Page 3 of 4

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:38 pm
by Heavy
Thanks jason Image That was really some good stuff.
you will find that PHP will indeed be faster than ASP.NET.
Is that something you've discovered for yourself on your own or/and is there any test review prooving it, that I can take a look at on the Internet?
Maybe I am a pain in the *** asking for that :wink:

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2002 5:59 pm
by sweahe
I guess if you are really focused on speed, you are gonna host your own servers... but if not, I can recommend FS-Data http://www.fsdata.se here in Sweden, they use the PHP Accelerator, see: http://www.lonesomepine.se/phpinfo.php
with the ionCube PHP Accelerator v1.3.2, Copyright (c) 2001-2002, by Nick Lindridge
/Andreas

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:06 am
by sweahe
One more note... I really don't think all Yahoo! developers is 15 year old nerds... =)

http://public.yahoo.com/~radwin/talks/y ... on2002.htm

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:47 pm
by infolock
hehe

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:50 pm
by volka
who knows ? ;)

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 1:36 am
by Heavy
This ASP guy, well spoken of in this thread, is worth a lot of respect.
He has written the backend between database and site for at least one heavily loaded web-portal in Sweden. He is a little microsoftish though. He thinks of PHP as a toy just because it is not created by a well defined responsible company.

But free software has impressed him on one point so far, and that is the bashrc-shell.
Cool, indeed - he said when I tabbed myself deeply into /usr/local/.......... in three seconds...
And he agrees with me that a server does not need a GUI.

IOW, he is not a religous fanatic ASP-guy. He is technical and up-front. He just has'nt given it a try. His latest experience of Linux was to struggle one week to get the mouse working... That was way back in the 386-period.

The question was:
How can I convince him?

The outcome is:
Most of his arguments against PHP are false or almost false (if what you guys said is true)
Most of advantages of one platform can be reconstructed on the other with a little coding.

Our company and its technically indepentent thinking network has already decided to go for free software, with or without the help of the ASP guy (he is welcome but might stand back...), because:
* It is $0
* It is multi-platform
* MS is known to have severe security issues more frequently than *nix systems.
* computer virus risks.

Thank you very much!

Jonas

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 2:22 pm
by infolock
* It is $0
* It is multi-platform
* MS is known to have severe security issues more frequently than *nix systems.
* computer virus risks.
The other thing to keep in mind is, you can use PHP in either platform, and it will work to the optimum performance. Windows has security risks, yes, but as any network engineer will tell you, if you have someone behind the server that KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING, he can make it as secure as any linux/unix box imaginable. Again, that is if he knows more about winblows other then setting up user accounts, and directory restrictions.

You really have to get into the fact that you are building a box that can defend attacks. While *nix systems make this easier, it's usually a good way to go ( since you really won't be doing much work at all on the unix side, other then setting up the network, and uploading files to it for read/write ). So going from windows is neither good or bad, since you really won't ( or at least shouldn't ) be using the server itself for anything other then routing, security, permissions, user management, etc...

I think that your ASP guy will come around, if you can just get him to sit down for 2 days, and play around with php. After he does this, I can almost promise that he will get excited enough that he will want to develop in this platform then ASP. However, if he does not keep an open mind going into it, and hating php before he even gets started, then it will be a task that will result in null. That's about the best way to explain it I guess...

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 3:10 am
by Heavy
infolock wrote:Windows has security risks, yes, but as any network engineer will tell you, if you have someone behind the server that KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING, he can make it as secure as any linux/unix box imaginable. Again, that is if he knows more about winblows other then setting up user accounts, and directory restrictions.
What I have in mind when I claim such is that Microsoft releases software not very well thought of, regarding security. It is not really my own statement, except for the fact that our W2kServer was blessed with a load of warez in a folder none of us who care for that machine had created 80.

That might have happended because of bad administration but also because of bad system engineering. Others say so, most people do in fact. MS software have holes... They do release service packs and security updates quite often, revealing their mistakes.

Unix systems, including Linux, can of course be as much full of errors as Windows might be. Why? Because of the fact that PEOPLE create these solutions. But *nix is more tight, easier to overview and simpler in philosophy.

BTW, is there any way of having such a beutiful filesystem security report in Windows as the Bash shell command:

Code: Select all

ls -l

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 4:01 am
by volka
the beauty of long format file listing, or what do you mean? :D

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:29 am
by Heavy
volka wrote:...or what do you mean? :D
In Widows, I use right-click-properties on a folder to see security settings on that particular object. In Linux I type "ls -l".

Is there any "list view mode" permission viewer for a set of files and folders for windows using NTFS?

That was the question, volka.

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:53 am
by volka
microsoft has released a so-called resource-kit for NT+
And yes there are commandline tools that provide that kind of information.
e.g. at http://www.dynawell.com/support/Reskit/win2k.asp is a list of tools for download

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 7:53 am
by BDKR
You really have to get into the fact that you are building a box that can defend attacks.
I think it allways best to seperate tasks. In this case, let the firewall have the primary job of defending your network and all those pretty boxes.

However, there are still precautions to be taken. What if a hacker does get inside (finds a hole in the firewall)? If your server is dedicated to doing just one thing, then no othe ports should be open and listening. For many OS's, the default installations create all kinds of services just waiting to be connected to. On Windows boxen, this is dangerous. Just run netstat (can't remember all the switches) to show what's open and listening on your box then go from there to shut it down.

Cheers,
BDKR

It doesn't have to be black and white.

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 10:57 am
by LetterJ
So many of these discussions center around an either/or relationship between Linux/Apache/Php/Mysql and Windows/IIS/ASP/MSSQL. And, if you can't get someone to make the entire change its a complete loss. The reality is that you can substitute any one of the non OS pieces of the Linux side into a Microsoft environment and it works. You can use PHP with IIS, Apache on Windows, ASP to access MySQL. This isn't a zero sum game.

What does this mean? That someone's past experience with Linux should have nothing to do with whether the choose PHP. Having Linux configuration issues is a straw man argument against moving to PHP.

If you take this approach, most of the anti-PHP arguments go away.

"But I can't move to Linux" . . . So run PHP on Windows Apache.
"But I can't use Apache, I need IIS". . . So run PHP on Windows IIS.
"But I can't use MySQL, the DB is already in MSSQL" . . . So use PHP to access it.
"But I need this special COM object" . . . So use the PHP COM functions to call those same objects.
"But I need to call Java classes" . . . So use the PHP Java functions to call those same methods.
"But I need to call this obscure commandline function in the scripts". . . So use PHP's commandline functions.
"But we can't migrate all of our ASP over in time" . . . So PHP and ASP side-by-side on the same MS IIS server.

Oh, and by the way, how many COM components were you going to have to buy to make your ASP framework function correctly? PHP comes with things like email integration and image creation/manipulation out of the box. You don't need to add COM components to get what are standard features in PHP.

What kind of application is KDE really?

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:05 pm
by Heavy
Well this post leaves ASP vs PHP a little but it is relevant in this forum thread.

I visited the ASP guy at his apartment tonight. We installed Linux Mandrake 9.0 on his Server. He wanted to try it out in every aspect, including acting like a mouse click terrorist. He wants to find bugs and crash the system. That was very obvious.

We ended up after installation watching that boring box consume like five minutes to open a program in KDE and GNOME aswell. Not a pretty presentation, uh!

Well after reboot, which some claim is practically not needed in Linux, it was faster but still chewing on every task before performing it.

This leaves me with one question, How come Linux X based applications are so very slow (thinking about KDE mostly)?

The ASP guy's server is an 900 MHz PIII with 256 MB 133MHz RAM.
My system is 866 MHz PIII with 384 MB 133 MHz RAM.

I just had to give GNOME a try after coming home, and it prooves - on my system - to be faster than KDE and way faster than on the 900 MHz we also tested tonight.

Is KDE like Visual Basic Applications; big and slow because of that?

Is GNOME technically a better system than KDE?

The KDE User Interface is not slow, it is the core. Haven't you found yourself waiting for a window to show up in an unpleasant way when using KDE?

Even Netscape 7 is faster under GNOME than under KDE.



Another experience Iv'e had is that early versions of KDE was so buggy that it was almost impossible to examine.

This surely didn't impress the ASP guy. He might think; Why should PHP be something I can rely on and trust when this crap (various versions of desktop GUI's) require five minutes to open a web browser?

I kind of feel the same, although my experience and knowledge tells me that its not Linux and its server task applications that are poor. Its the desktop GUI. Is XFree86 really something technically well designed?

I doubt that, since Windows os so much faster. When you feel that windows is slow, I bet you experience that it is not windows itself, but the Explorer.EXE that consumes your time. Isn't that right?

Scrolling windows, opening drop-down menus and GUI stuff like that are really fast in Windows, don't you think?

Well, they're not that fast in Linux with X and KDE.

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:47 am
by volka
That's a reason why I kept my old desktop settings in university as long as possible. Starting applications was never fast on the 'public' boxes but became horror after switching to KDE. There are lots of settings that effect KDE's speed but it takes time to find them (or a appropriate discussion board ;) ). The advantage of an open-source OS/window manager/... is that you may compile them yourself using all features of your processor. I was pleasurable suprised when trying KDE on gentoo-linux. But since I seldom make use of linux as desktop-pc I turned to fluxbox, no luxury but speeeeeed :D