LAMP vs .NET
-
Your most popular ASP.NET CMS is DotNetNuke vs. Drupal for LAMP. I'd rather learn LAMP and use Drupal than get near DotNetPuke as a .NET developer. Customers have budgets when it comes to websites. The cheaper the technology the more that's left over in the budget to pay developers.
Todd Smith
There are much better open source CMS packages for ASP.NET such as mojoPortal, or my current hobby, Umbraco.
-
At work, we have been interviewing several web development companies to redo the company's website. What is interesting is that most companies (9 out of 10) work on the LAMP stack rather than ASP.NET. Of course the choice of technology for the company's web site is not a big deal, but I did find my observation interesting. I did expect the LAMP number to be high but not this high. It seems for content management LAMP is common where as for LOB applications ASP.NET is more common.
Simple .Net rocks LAMP sucks
-
Todd Smith wrote:
I'd rather learn LAMP and use Drupal than get near DotNetPuke as a .NET developer.
Yup, same here. I've only had one experience with it and it's been terrible.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
You've had one experience with DNN, and it was bad... are you sure you're qualified to even comment on the matter? I won't touch DNN again because they've turned into a paid product. There's a "community" version but it's the paid version that has the features necessary for enterprise applications. Because of that I regret starting development in DNN.
-
Care to explain the reasons behind your statement?
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Well, I agree that linux is the better server system. Although 'always' is a bit too strong to me. The reason why linux is better is the basic design. Linux was build for networking right from the beginning, windows wasn't, AFAIK. The advantage of linux is that you can install it exactly for the task you need it, where windows is installed with many things you don't need and therefore costs memory and processor resources. I know, Microsoft released Windows Server Core, but that is too static in my opinion. Besides that I haven't seen many installations of Windows Server Core. Another thing to consider is that the server market share of Windows Server and linux is different from the desktop market share. Microsoft does not dominate this area. Back to the technical part, for some companies the stability is an important factor for choosing for linux. In my own experience linux keeps running longer and more stable. Maybe that is because you only need to install that what you need, but I guess it is also because there is no registry in linux. For me it depends on what the customer wants. I work with LAMP and .NET. What I see very often is that high-tech and engineering companies prefer to use *nix systems and financial companies prefer windows systems. I don't really know the reason for that, maybe the technology sector likes the possibility to adjust things the way they want it to be. Governments start to use more and more open source software, at least here in Europe, as they have to use more cost effective systems and use open standards. I know that many people will argue on the cost effectiveness of linux, but in term of licenses it is probably true. Certainly if you don't look at the desktop side, linux is the most cost effective as you don't have the training costs. I also read here that some of you have the experience that LAMP is mostly used for the internet and ASP.NET for intranet. I think that has to do with the number of concurrent connections, which are limited in Windows. I don't know the reason for that, but Microsoft can't or doesn't improve this. To conclude this and probably to add a new edge to this discussion, not so long ago I got a project where the customer wanted me to use ASP.NET on linux with the Mono project. This was pretty awesome, however I think that the IDE (MonoDevelop) is not there yet. Building the UI is still manual labour instead of drag 'n' drop, but they are doing great work. So for the future this will be the way to go for me. Combining the power of linux and the possibi
-
At work, we have been interviewing several web development companies to redo the company's website. What is interesting is that most companies (9 out of 10) work on the LAMP stack rather than ASP.NET. Of course the choice of technology for the company's web site is not a big deal, but I did find my observation interesting. I did expect the LAMP number to be high but not this high. It seems for content management LAMP is common where as for LOB applications ASP.NET is more common.
"I love lamp![^]" (For the Anchorman fans out there, all three of you) :)
-
Well, I agree that linux is the better server system. Although 'always' is a bit too strong to me. The reason why linux is better is the basic design. Linux was build for networking right from the beginning, windows wasn't, AFAIK. The advantage of linux is that you can install it exactly for the task you need it, where windows is installed with many things you don't need and therefore costs memory and processor resources. I know, Microsoft released Windows Server Core, but that is too static in my opinion. Besides that I haven't seen many installations of Windows Server Core. Another thing to consider is that the server market share of Windows Server and linux is different from the desktop market share. Microsoft does not dominate this area. Back to the technical part, for some companies the stability is an important factor for choosing for linux. In my own experience linux keeps running longer and more stable. Maybe that is because you only need to install that what you need, but I guess it is also because there is no registry in linux. For me it depends on what the customer wants. I work with LAMP and .NET. What I see very often is that high-tech and engineering companies prefer to use *nix systems and financial companies prefer windows systems. I don't really know the reason for that, maybe the technology sector likes the possibility to adjust things the way they want it to be. Governments start to use more and more open source software, at least here in Europe, as they have to use more cost effective systems and use open standards. I know that many people will argue on the cost effectiveness of linux, but in term of licenses it is probably true. Certainly if you don't look at the desktop side, linux is the most cost effective as you don't have the training costs. I also read here that some of you have the experience that LAMP is mostly used for the internet and ASP.NET for intranet. I think that has to do with the number of concurrent connections, which are limited in Windows. I don't know the reason for that, but Microsoft can't or doesn't improve this. To conclude this and probably to add a new edge to this discussion, not so long ago I got a project where the customer wanted me to use ASP.NET on linux with the Mono project. This was pretty awesome, however I think that the IDE (MonoDevelop) is not there yet. Building the UI is still manual labour instead of drag 'n' drop, but they are doing great work. So for the future this will be the way to go for me. Combining the power of linux and the possibi
Well, the Internet is probably dominated by *nix, and there are valid reasons for that, otherwise the market would have been different.
Blue_Iced wrote:
I think that has to do with the number of concurrent connections, which are limited in Windows.
There are several huge websites that run on Windows, for example StackOverflow, which handles 1million hits a day[^] with two webservers and one DB server*. That's pretty good in my opinion. In the end, what really matters is how tools are used. It's easy to write a so-so application on any platform, it's hard to build a great, performant and stable application on any platform. *) I wonder how that compares to CP.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
-
Well, the Internet is probably dominated by *nix, and there are valid reasons for that, otherwise the market would have been different.
Blue_Iced wrote:
I think that has to do with the number of concurrent connections, which are limited in Windows.
There are several huge websites that run on Windows, for example StackOverflow, which handles 1million hits a day[^] with two webservers and one DB server*. That's pretty good in my opinion. In the end, what really matters is how tools are used. It's easy to write a so-so application on any platform, it's hard to build a great, performant and stable application on any platform. *) I wonder how that compares to CP.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Dario Solera wrote:
There are several huge websites that run on Windows, for example StackOverflow, which handles 1million hits a day[^] with two webservers and one DB server*. That's pretty good in my opinion.
That is pretty good indeed. But the number of hits doesn't tell us anything about the performance of a server system. Only how popular it is. The number of hits would say something in combination with how many servers there are to handle the requests and the average time that a connection remains open. 1 million hits a day is a lot, but is merely 11 concurrent connections per second.
Dario Solera wrote:
In the end, what really matters is how tools are used. It's easy to write a so-so application on any platform, it's hard to build a great, performant and stable application on any platform.
On this one I totally agree! That's absolutely the main thing... Give the customer what he wants and needs!
-
Dario Solera wrote:
There are several huge websites that run on Windows, for example StackOverflow, which handles 1million hits a day[^] with two webservers and one DB server*. That's pretty good in my opinion.
That is pretty good indeed. But the number of hits doesn't tell us anything about the performance of a server system. Only how popular it is. The number of hits would say something in combination with how many servers there are to handle the requests and the average time that a connection remains open. 1 million hits a day is a lot, but is merely 11 concurrent connections per second.
Dario Solera wrote:
In the end, what really matters is how tools are used. It's easy to write a so-so application on any platform, it's hard to build a great, performant and stable application on any platform.
On this one I totally agree! That's absolutely the main thing... Give the customer what he wants and needs!
Blue_Iced wrote:
1 million hits a day is a lot, but is merely 11 concurrent connections per second.
Yep, but that figure does not include crawlers and (I see[^]) is already around 1.4 million hits a day to date. Another reason why one would want to use one platform instead of another is that she's familiar with it and that inevitable has a direct economic impact on the result.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
-
Blue_Iced wrote:
1 million hits a day is a lot, but is merely 11 concurrent connections per second.
Yep, but that figure does not include crawlers and (I see[^]) is already around 1.4 million hits a day to date. Another reason why one would want to use one platform instead of another is that she's familiar with it and that inevitable has a direct economic impact on the result.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Dario Solera wrote:
Another reason why one would want to use one platform instead of another is that she's familiar with it and that inevitable has a direct economic impact on the result.
You mean the familiarity of the technical staff or of the management? ;)
-
All of my ASP.NET experience to date has been for the wild Internet. :)
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki v3
Actually, I often find that when I apply for internet ASP.NET roles I'm knocked back by only having intranet experience. :(
Kevin
-
Well, I agree that linux is the better server system. Although 'always' is a bit too strong to me. The reason why linux is better is the basic design. Linux was build for networking right from the beginning, windows wasn't, AFAIK. The advantage of linux is that you can install it exactly for the task you need it, where windows is installed with many things you don't need and therefore costs memory and processor resources. I know, Microsoft released Windows Server Core, but that is too static in my opinion. Besides that I haven't seen many installations of Windows Server Core. Another thing to consider is that the server market share of Windows Server and linux is different from the desktop market share. Microsoft does not dominate this area. Back to the technical part, for some companies the stability is an important factor for choosing for linux. In my own experience linux keeps running longer and more stable. Maybe that is because you only need to install that what you need, but I guess it is also because there is no registry in linux. For me it depends on what the customer wants. I work with LAMP and .NET. What I see very often is that high-tech and engineering companies prefer to use *nix systems and financial companies prefer windows systems. I don't really know the reason for that, maybe the technology sector likes the possibility to adjust things the way they want it to be. Governments start to use more and more open source software, at least here in Europe, as they have to use more cost effective systems and use open standards. I know that many people will argue on the cost effectiveness of linux, but in term of licenses it is probably true. Certainly if you don't look at the desktop side, linux is the most cost effective as you don't have the training costs. I also read here that some of you have the experience that LAMP is mostly used for the internet and ASP.NET for intranet. I think that has to do with the number of concurrent connections, which are limited in Windows. I don't know the reason for that, but Microsoft can't or doesn't improve this. To conclude this and probably to add a new edge to this discussion, not so long ago I got a project where the customer wanted me to use ASP.NET on linux with the Mono project. This was pretty awesome, however I think that the IDE (MonoDevelop) is not there yet. Building the UI is still manual labour instead of drag 'n' drop, but they are doing great work. So for the future this will be the way to go for me. Combining the power of linux and the possibi
Blue_Iced wrote:
I think that has to do with the number of concurrent connections, which are limited in Windows.
We run a high-load entertainment website that regularly sees upwards of 60,000 concurrent sessions, it runs on 2 Windows 2003 servers using IIS6, with a DB server running Centos/Mysql. The application is written in classic ASP and all page loads, even the DB heavy ones, are < 3sec without any clever caching other than the IIS defaults. Although we use *nix to run other applications and websites, Windows seems like a fine choice to us as a webserver if the application requires it. Alex
-
At work, we have been interviewing several web development companies to redo the company's website. What is interesting is that most companies (9 out of 10) work on the LAMP stack rather than ASP.NET. Of course the choice of technology for the company's web site is not a big deal, but I did find my observation interesting. I did expect the LAMP number to be high but not this high. It seems for content management LAMP is common where as for LOB applications ASP.NET is more common.
hey guys, I'm following this community for over 4 years now, and I'm more often an observer then active member, but this topic had me going.. this is why the LAMP is better for web development then any M$ .NET bullshit: * it's free (not only in means of *money*, but also in terms of DEVELOPMENT of those platforms and tools) * the community is N times larger, better, and more responsive * the tools are more stable, Linux as a server is more stable, as you all agreed on that already, and PHP is constantly improving, with better tools and increased stability * there's no .NET bullshit with .NET1, then switch to .NET1.5, then 2, 2.5, 3, and so on to no end, where developers has to "keep up" with not only learning new stuff, and rewriting their existing code, but they have to keep paying for constant upgrades they didn't even ask for * there are LOADS of plugins, libs, tools, etc for PHP and open-source frameworks. you think jQuery has been developed for .NET? sheesh. think again. M$ just integrated it, eventually, 'cause they had no better alternative. and please don't mention silverlight to me. :P and for the guy that said "any webmonkey can write in PHP" - that goes right back at .NET developers. I was a C# developer for 2 years, and I was litteraly STUNNED with some shit I saw many people write. Fresh out of college or "pro" developers. there are bad developers everywhere, PHP is just easier (AND FREE!) to start with, so that's why it has a bad reputation. oh, and finally, - PHP has mega-strong *frameworks*, such as CodeIgniter, Zend, and others, which are totally MVC OO, so don't even try to put PHP down as a "scripting spaghetti code" language. that was loooooong time ago people. expers are switching to PHP and free, less expensive technologies all around the world. I switched to PHP and Linux development 4 years ago, and there's no way in hell I'm going back to .NET. Are you? cheers, keep up the good community! :) dootzky
One with tha CoDe
-
hey guys, I'm following this community for over 4 years now, and I'm more often an observer then active member, but this topic had me going.. this is why the LAMP is better for web development then any M$ .NET bullshit: * it's free (not only in means of *money*, but also in terms of DEVELOPMENT of those platforms and tools) * the community is N times larger, better, and more responsive * the tools are more stable, Linux as a server is more stable, as you all agreed on that already, and PHP is constantly improving, with better tools and increased stability * there's no .NET bullshit with .NET1, then switch to .NET1.5, then 2, 2.5, 3, and so on to no end, where developers has to "keep up" with not only learning new stuff, and rewriting their existing code, but they have to keep paying for constant upgrades they didn't even ask for * there are LOADS of plugins, libs, tools, etc for PHP and open-source frameworks. you think jQuery has been developed for .NET? sheesh. think again. M$ just integrated it, eventually, 'cause they had no better alternative. and please don't mention silverlight to me. :P and for the guy that said "any webmonkey can write in PHP" - that goes right back at .NET developers. I was a C# developer for 2 years, and I was litteraly STUNNED with some shit I saw many people write. Fresh out of college or "pro" developers. there are bad developers everywhere, PHP is just easier (AND FREE!) to start with, so that's why it has a bad reputation. oh, and finally, - PHP has mega-strong *frameworks*, such as CodeIgniter, Zend, and others, which are totally MVC OO, so don't even try to put PHP down as a "scripting spaghetti code" language. that was loooooong time ago people. expers are switching to PHP and free, less expensive technologies all around the world. I switched to PHP and Linux development 4 years ago, and there's no way in hell I'm going back to .NET. Are you? cheers, keep up the good community! :) dootzky
One with tha CoDe
You'd have had a stronger argument if you used less swearing, $ signs and were less aggressive. I'm sure all the points you've made are valid and worth exploring but as you've presented them so badly I'm simply not interested.
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton
I gave up when I couldn't spell "egg". Justine Allen -
You'd have had a stronger argument if you used less swearing, $ signs and were less aggressive. I'm sure all the points you've made are valid and worth exploring but as you've presented them so badly I'm simply not interested.
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
Because programming is an art, not a science. Marc Clifton
I gave up when I couldn't spell "egg". Justine AllenPerhaps I could be more polite, but I wasn't offensive to members of the forum, I just cursed a bit, I think that helps relieve the stress. :) and this is not a business meeting (I had too much of those), this is a forum, a casual chat between casual people, so occasional bullshit word or such is quite alright, I think, unless it's directed to a person directly, wouldn't you agree? :cool: And I didn't post my opinion here to get you all to switch to PHP, on the contrary, this is primarily .NET forum, but you people should really see the other side of development world from the first person view (try it yourself) in order to understand it better. But I'm sure many of you (you sir in particular) have had many languages and technologies tried out, so I'm sure you've seen Linux, PHP, and everything else quite a lot, and you know what I'm talking about. Buzz me back if you want to continue this nice discussion, and let's make sure it doesn't evolve into yet another flame war. :thumbsup: Check this out too, it's a video, quick and simple, and then you'll get another insight: http://codeigniter.com/tutorials/[^] cheers from Serbia, Europe! dootzky
-
At work, we have been interviewing several web development companies to redo the company's website. What is interesting is that most companies (9 out of 10) work on the LAMP stack rather than ASP.NET. Of course the choice of technology for the company's web site is not a big deal, but I did find my observation interesting. I did expect the LAMP number to be high but not this high. It seems for content management LAMP is common where as for LOB applications ASP.NET is more common.
-
At work, we have been interviewing several web development companies to redo the company's website. What is interesting is that most companies (9 out of 10) work on the LAMP stack rather than ASP.NET. Of course the choice of technology for the company's web site is not a big deal, but I did find my observation interesting. I did expect the LAMP number to be high but not this high. It seems for content management LAMP is common where as for LOB applications ASP.NET is more common.
I almost went down the LAMP road, until I started running into different server configuration with different hosting companies. I like the php langauge coming from a C++ background. However, I quickly discover I had to modify my app in order to get to run on different servers. I am sure this is not the case anymore. I used Dreamweaver for development with php back then. Now I am developing for ASP.net C# in Visual Studio 2008. I still use dreamweaver for layout, however I want upgrade Adobe again. I have my own custom CMS for small to medium sites, and I use Sitefinity for larger sites. Four years ago one could make the case that Lamp is the cheaper solution and the best solution, but now there is no cost difference in hosting an ASP.net. I can kick out a site for just as low as a php Web firm can. I don't think cost is a factor anymore. I believe we will see an increase in ASP.net solution in the future, since Microsoft got it's act together for tools. Marketing is the major factor now.
-
Dario Solera wrote:
There are several huge websites that run on Windows, for example StackOverflow, which handles 1million hits a day[^] with two webservers and one DB server*. That's pretty good in my opinion.
That is pretty good indeed. But the number of hits doesn't tell us anything about the performance of a server system. Only how popular it is. The number of hits would say something in combination with how many servers there are to handle the requests and the average time that a connection remains open. 1 million hits a day is a lot, but is merely 11 concurrent connections per second.
Dario Solera wrote:
In the end, what really matters is how tools are used. It's easy to write a so-so application on any platform, it's hard to build a great, performant and stable application on any platform.
On this one I totally agree! That's absolutely the main thing... Give the customer what he wants and needs!
StackOverflow runs on 2 web servers and 1 db server http://highscalability.com/blog/2009/8/5/stack-overflow-architecture.html[^]
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
You've had one experience with DNN, and it was bad... are you sure you're qualified to even comment on the matter? I won't touch DNN again because they've turned into a paid product. There's a "community" version but it's the paid version that has the features necessary for enterprise applications. Because of that I regret starting development in DNN.
I, too, was a little irritated that they went commercial, but the free version still works fine. It's like most other Open Source initiatives where you can purchase a support contract for a more solid version of the product if you need critical response to issues. As for .NET, it's the same idea that was described above, by Shog9, for PHP -- most of what you need to accomplish has already been developed. Active Directory and LDAP integration (with client pass-through authentication), WMI, networking and email libraries, encryption, security, file I/O, SQL Server integration, etc. Most of what you need for your solution already exists -- you need only assemble the puzzle to create your application. And, that's assuming that you can't find a C# or VB.NET example on The Code Project that does most of what you need and can be quickly and easily modified to your needs. I'm sure that this argument is simply an indicator of people not wanting to leave their comfort zone, but still curious about what others are using. I wouldn't know where to start with LAMP, but I have many years of familiarity with the inner workings of Windows to make the choice simple. Why should I spend so much time and effort trying to ramp up my knowledge about LAMP (especially when it comes to security) when I can do anything that I need to do with Windows and my existing skill set? I'm sure that anyone who has little or no Windows experience and lots of Linux experience feels the same way. Both OSs can do the job, so it's dependent on the preference of the implementation team on which platform to use as a base for their solution.
-
Linux will always be a better server than windows, I think is the best option u can do whatever u want with the server and u don't need an ultimate server, if you take advantage of the linux server u will do a great application
I completely dissagree with that entire statement. I manage both Windows and Linux servers and as long as your I.T. group is a competent group, then your Windows boxes can have the same uptime as your Linux boxes. The only time we ever reboot both the Windows and the Linux boxes is when doing updates. The only problem with the websites, and this affects both Windows and Linux, is the quality of the code. You code crap in .net, the site sucks, you code crap in PHP, the site sucks. Code well in .NET and the site rocks, code well in PHP, the site rocks. I code in .NET because well, I'm not that great in PHP, I can fix stuff, but thats my limit. Where as in .NET, I can write huge apps that perform very well. In my opinion, at the current time, Silverlight is the leader when doing LOB apps on the intranet, because it was designed from the beginning for applications, and flash is the leader on the internet becuase it was designed originally to display pretty graphics. On the other hand though, there are some things that are done better with Linux than with Windows. Intrusion Prevention is one very good example. BTW, Linux and Windows is an OS. Not a server. :)
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. - Aristotle
-
Using the mod_mono you can have the best of both worlds ...