Advantages ASP.NET/SQL Server vs. PHP/MySql
-
Why is it better to use MS technology ? Tell me I am an IT person, then we can re-word for the masses
Okay my PHP knowledge is PHP 3.0 so whenever I am wrong please feel free to correct me. 1. When I worked with PHP I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to debug my project. Writing debug code to find a bug was a pain in the ... 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. 3. Object oriented programming was possible in PHP 3.0 but limited. 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. Don't understand me wrong, I am sure PHP has its pros but for me ASP.NET works better. The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET + SQL Server are the hosting cost. Stephan
-
Okay my PHP knowledge is PHP 3.0 so whenever I am wrong please feel free to correct me. 1. When I worked with PHP I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to debug my project. Writing debug code to find a bug was a pain in the ... 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. 3. Object oriented programming was possible in PHP 3.0 but limited. 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. Don't understand me wrong, I am sure PHP has its pros but for me ASP.NET works better. The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET + SQL Server are the hosting cost. Stephan
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
1. When I worked with PHP I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to debug my project. Writing debug code to find a bug was a pain in the ...
Trust me they are out there. The good ones aren't free though, but just search for "php debugger" in Google. And yeah Zend is easily considered the PHP gurus, since they made the engine for it.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature.
This is a design issue. Even in PHP 3.0 they had facilities to achieve this. Although, I think ASP.NET allows the integrating to go a bit more smoothy, but it's not impossible provided you understand the design principles behind it rather than syntax.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
3. Object oriented programming was possible in PHP 3.0 but limited.
You're absolutely right on that one. It has gotten better though.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc.
This is still a design issue. There's nothing stopping you from acheiveing similar functionality by separating your logic tiers into different files, etc.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice.
I'd suggest you do some shopping around. You can't compare VS to a plain text editor, that's just being totally unfair. Granted, the WYSIWYG support is nice in VS, but consider this. In PHP the presentation layer is done with raw HTML and not WebForms. So, in theory, any good HTML WYSIWG editor will help with this.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Okay my PHP knowledge is PHP 3.0 so whenever I am wrong please feel free to correct me. 1. When I worked with PHP I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to debug my project. Writing debug code to find a bug was a pain in the ... 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. 3. Object oriented programming was possible in PHP 3.0 but limited. 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. Don't understand me wrong, I am sure PHP has its pros but for me ASP.NET works better. The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET + SQL Server are the hosting cost. Stephan
Sweet. My advice is to be upfront with them. Explain by doing it in MS you can give them a better product for a better price. (Hopefully the better price will offset the extra hosting cost involved) This is based on the assumption that the hosting cost will be noticablly more expensive for MS that Linux (I don't really know, it has been a while since I paid hosting fees) End of the day, they will want the best product at the best price with minimal running costs, if you can give them that you are right. Otherwise you may have to excuse yourself fro the job, or take it on anyway. PHP isn't the devil and I find it to be quite suitable at times (like when a client says does this in PHP - then I find it suitable) Common don't be a blouse give the penguin a tickle - it won't bite
-
Sweet. My advice is to be upfront with them. Explain by doing it in MS you can give them a better product for a better price. (Hopefully the better price will offset the extra hosting cost involved) This is based on the assumption that the hosting cost will be noticablly more expensive for MS that Linux (I don't really know, it has been a while since I paid hosting fees) End of the day, they will want the best product at the best price with minimal running costs, if you can give them that you are right. Otherwise you may have to excuse yourself fro the job, or take it on anyway. PHP isn't the devil and I find it to be quite suitable at times (like when a client says does this in PHP - then I find it suitable) Common don't be a blouse give the penguin a tickle - it won't bite
Andrew Bleakley wrote:
This is based on the assumption that the hosting cost will be noticablly more expensive for MS that Linux (I don't really know, it has been a while since I paid hosting fees)
It's not that the hosting cost is too much more IMO, it'll be the licensing to use the products that will get them. [edit] Of course, there's always MSDE. It just depends on their needs. [/edit]
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
1. When I worked with PHP I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to debug my project. Writing debug code to find a bug was a pain in the ...
Trust me they are out there. The good ones aren't free though, but just search for "php debugger" in Google. And yeah Zend is easily considered the PHP gurus, since they made the engine for it.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature.
This is a design issue. Even in PHP 3.0 they had facilities to achieve this. Although, I think ASP.NET allows the integrating to go a bit more smoothy, but it's not impossible provided you understand the design principles behind it rather than syntax.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
3. Object oriented programming was possible in PHP 3.0 but limited.
You're absolutely right on that one. It has gotten better though.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc.
This is still a design issue. There's nothing stopping you from acheiveing similar functionality by separating your logic tiers into different files, etc.
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice.
I'd suggest you do some shopping around. You can't compare VS to a plain text editor, that's just being totally unfair. Granted, the WYSIWYG support is nice in VS, but consider this. In PHP the presentation layer is done with raw HTML and not WebForms. So, in theory, any good HTML WYSIWG editor will help with this.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
I knew I will ask the right people :-D Thanks a lot for your answers!!!
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. This is a design issue. Even in PHP 3.0 they had facilities to achieve this. Although, I think ASP.NET allows the integrating to go a bit more smoothy, but it's not impossible provided you understand the design principles behind it rather than syntax.
I would say you are right. I had to finish a PHP project within three weeks without knowing anything about PHP. So I am sure it was my fault.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. This is still a design issue. There's nothing stopping you from acheiveing similar functionality by separating your logic tiers into different files, etc.
Of course I had classes and differnt files, but PHP didn't give me the ability to create a dlls.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. I'd suggest you do some shopping around. You can't compare VS to a plain text editor, that's just being totally unfair.
You are right it is unfair comparing VS with a text editor. At the end I guess I have to question myself if I am able to give them the same kind of quality in PHP/MySql then in ASP.NET/SqlServer. With Typo3 or PhpNuke the main work is already done and I guess I should be able to give them pretty much the same quality. Thanks again! Stephan
-
I knew I will ask the right people :-D Thanks a lot for your answers!!!
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. This is a design issue. Even in PHP 3.0 they had facilities to achieve this. Although, I think ASP.NET allows the integrating to go a bit more smoothy, but it's not impossible provided you understand the design principles behind it rather than syntax.
I would say you are right. I had to finish a PHP project within three weeks without knowing anything about PHP. So I am sure it was my fault.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. This is still a design issue. There's nothing stopping you from acheiveing similar functionality by separating your logic tiers into different files, etc.
Of course I had classes and differnt files, but PHP didn't give me the ability to create a dlls.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. I'd suggest you do some shopping around. You can't compare VS to a plain text editor, that's just being totally unfair.
You are right it is unfair comparing VS with a text editor. At the end I guess I have to question myself if I am able to give them the same kind of quality in PHP/MySql then in ASP.NET/SqlServer. With Typo3 or PhpNuke the main work is already done and I guess I should be able to give them pretty much the same quality. Thanks again! Stephan
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
I knew I will ask the right people Thanks a lot for your answers!!!
No problem. My background is classic ASP and PHP for web dev. I'm somewhat of a n00b for ASP.NET outside of doing a couple of projects. I'd think the two biggest things you'll probably miss with PHP is that ASP.NET uses the .NET Framework which has much of a "it makes sense" design. You can still do the same stuff in PHP, but I'm sure you know what I mean. And two, VS the integreated all-in-one wonder. Kiss that goodbye. :laugh:
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
Of course I had classes and differnt files, but PHP didn't give me the ability to create a dlls.
I see what you're saying. One of the things I wish PHP had was precompilation. I really, really wish for this. :)
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
Thanks again!
No problem.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Andrew Bleakley wrote:
This is based on the assumption that the hosting cost will be noticablly more expensive for MS that Linux (I don't really know, it has been a while since I paid hosting fees)
It's not that the hosting cost is too much more IMO, it'll be the licensing to use the products that will get them. [edit] Of course, there's always MSDE. It just depends on their needs. [/edit]
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
I got the impression it would be hosted - perhaps a managed system is a better option, again it's been a while since licence costs were an issue. The bulk of my work lately has been with aid projects that will spend whatever to get properly licenced. They know in advance and work it into the budget (and then some) so that there is no question about the legitamcy of the setup. MSDE (SqlExpress) would work fine for DNN for a while. Dunno, it's Friday it's early and I am several coffee's shy of cohearence. There is a project to get DNN onto Linux with Mono and MySQL - have you tried that ???? (just to throw a spanky at the monkey works - or is it monkey in the working spanner)
-
I got the impression it would be hosted - perhaps a managed system is a better option, again it's been a while since licence costs were an issue. The bulk of my work lately has been with aid projects that will spend whatever to get properly licenced. They know in advance and work it into the budget (and then some) so that there is no question about the legitamcy of the setup. MSDE (SqlExpress) would work fine for DNN for a while. Dunno, it's Friday it's early and I am several coffee's shy of cohearence. There is a project to get DNN onto Linux with Mono and MySQL - have you tried that ???? (just to throw a spanky at the monkey works - or is it monkey in the working spanner)
Andrew Bleakley wrote:
Dunno, it's Friday it's early and I am several coffee's shy of cohearence.
Yeah, that's one of the things I love about our industry... "it depends" is a perfectly valid answer. :-D
Andrew Bleakley wrote:
There is a project to get DNN onto Linux with Mono and MySQL - have you tried that ????
I've never even used DNN. I've heard nothing but good stuff about it, but I'm trying to break away from web dev and get into game dev (unless work keeps me there).
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Andrew Bleakley wrote:
Dunno, it's Friday it's early and I am several coffee's shy of cohearence.
Yeah, that's one of the things I love about our industry... "it depends" is a perfectly valid answer. :-D
Andrew Bleakley wrote:
There is a project to get DNN onto Linux with Mono and MySQL - have you tried that ????
I've never even used DNN. I've heard nothing but good stuff about it, but I'm trying to break away from web dev and get into game dev (unless work keeps me there).
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
We used it a alot overseas on projects. It is well built, free, comes with bucket loads of modules, has end user manuals, is easy to customise, cross-browser, lightening fast to implement, truck loads of support. I could go on and on. At the end of the day, using it as a base we were able to very quickly knock out full featured and easy to extend and customise websites at a price the developing world could afford. Yes there were some issues and limitations (nothing you couldn't fix if you had the code) , but essentially I got on well with it (we went out to dinner once, but decided for the sake of our working relationship we should keep the kissy kissy out of it) I would recommend anyone in the web game to at least give it a look, if only to learn something new about building a system of that complexity without it turning into a WTF
-
I am currently working on a proposal for a CMS. One requirement from the customer is that they want the CMS running on a LINUX webserver. They don't have their own webserver what would explain why they want it on LINUX. My guess is they don't want to spend a lot of money for hosting (it is just a small non-profit organization). My idea is to offer them an open source CMS like DotNetNuke with the customizing they need. I know I could use Typo3 or PhpNuke, but my skills in PHP and MySql are not as strength as my ASP.NET and SQL Server skills (and I need to create some modules). However, I would like to explain them why it is better to use the MS technology but I don't know exactly what I should tell them because they are no IT people. From your point of view, what would you tell them? Thanks for your thoughts. Stephan
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
why it is better to use the MS technology
I agree with a lot of what Jeremy is saying. The bottom line is what is the skill set that is going to support it? You will make yourself far more respected if you help them find the right solution. Be that what you know or not. If it is PHP then go help do a PHP solution if you want to do it. Is cost really the driver to that extent. My hosting provider is $10 a month and does include ASP.net and SQL server as well as PHP (4 and 5) and mysql. If $120 is a show stopper then the answer probably is a PHP 4 with mysql on one of the $16/year sites.
-
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
why it is better to use the MS technology
I agree with a lot of what Jeremy is saying. The bottom line is what is the skill set that is going to support it? You will make yourself far more respected if you help them find the right solution. Be that what you know or not. If it is PHP then go help do a PHP solution if you want to do it. Is cost really the driver to that extent. My hosting provider is $10 a month and does include ASP.net and SQL server as well as PHP (4 and 5) and mysql. If $120 is a show stopper then the answer probably is a PHP 4 with mysql on one of the $16/year sites.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
Is cost really the driver to that extent. My hosting provider is $10 a month and does include ASP.net and SQL server as well as PHP (4 and 5) and mysql. If $120 is a show stopper then the answer probably is a PHP 4 with mysql on one of the $16/year sites.
I'm actually curious about this. If you're using a web host with SQL Server support, are you still not responsible for buying the CALs for your company to use it?
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
I knew I will ask the right people :-D Thanks a lot for your answers!!!
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. This is a design issue. Even in PHP 3.0 they had facilities to achieve this. Although, I think ASP.NET allows the integrating to go a bit more smoothy, but it's not impossible provided you understand the design principles behind it rather than syntax.
I would say you are right. I had to finish a PHP project within three weeks without knowing anything about PHP. So I am sure it was my fault.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. This is still a design issue. There's nothing stopping you from acheiveing similar functionality by separating your logic tiers into different files, etc.
Of course I had classes and differnt files, but PHP didn't give me the ability to create a dlls.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stephan Hoppe wrote: 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. I'd suggest you do some shopping around. You can't compare VS to a plain text editor, that's just being totally unfair.
You are right it is unfair comparing VS with a text editor. At the end I guess I have to question myself if I am able to give them the same kind of quality in PHP/MySql then in ASP.NET/SqlServer. With Typo3 or PhpNuke the main work is already done and I guess I should be able to give them pretty much the same quality. Thanks again! Stephan
Come to think of it. If SQL Server ends up being the major catch (price wise) you could always use ASP.NET with a MySQL backend. Just another option.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Okay my PHP knowledge is PHP 3.0 so whenever I am wrong please feel free to correct me. 1. When I worked with PHP I didn't like the fact that I wasn't able to debug my project. Writing debug code to find a bug was a pain in the ... 2. In PHP I had php skript within the html code (not only in html of course). At the end it was difficult to handle the whole source. I like the fact that ASP.NET has the code behind feature. 3. Object oriented programming was possible in PHP 3.0 but limited. 4. I wasn't able to develop assemblies or dlls which handle the business logic code, etc. 5. The IDE support for ASP.NET and SQL Server is much better. I worked with an Text Editor and PhpMyAdmin to write a PHP webapplication what wasn't nice. Don't understand me wrong, I am sure PHP has its pros but for me ASP.NET works better. The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET + SQL Server are the hosting cost. Stephan
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
The only thing I don't like about ASP.NET + SQL Server are the hosting cost.
Do they need a dedicated server? If not, there are a lot of good, cheap hosts out there. Ex: http://www.webhost4life.com/[^]
Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
Is cost really the driver to that extent. My hosting provider is $10 a month and does include ASP.net and SQL server as well as PHP (4 and 5) and mysql. If $120 is a show stopper then the answer probably is a PHP 4 with mysql on one of the $16/year sites.
I'm actually curious about this. If you're using a web host with SQL Server support, are you still not responsible for buying the CALs for your company to use it?
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
I think there is another type of license. Per CPU, or something. These companies must have enough volume to cover their asses expenses.
Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
-
Come to think of it. If SQL Server ends up being the major catch (price wise) you could always use ASP.NET with a MySQL backend. Just another option.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
I just wrote an email to the project manager to get the answer why they want Linux. Thanks. Stephan
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote:
Is cost really the driver to that extent. My hosting provider is $10 a month and does include ASP.net and SQL server as well as PHP (4 and 5) and mysql. If $120 is a show stopper then the answer probably is a PHP 4 with mysql on one of the $16/year sites.
I'm actually curious about this. If you're using a web host with SQL Server support, are you still not responsible for buying the CALs for your company to use it?
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
you still not responsible for buying the CALs for your company to use it?
Jon's answer covers 99% of web usage. Now if my company was using clients that directly hit the SQL server I would be most likely violating the hosting contract that I have. For that class of hosting, we would not be talking the fees I have quoted. As it stands, I can set up database access via ASP.net, PHP web pages or web service calls and that is covered in the fees.
-
I am currently working on a proposal for a CMS. One requirement from the customer is that they want the CMS running on a LINUX webserver. They don't have their own webserver what would explain why they want it on LINUX. My guess is they don't want to spend a lot of money for hosting (it is just a small non-profit organization). My idea is to offer them an open source CMS like DotNetNuke with the customizing they need. I know I could use Typo3 or PhpNuke, but my skills in PHP and MySql are not as strength as my ASP.NET and SQL Server skills (and I need to create some modules). However, I would like to explain them why it is better to use the MS technology but I don't know exactly what I should tell them because they are no IT people. From your point of view, what would you tell them? Thanks for your thoughts. Stephan
There are many differences and I believe it takes far less work in development and maintaining an ASP.NET site than you would spend to have the same benefits with PHP. I used PHP for a few years and will never use it again! I have flashback every time I open a can of spaghetti :) Anyway, putting personal preferences aside, there have been several wars on the difference here in the Lounge and a quick search might find a few of them. As for cost, that is a joke anymore. ASP.NET hosting is trivial in cost for many different places. If there host is only Linux, that is easy to change. Some mention the cost of SQL Server, but that is usually included in most hosting packages. If not, they usually have SQL Server Express which will work for most basic types of sites (such as DotNetNuke). There is even supposed to be a module out now to use MySql with DNN, so cost should not be a factor. Clean, clear, reusable code with great scalability and modular design all come for free in ASP.NET!
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft Zune to be built by Toshiba
-
Stephan Hoppe wrote:
That's why I would like to offer them an ASP.NET solution and explain them why it would be better for them.
I hear you. But think about this... if you, being the expert and IT guru can't think of a reason maybe there isn't one outside of the fact that ASP.NET/SQL Server is what you know. With that being said, why not learn both? If you plan on being successful, I don't see how knowing both of them will hurt your business. Trust me when I say, you'll see that ASP.NET/SQL Server doesn't do everything the best way and the same goes for PHP/MySQL. The more you use both, the more you'll realize the strengths and weaknesses of both. It'll give you an interesting perspective few people have too. And then of course, there's the benefit of you being able to cater to your customer's needs no matter which camp they want to roll with.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If you plan on being successful, I don't see how knowing both of them will hurt your business.
I agree with you, Jeremy. Does not hurt to know both PHP/MySQL and ASP.NET/MSSQL.
I'd like to help but I don't feel like Googling it for you.
-
There are many differences and I believe it takes far less work in development and maintaining an ASP.NET site than you would spend to have the same benefits with PHP. I used PHP for a few years and will never use it again! I have flashback every time I open a can of spaghetti :) Anyway, putting personal preferences aside, there have been several wars on the difference here in the Lounge and a quick search might find a few of them. As for cost, that is a joke anymore. ASP.NET hosting is trivial in cost for many different places. If there host is only Linux, that is easy to change. Some mention the cost of SQL Server, but that is usually included in most hosting packages. If not, they usually have SQL Server Express which will work for most basic types of sites (such as DotNetNuke). There is even supposed to be a module out now to use MySql with DNN, so cost should not be a factor. Clean, clear, reusable code with great scalability and modular design all come for free in ASP.NET!
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Microsoft Zune to be built by Toshiba
Ok i can see wxactly where you are coming from, your native language is what you are going to produce the best products in (unless you're not actually coding but i'm going to assume you are). HOWEVER it is well known that windows was NEVER designed to be on the web. It is the most vulnerable of the OS's (Mac, Linux (Based on SUSE), UNIX) for many different reasons. All my user end interfaces and basic functions on the web are ALL PHP and MySQL. This is just because to use anything but Linux and Apache as a web server would be occupational suicide. I'm guessing your client does not have a strong IT background and therefore could never hope to find the security holes in their server. Trust me on this, Linux iswhat you want. PHP is the 3rd easiest language i ever learned and MySql really cuts the overhead. Please if you listen to one thing i say make sure you tell your clients about the security risk in a way they can understand. It is bad practice to customize the job for a solution, rather then the other way around.
From Brad
-
I am currently working on a proposal for a CMS. One requirement from the customer is that they want the CMS running on a LINUX webserver. They don't have their own webserver what would explain why they want it on LINUX. My guess is they don't want to spend a lot of money for hosting (it is just a small non-profit organization). My idea is to offer them an open source CMS like DotNetNuke with the customizing they need. I know I could use Typo3 or PhpNuke, but my skills in PHP and MySql are not as strength as my ASP.NET and SQL Server skills (and I need to create some modules). However, I would like to explain them why it is better to use the MS technology but I don't know exactly what I should tell them because they are no IT people. From your point of view, what would you tell them? Thanks for your thoughts. Stephan
Did they choose you specifically for this project? If so then I imagine they had an idea why they wanted you. As much as I want to say what the others are saying, that actually maybe PHP/MySQL or some other LAMP like stack is better, if you aren't proficient in those areas and are good at ASP.NET then that is your reasoning to them. Technology is not chosen just for technologies sake, businesses often choose on HR issues before technology issues. One thing you dont want to do is sell PHP/MySQL and then not be able to deliver. Don't concede on some points just to get your foot in the door and then find you can't actually do the project to your normal standards. So you need to look at your position with them. Do they want you or do they just want the project done? they may want you because they see a good future with you that they don't see with other developers in which case your technology choice, and happiness, is more important than initial costs. Saying all that most of your points against PHP above can be countered by using Ruby on Rails and still be on the cheap LAMP stack ;) (I really, really, really like Rails.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.