For our systems, a windows machine (license fees, seats etc) costs in the region of 10,000 in total. A FreeBSD machine running the same style of software costs only 2,000 (and thats on the outer limit). What sensible business throws away 8,000?
For your information, if your serious about delivering PHP over the web reliably your looking at FreeBSD with Apache. If you know what your doing you can secure it well enough. In the past 12 months I have had 3 problems with FreeBSD where I have had to patch it - with windows I have to update our Win2k server monthly and even then there are times when I have to intervien within days of patching it. If your business is willing to throw away money then all be it - but here in the UK at First Creative we believe in giving the money to R&D rather than waste it on a bloated peice of software which cant handle anywhere near the load its UNIX based counter part can. -- Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ADAM Software & Systems Engineer First Creative Ltd > On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:19:52PM +0200, Marcus B?rger wrote: >> And who wants to use MS in critical environments or with critical >> Data? Remember >> MS fail to secure their own DNS servers or who knows what MS is >> capable to view on your server? Before XP they did not implement a >> full tcp/ip stack and noone knows >> what they are doing on the net (besides themselfs - i hope). And what >> about the >> resources of Windows - you must have lots of money to be fast with MS >> Systems. > Aahh, the money. OK, what costs a server?? Let's say a server costs > 7500. 2 X 2 loadbalanced servers (1 website, 1 database). That's about > $30.000. My boss is asking about $100 per developer a hour! A project > team within our company counts 4 developers, 1 development manager and > 1 contact for the customer. 30.000/6 = $5.000. So if every person on > the projecs makes 50 hours the 4 servers are paid! That's 5 and a half > day programming. > > Most projects take months before the total projects is deployed with > all the stages. Really, the resources needed Windows don't cost that > much for companies, not in comparisment with development costs. > > Any idea what a requirement study (needed for every project), a > functional and a technical design costs? And than people even haven't > started programming! > > Both Windows as Linux has some disadvantages. I won't deny that. Do you > every read security-focus?? Linux has just as much security bugs as > windows has! I work with both platforms, both have their charms. > > And in critical enviroments even linux isn't used. They have their own > unix os. I even doubt that a space shuttle is running PHP.. (They also > don't run Windows ASP either). > > >> As said before by Kristian Koehntopp there is a large amount of LAMP >> installations. >> Because many people do not use XML/SOAP why should they? Not everyone >> has to sell something on his site....(AND some XML parts are in >> development even tody). > So, more than 90% is running MSIE. Does that mean i don't have to care > about Netscape? LAMP installation are populair with ISP and hosting > providers. Because LAMP doesn't costs much. > > Just in my case - We only have MS database servers at our company. Why, > because Learning all the ins and outs of postgresql or MySQL takes a > lot of time. PHP has very good support for MS SQL Server. But MS SQL > Server is cheaper than Oracle. So, we have only 2 database > administrators in stead of 4 (postgresql, mysql, oracle and MS SQL). > >> When time comes and thinks like SRM become public maybe PHP gets the >> capabilities >> to run a web-application on multiple machines - then we will have the >> need for full SOAP >> integration. Before that time we would only provide MS/Java folks with >> rapid prototyping >> utilities... > We now already running PHP webapplications on multiple machines. All > application data is placed on a nfs partition which is used by all the > machines. SOAP between you're own layers is a bit overkill. > > Don't get me wrong. I like PHP. But please don't say that ASP is bad. > Because if it were so bad, why does it popularity grows. With good > administrators windows is also stable. And if you're not installing the > distribution updates, a linux system is just a much as exploitable as a > Windows machine. > > The longest uptime allowed within our company is set to 180 days. After > that the hardware must be inspected. And because we're running clusters > nobody cares. With that inspection servers get also a full upgrade. > Also all coolers are replaced. > > But these kind of discussions are useless. Most of those threads were > started in the early 90's. And beside of that, it costs your energy if > you reply on this one ;-) Use your energy wise, make PHP better! > > Dave Mertens > > -- > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
