Getting IIS?

Well you have to pay for IIS. The cost of Windows is obviously higher than Linux and Apache/PHP.

The is also a difference in pricing between windows and linux

wrote: Well you have to pay for IIS. The cost of Windows is obviously higher than Linux and Apache/PHP. The is also a difference in pricing between windows and linux

Very true. In many cases, there is a huge difference. By the way, although I run Windows primarily and use IIS and ASP, I am a big fan of open source, Linux, and the whole community. My primary desktop dual boots between Mepis Linux (debian) and WinXP even though I'm a pretty big newbie to Linux.

I am also not a MS-basher either. Notwithstanding their sometimes questionable business practices, I am a capitalist and have respect for any company with that much in cash reserves. Besides, Windows XP is actually pretty stable and can be relatively safe if you think of security in a proper manner. It is also still much easier to use in a desktop environment than Linux, unfortunately, although Linux is making rapid strides (see Mepis). Even Linus believes Linux is several years away (actually 10) from ready to compete with Windows on the desktop.

My point is that there are costs involved in everything including Linux, Apache, and other open source or free software. While I certainly agree that Linux/Open Source/Apache is "freely available", that does not mean that it is "totally free". There are costs involved in everything even if it is the "time value of money" for learning a new OS such as Linux, the cost of time and bandwidth in developing the software, maintaining the websites, etc. Even the bandwidth to download the ISO's or free CD/DVD's if available cost somebody money, including you as the user to download. Granted you can argue that you pay a flat fee for your broadband or dialup, but that still costs you real money period. The more you download the more it gets amortized, but it still costs you money.

With that said, Linux and Apache are without a doubt far safer and more secure than Windows. The argument of "Windows is more popular" does not hold water either considering that Apache is far more popular in webserver environments, but exploited far less [ click here ]. True, Apache has been exploited but the results were not near as devastating as Code Red or Nimba which actually slowed down the entire Internet.

The question here was "Getting IIS?" and not whether IIS or Apache or Linux or Windows is better. Each has their place and if setup and secured properly can be relatively safe. After, all of them have been exploited at some level.

wrote: People who use MS know TCO and value for honest usage - too many assholes and f**kheads use free sh*t.

That is a very arguable point at the least. MS is king of spreading FUD about TCO just as the "linux zealots" are kings of spreading anti-MS crap.

wrote: This is a pet peeve of mine - most of the spammers on the net use Linux and PHP. Just one more reason for me to hate that "scene". I'll stick with MS if for no other reason than at least the people in the MS community have some morals and ethics.

Hmmm -- got some stats to back that up? There are tons of software for Windows freely available for spammers and in use.

Lets take a look at a few. First, click here to go to one of the largest sites that offers software just for the purpose of -ahem- bulk emailing. Each of those apps runs on Windows and makes it very easy to get into the business, assuming you can escape the war of attrition from the anti-spammers (whom I support). One other point, that entire site also runs on Windows servers and has for some time. If you actually research some of the largest spammers, they generally use "garage sale" hardware running Windows. Their only real issue and biggest expense is finding big enough pipes from ISP's who won't shut them down.

Also, you can't use MS and morals/ethics in the same sentence. Don't forget, that I do respect Gates and his wealth along with that of MS.

Now, let's extrapolate that baseless claim of yours out some. Since many spammers use software promotions in their spam and most of that software is for the Windows environment, does that means that your claim goes round in a viscious circle and now all Windows users are f-ckheads and a--holes? It's been quite some time (like never) since I've seen a spam promoting linux or open source software.

too many assholes and f**kheads use free sh*t.

Hmm, lets look at these scenarios.

www.altools.net offers freeware for personal use if I remember correctly. Does that mean all the users of Altools software are f-ckheads and a--holes? By extrapolation does that mean the developers are as well and possibly the kings? I doubt it.

I use free software and promote, especially free and open source apps such as Filezilla, Eraser, TrueCrypt, Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Audacity, iPodder, KeePass, and tons of others. Are you calling me a f-ckhead and a--hole as well as my clients? I've been called worse, but I don't think my clients deserve that.

What about the millions of users who have downloaded and switched to Firefox? Are they all f-ckheads and a--holes? Hmmm -- interesting thought.

See -- you have just proven that there are "overzealots" on both ends of the spectrum. Rather than back up your FUD with facts, you simply resort to baseless namecalling. I personally prefer discussions with people who are thoughtful in their answers with facts to backup their opinions. Even if we disagree that shows a level of class.


Edited by xeerex - 08 May 2005 at 2:36pm

With regards to spam, I wasn't actually referring to email spam, but search engine spam. When you get garbage results from search engines, quite often those sites are running typical Linux/PHP/MySQL (LPM) and taking advantage of htaccess for URL mapping to deceive search engines and users. Although ASP.NET offers the same thing, it doesn't seem to have caught on in that "scene" quite yet.

When you look at "Make money at home" sites and other typical scams, again, most often they are running LPM for the site.

For email spam from the desktop - yes - most is run on Windows boxes. At the server level for what I mention above, it's mostly LPM.

Looking into search engine cloaking and other blackhat SEO, again, this stuff is mostly LPM, or PERL which again is just screaming cheap *NIX hosting.

I'm not against free software. But I am very sick of spam - both email and search engine spam.

BTW, I use FireFox myself.

I don't think I've proved anything about overzealots on the MS side, just that on the MS side too much beer is likely to temporarily take one over to the dark side.

As far as Bill Gates goes, I love the guy. He donates huge amounts of money to charity, far beyond what "tax breaks" would justify. There are few philanthropists in the world, but he is one. I wonder what Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs donate sometimes.

Make no mistake, I'm not ragging on LPM... It's that sub-group of buttwipes that generally stick to LPM for their mischief that I'm ragging on.

Labeling all LPM users as evil is just insane. I use MySQL myself and I have a *NIX box at home as well. It's that sub-group that I have a problem with. The rag about free stuff was a stab at that sub-group for not only being slime, but being cheap slime. (However horribly I put it above.)