> But you don't have the full > range of toys to use for fancy web sites. Sun's Active One or Soft > Chili (old name) allows you to use VBScript ASP pages but not all > functions are supported and it runs only on Intel at the moment.
I don't think the first sentence above is an accurate statement. Can you back that up? They may not offer all of the ASP functionality, but I would bet you can get all of the functionality of ASP using other tools (JSP, java beans, PHP, Perl, etc.). > SO if your site is ASP hungry then IIS is for you. Fair enough. > Apache gives you the > freedom of almost any hardware platform, but load balancing is far > easier to setup on Windows then any Unix systems. Easier for you maybe, but I'll wager that many *nix sysadmins would disagree with you. Personal firewalls > are freely available for both Unix and Windows systems which is a good > idea for a web site. And at the end of the day if IIS is already up > and running and you are having no problems why change. IIS has a really bad security history. Yes, all web servers have had their share of flaws, but IIS has had way more than it's share of flaws. If security is the highest priority for you, I'd look for an alternative to IIS. > Just secure it if you are worried about the security. It can be difficult to secure against unknown bugs (i.e. buffer overflows) that create security holes. > IIS gives you more functionality into > COM objects and streaming media is easier to build with Windows Can you back this up as well? If I may make an observation, it sounds like you're a person who is well versed in what the Microsoft world has to offer, but you're not as knowledgeable about what the non-Microsoft world has to offer. You may be correct, but I'd be a little more careful about making such statements without backing them up with proof. Steve Bremer
