Linux based hosts because it's what I know best and what I run is primarily LAMP based. A well administered Linux box and robust apps will most likely never give you any grief.My Windows (2003) peers will say the same about a Win2k3 box and MS-SQL.However, I am bound to view a server that's Windows 2003 based, running MS-Sql, ASP applications, PHP, MySQL and why not...Java thrown in for good measure with a bit of suspicion. It may work in the 'lab', but:1) It surely won't scale well2) Has way more things that can 'break' should any code need to be changed or os patches to applied3) While there are decent LAMP and Win techs out there I am sure it is less likely to find decent support for such a 'soup', especially to resolve any emergency issue of sorts.What I typically tell clients that *NEED* to run all that on a single server (surprise...typically for cost reasons) is to re-evaluate their requirements, cost models and overall businessplan. If they insist, I politely turn down support.Without getting emotional about it
, your hosting solution, be it Unix based or Windows based is only as good as the applications you are running and the techs managing it.n/aI think use something other that MS if you can. They have enough control already right?
It didnt even require 5 postings.
1) It surely won't scale well
Why shouldnt it?
2) Has way more things that can 'break' should any code need to be changed or os patches to applied
Please elaborate.
3) While there are decent LAMP and Win techs out there I am sure it is less likely to find decent support for such a 'soup', especially to resolve any emergency issue of sorts.
Again, please elaborate.
Without getting emotional about it , your hosting solution, be it Unix based or Windows based is only as good as the applications you are running and the techs managing it.
I completely agree.I used to prefer Linux/Apache for a hosting environment until the birth of IIS6. As it stands, the majority of the servers we run are Linux.
IMO IIS6 is a much better web server than many of the others out there, I have actually noticed a huge speed difference over Apache, to the point where I can load up a website and usually know what's hosting it.
At the end of the day it comes down to what you intend to host ...
DanI like Windows because I have lived with it basically for all my years doing this, so I know its ups and downs. I have never tried linux, though I would like to.I prefer linux, since i can use php and mysql database, I am not saying that windows server are not good but for my business I prefer Linux, and they are a bit more cheap as well...Re: scalabilityServicers running on a machine are all competing for resources, be it ram, cpu or i/o. I typically tend to separate my DB servers from other tiers on separate machines.....just cannot imagine how having instances of both MS-SQL and MySQL on the same machine can take any loadRe: AdminsThe majority of hosting techs will be either well versed on Unix/PHP/MySQL platforms or Windows/MSSQL/IIS but not both. Also, the more complex a solution the more difficult the maintenance, issue identification and problem resolution.I agree it is really in the hands of the person managing the server. Although UNIX is opensource code where Windows is compiled DLL files, so hacking is usually more difficult on a windows machine.I prefer linux because I find it easier to secure! And Windows cost alot of money to run and maintain (MSSQL, WINDOWS 2003 and on and on, you have to buy a license for everything!.) Where on linux; its Free OS, Free PHP, Free MySQL free APACHE.When you can compile your modified source for windows to tweak it, then it will stand a chance of being taken a lot more seriously.....But in general, I would love to see benchmarks, from real world use to see how win 2003, and hey even XP fares against various linux distros.Linux is leaner, so should win, but windows may have better hardware support which could swing the balance.....The thing I like about windows is the Remote Desktop. Nothing can top that.I prefer linux, since i can use php and mysql database, I am not saying that windows server are not good but for my business I prefer Linux, and they are a bit more cheap as well...
Since when can't you use php/mysql on Windows?
I prefer linux because I find it easier to secure!
In my opinion, being able to tightly secure a box depends more on the knowledge/experience of the sysadmin then on the OS that is running.
And Windows cost alot of money to run and maintain (MSSQL, WINDOWS 2003 and on and on, you have to buy a license for everything!.) Where on linux; its Free OS, Free PHP, Free MySQL free APACHE.
Clearly you are not familiared with Windows hosting. You do not buy licenses when offering hosting on a Windows box. You get the CDs/licenses for free but you get a SPLA contract, where pay according to what you use on a monthly base.
And the decent enterprise linux distributions aren't free either, try RH!Both are good and neat. Both have pros and cons... you shoud think out which one satisfies your need, like if you need asp.net you have only one option to choose windows.. if not linux is cheap and neat for all other purposes...I prefer linux, since i can use php and mysql database, I am not saying that windows server are not good but for my business I prefer Linux, and they are a bit more cheap as well...
The answer to that is simple.. if you code in php, then use linux.. forget windows, why admins install php onto windows servers, is beyond me.
If you want to use asp, asp.net and MySQL rather than mssql, so be it, you can do that easily... the db connectors allow that no worries.
If you code php, use linux, if you code asp or .NET, then use Windows, its that simple. Choose whichever database platform is suitable, either MySQL or mssql - choice is yours..I agree that the licensing on SPLA is really a non entity, the minimal costs for windows server OS's are absolutley worth it. Why hosts are so anti Windows hosting.. astounds me.. when 99% will be using it for a desktop to connect to these forums with !The answer to that is simple.. if you code in php, then use linux.. forget windows, why admins install php onto windows servers, is beyond me.
If you want to use asp, asp.net and MySQL rather than mssql, so be it, you can do that easily... the db connectors allow that no worries.
PHP runs on Windows just as fine as on Unix platforms. Also there is no reason to choose MySQL over SQL Server.
But maybe you have something to back up your statements, but then please post it.PHP runs on Windows just as fine as on Unix platforms. Also there is no reason to choose MySQL over SQL Server.
But maybe you have something to back up your statements, but then please post it.
Well, yes actually I can back up what I say, with simple common sense...
run php on linux .. it's cheaper (no licensing, if you run cool os's like debian and a multitude of others)
run asp, .NET on windows..
It doesn't get plainer than that..
was there anything else you need clarifying?Also there is no reason to choose MySQL over SQL Server.
Yes there is, in an enterprise situation, but not in a common hosting one.Well, yes actually I can back up what I say, with simple common sense...
run php on linux .. it's cheaper (no licensing, if you run cool os's like debian and a multitude of others)
run asp, .NET on windows..
It doesn't get plainer than that..
was there anything else you need clarifying?
You just said yourself that hosting on Windows is not necessarily more expensive than on Unix.
So what should be the reason to prefer Unix over Windows for PHP?You just said yourself that hosting on Windows is not necessarily more expensive than on Unix.
So what should be the reason to prefer Unix over Windows for PHP?
I'd take a shower or something that makes you relax as you aren't seeing things for what they are. I never said that at all, I did say that Windows 2003 server hosting doesn't suck, you obviosuly have that to find out yet...
Come back and let us know when you are all 'seeing' and not all so edgy about the windows thing.I'd take a shower or something that makes you relax as you aren't seeing things for what they are. I never said that at all, I did say that Windows 2003 server hosting doesn't suck, you obviosuly have that to find out yet...
Come back and let us know when you are all 'seeing' and not all so edgy about the windows thing.
So what is this?
I agree that the licensing on SPLA is really a non entity, the minimal costs for windows server OS's are absolutley worth it.
Anyhow, please elaborate why PHP would not be suitable for Windows.I'm of the mind that unless I have a reason to choose one system over another, go with the easiest (cheapest) solution. I have no need for sql server or asp/asp.net, since I go with the LAMP apps, so I have no reason to choose Windows over Unix. Nothing to do with preferring one over the other, it's simply the solution that suits my needs. Don't think you should make a decision based on anything but that.Anyhow, please elaborate why PHP would not be suitable for Windows.
Well, yawn, linux is free and if you host linux sites already, does it not make it easy to host them on linux?
I NEVER said you can't, I simply said it doesn't make sense.. If you can't afford a linux server to run php on, then run it on your windows server, it's really no deal, I never said one was better than than the other, simply one makes more sense, if you run both platforms...
If you don't see that makes sense.. well... good luck
Over an out.Well, yawn, linux is free and if you host linux sites already, does it not make it easy to host them on linux?
I NEVER said you can't, I simply said it doesn't make sense.. If you can't afford a linux server to run php on, then run it on your windows server, it's really no deal, I never said one was better than than the other, simply one makes more sense, if you run both platforms...
No, you said PHP should be run on Unix, which implies more or less that Unix is better suited for PHP, which is not the case.
Of course it would not make much sense to set up a new Windows machine just for running PHP, if you already run Unix machines. However this is not what this thread is about. If one has both platforms, then there is no particular preference, so it does not really matter where PHP will run.OK
No, you said PHP should be run on Unix, which implies more or less that Unix is better suited for PHP, which is not the case.
If you run windows AND linux, then yes, imho, it should be the case..
If you want to run out all your windows server resources processing php, then go for it, anyone with any sense would keep php to linux and asp to windows..
It's as simple as that. IMHOIf you run windows AND linux, then yes, imho, it should be the case..
If you want to run out all your windows server resources processing php, then go for it, anyone with any sense would keep php to linux and asp to windows..
It's as simple as that. IMHO
I ask you again. Please elaborate on that to back up your statements.Does anyone know why some hosts charge more for Windows than they do for Linux?Does anyone know why some hosts charge more for Windows than they do for Linux? Numerous reasons: Most hosting companies use a free Linux distro such as CentOS or Debian. There's no need to pay for RHEL unless you need the support, so many hosting companies don't do it. It's easier to fit more hosts on a Linux box than it is onto a Windows box with the same resources. It's simple economies of scale that Linux hosting is cheaper.There's a reason why >60% of the world's websites run on *nix/Apache compared to around 25% for IIS. From a pure economics standpoint it's just less expensive to fit more websites on Linux than it is on Windows, and most hosting companies of course pass that cost on to the user.Part of the reason that IIS is less scalable is due to its monolithic design vs. the modular approach Apache uses. Microsoft is apparently going to change that a bit with IIS 7[1]; it remains to be seen whether they'll succeed.[1] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.com.com/Microsoft+targets+Apache+Web+server/2100-1010_3-5735805.html(edit">http://news.com.com/Microsoft+targets+A ... .html(edit</a><!-- m -->: changed "70%" to ">60%" due to latest Netcraft figures, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html">http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_s ... urvey.html</a><!-- m -->)Most hosting companies use a free Linux distro such as CentOS or Debian. There's no need to pay for RHEL unless you need the support, so many hosting companies don't do it.Funny but true, some clients 'expect' to pay more for a Windows server. Quite frankly I think it's primarily psycological disposition. A lot of Windows offerings however become pricey when MS SQL licensing is involved.I want to say only about this part: "If you want to run out all your windows server resources processing php".it is obvious to me this is an statement from someone who did not used (not much,at least) windows for hosting.even from Windows 2000, the DataCenter edition had tools to control CPU and memory assigned to some groups of processes or users within Control Panel - Advanced.Windows 2003 just got better, when I got it I was amazed by how much is improved the memory management and the way he switches between tasks. for me initially, it was simply a test for a desktop-like but you can imagine how good it feels when you have some sites on it.
Somehow however I suppose this thread will turn after 5 to 8 postings once again into the typical "Unix is more stable", "Windows sucks" thread without any proof for the made statements.I used to think that Windows server hosting sucked, till I looked at windows 2003 server.. I don't think windows 2003 server hosting sucks at all and I'd be mad to not do it, as Microsoft continue to target hosting providers clients, with free tools to develop websites. Check out the universities and what all the up and coming grads are using for their desktops..
Linux still rocks, but imho, you need both (unless you have enough money alreay .. and don't want more.)
I would host on a machine, windows or linux depending upon the needs of the site - I would keep both eyes open.I think use something other that MS if you can. They have enough control already right?I use Linux based hosts because it's what I know best and what I run is primarily LAMP based. A well administered Linux box and robust apps will most likely never give you any grief.My Windows (2003) peers will say the same about a Win2k3 box and MS-SQL.However, I am bound to view a server that's Windows 2003 based, running MS-Sql, ASP applications, PHP, MySQL and why not...Java thrown in for good measure with a bit of suspicion. It may work in the 'lab', but:1) It surely won't scale well2) Has way more things that can 'break' should any code need to be changed or os patches to applied3) While there are decent LAMP and Win techs out there I am sure it is less likely to find decent support for such a 'soup', especially to resolve any emergency issue of sorts.What I typically tell clients that *NEED* to run all that on a single server (surprise...typically for cost reasons) is to re-evaluate their requirements, cost models and overall businessplan. If they insist, I politely turn down support.Without getting emotional about it
, your hosting solution, be it Unix based or Windows based is only as good as the applications you are running and the techs managing it.n/aI think use something other that MS if you can. They have enough control already right?It didnt even require 5 postings
.1) It surely won't scale well
Why shouldnt it?
2) Has way more things that can 'break' should any code need to be changed or os patches to applied
Please elaborate.
3) While there are decent LAMP and Win techs out there I am sure it is less likely to find decent support for such a 'soup', especially to resolve any emergency issue of sorts.
Again, please elaborate.
Without getting emotional about it
, your hosting solution, be it Unix based or Windows based is only as good as the applications you are running and the techs managing it.I completely agree.I used to prefer Linux/Apache for a hosting environment until the birth of IIS6. As it stands, the majority of the servers we run are Linux.
IMO IIS6 is a much better web server than many of the others out there, I have actually noticed a huge speed difference over Apache, to the point where I can load up a website and usually know what's hosting it.
At the end of the day it comes down to what you intend to host ...
DanI like Windows because I have lived with it basically for all my years doing this, so I know its ups and downs. I have never tried linux, though I would like to.I prefer linux, since i can use php and mysql database, I am not saying that windows server are not good but for my business I prefer Linux, and they are a bit more cheap as well...Re: scalabilityServicers running on a machine are all competing for resources, be it ram, cpu or i/o. I typically tend to separate my DB servers from other tiers on separate machines.....just cannot imagine how having instances of both MS-SQL and MySQL on the same machine can take any load
Re: AdminsThe majority of hosting techs will be either well versed on Unix/PHP/MySQL platforms or Windows/MSSQL/IIS but not both. Also, the more complex a solution the more difficult the maintenance, issue identification and problem resolution.I agree it is really in the hands of the person managing the server. Although UNIX is opensource code where Windows is compiled DLL files, so hacking is usually more difficult on a windows machine.I prefer linux because I find it easier to secure! And Windows cost alot of money to run and maintain (MSSQL, WINDOWS 2003 and on and on, you have to buy a license for everything!.) Where on linux; its Free OS, Free PHP, Free MySQL free APACHE.When you can compile your modified source for windows to tweak it, then it will stand a chance of being taken a lot more seriously.....But in general, I would love to see benchmarks, from real world use to see how win 2003, and hey even XP fares against various linux distros.Linux is leaner, so should win, but windows may have better hardware support which could swing the balance.....The thing I like about windows is the Remote Desktop. Nothing can top that.I prefer linux, since i can use php and mysql database, I am not saying that windows server are not good but for my business I prefer Linux, and they are a bit more cheap as well...Since when can't you use php/mysql on Windows?
I prefer linux because I find it easier to secure!
In my opinion, being able to tightly secure a box depends more on the knowledge/experience of the sysadmin then on the OS that is running.
And Windows cost alot of money to run and maintain (MSSQL, WINDOWS 2003 and on and on, you have to buy a license for everything!.) Where on linux; its Free OS, Free PHP, Free MySQL free APACHE.
Clearly you are not familiared with Windows hosting. You do not buy licenses when offering hosting on a Windows box. You get the CDs/licenses for free but you get a SPLA contract, where pay according to what you use on a monthly base.
And the decent enterprise linux distributions aren't free either, try RH!Both are good and neat. Both have pros and cons... you shoud think out which one satisfies your need, like if you need asp.net you have only one option to choose windows.. if not linux is cheap and neat for all other purposes...I prefer linux, since i can use php and mysql database, I am not saying that windows server are not good but for my business I prefer Linux, and they are a bit more cheap as well...
The answer to that is simple.. if you code in php, then use linux.. forget windows, why admins install php onto windows servers, is beyond me.
If you want to use asp, asp.net and MySQL rather than mssql, so be it, you can do that easily... the db connectors allow that no worries.
If you code php, use linux, if you code asp or .NET, then use Windows, its that simple. Choose whichever database platform is suitable, either MySQL or mssql - choice is yours..I agree that the licensing on SPLA is really a non entity, the minimal costs for windows server OS's are absolutley worth it. Why hosts are so anti Windows hosting.. astounds me.. when 99% will be using it for a desktop to connect to these forums with !The answer to that is simple.. if you code in php, then use linux.. forget windows, why admins install php onto windows servers, is beyond me.
If you want to use asp, asp.net and MySQL rather than mssql, so be it, you can do that easily... the db connectors allow that no worries.
PHP runs on Windows just as fine as on Unix platforms. Also there is no reason to choose MySQL over SQL Server.
But maybe you have something to back up your statements, but then please post it.PHP runs on Windows just as fine as on Unix platforms. Also there is no reason to choose MySQL over SQL Server.
But maybe you have something to back up your statements, but then please post it.
Well, yes actually I can back up what I say, with simple common sense...
run php on linux .. it's cheaper (no licensing, if you run cool os's like debian and a multitude of others)
run asp, .NET on windows..
It doesn't get plainer than that..
was there anything else you need clarifying?Also there is no reason to choose MySQL over SQL Server.
Yes there is, in an enterprise situation, but not in a common hosting one.Well, yes actually I can back up what I say, with simple common sense...
run php on linux .. it's cheaper (no licensing, if you run cool os's like debian and a multitude of others)
run asp, .NET on windows..
It doesn't get plainer than that..
was there anything else you need clarifying?
You just said yourself that hosting on Windows is not necessarily more expensive than on Unix.
So what should be the reason to prefer Unix over Windows for PHP?You just said yourself that hosting on Windows is not necessarily more expensive than on Unix.
So what should be the reason to prefer Unix over Windows for PHP?
I'd take a shower or something that makes you relax as you aren't seeing things for what they are. I never said that at all, I did say that Windows 2003 server hosting doesn't suck, you obviosuly have that to find out yet...
Come back and let us know when you are all 'seeing' and not all so edgy about the windows thing.I'd take a shower or something that makes you relax as you aren't seeing things for what they are. I never said that at all, I did say that Windows 2003 server hosting doesn't suck, you obviosuly have that to find out yet...
Come back and let us know when you are all 'seeing' and not all so edgy about the windows thing.
So what is this?
I agree that the licensing on SPLA is really a non entity, the minimal costs for windows server OS's are absolutley worth it.
Anyhow, please elaborate why PHP would not be suitable for Windows.I'm of the mind that unless I have a reason to choose one system over another, go with the easiest (cheapest) solution. I have no need for sql server or asp/asp.net, since I go with the LAMP apps, so I have no reason to choose Windows over Unix. Nothing to do with preferring one over the other, it's simply the solution that suits my needs. Don't think you should make a decision based on anything but that.Anyhow, please elaborate why PHP would not be suitable for Windows.
Well, yawn, linux is free and if you host linux sites already, does it not make it easy to host them on linux?
I NEVER said you can't, I simply said it doesn't make sense.. If you can't afford a linux server to run php on, then run it on your windows server, it's really no deal, I never said one was better than than the other, simply one makes more sense, if you run both platforms...
If you don't see that makes sense.. well... good luck
Over an out.Well, yawn, linux is free and if you host linux sites already, does it not make it easy to host them on linux?
I NEVER said you can't, I simply said it doesn't make sense.. If you can't afford a linux server to run php on, then run it on your windows server, it's really no deal, I never said one was better than than the other, simply one makes more sense, if you run both platforms...
No, you said PHP should be run on Unix, which implies more or less that Unix is better suited for PHP, which is not the case.
Of course it would not make much sense to set up a new Windows machine just for running PHP, if you already run Unix machines. However this is not what this thread is about. If one has both platforms, then there is no particular preference, so it does not really matter where PHP will run.OK
No, you said PHP should be run on Unix, which implies more or less that Unix is better suited for PHP, which is not the case.
If you run windows AND linux, then yes, imho, it should be the case..
If you want to run out all your windows server resources processing php, then go for it, anyone with any sense would keep php to linux and asp to windows..
It's as simple as that. IMHOIf you run windows AND linux, then yes, imho, it should be the case..
If you want to run out all your windows server resources processing php, then go for it, anyone with any sense would keep php to linux and asp to windows..
It's as simple as that. IMHO
I ask you again. Please elaborate on that to back up your statements.Does anyone know why some hosts charge more for Windows than they do for Linux?Does anyone know why some hosts charge more for Windows than they do for Linux? Numerous reasons: Most hosting companies use a free Linux distro such as CentOS or Debian. There's no need to pay for RHEL unless you need the support, so many hosting companies don't do it. It's easier to fit more hosts on a Linux box than it is onto a Windows box with the same resources. It's simple economies of scale that Linux hosting is cheaper.There's a reason why >60% of the world's websites run on *nix/Apache compared to around 25% for IIS. From a pure economics standpoint it's just less expensive to fit more websites on Linux than it is on Windows, and most hosting companies of course pass that cost on to the user.Part of the reason that IIS is less scalable is due to its monolithic design vs. the modular approach Apache uses. Microsoft is apparently going to change that a bit with IIS 7[1]; it remains to be seen whether they'll succeed.[1] <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.com.com/Microsoft+targets+Apache+Web+server/2100-1010_3-5735805.html(edit">http://news.com.com/Microsoft+targets+A ... .html(edit</a><!-- m -->: changed "70%" to ">60%" due to latest Netcraft figures, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html">http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_s ... urvey.html</a><!-- m -->)Most hosting companies use a free Linux distro such as CentOS or Debian. There's no need to pay for RHEL unless you need the support, so many hosting companies don't do it.Funny but true, some clients 'expect' to pay more for a Windows server. Quite frankly I think it's primarily psycological disposition. A lot of Windows offerings however become pricey when MS SQL licensing is involved.I want to say only about this part: "If you want to run out all your windows server resources processing php".it is obvious to me this is an statement from someone who did not used (not much,at least) windows for hosting.even from Windows 2000, the DataCenter edition had tools to control CPU and memory assigned to some groups of processes or users within Control Panel - Advanced.Windows 2003 just got better, when I got it I was amazed by how much is improved the memory management and the way he switches between tasks. for me initially, it was simply a test for a desktop-like but you can imagine how good it feels when you have some sites on it.