4 ms·

While Windows Mobile is in a sorry state, I'm not really too convinced by the rest of your list. IIS is believe it or not a very good webserver, fewer exploits

by trezor 16y ago

While Windows Mobile is in a sorry state, I'm not really too convinced by the rest of your list. IIS is believe it or not a very good webserver, fewer exploits than Apache and just as extensible. And you can extend it with .NET-code. No need for that icky C to do that. .NET is a very good development platform with lots of stuff happening. PHP? Really? Of all things horrible, you mentioned PHP? Microsoft at least had the balls to kill their MS PHP (aka classic ASP). Java? Seems like Oracle intends to kill it utterly. Python and Ruby? You mean those languages which also runs on .NET? SQL Server is unimaginable better featured and stable compared to MySQL, plus it has tooling support which makes using PostgreSQL seem like the dark ages. And unlike MySQL its performance wont drop dead once your databases surpasses the system's available memory. People using SQL Server aren't doing "clever" things like "sharding", because it breaks relational integrity, and frankly, it isn't needed. SQL Server just works. Microsoft does really have a lot of good stuff on the table. Maybe the FOSS options are sufficient for your needs, but that doesn't automatically apply to everyone.

gmac 16y ago
You're setting up a straw man if you argue that the least good item on the FOSS list is less good than the MS equivalent. You need to show that for the best item on the list. For example, my experience with MySQL is mixed, but PostgreSQL is a beautiful, beautiful thing. So here it seems to come down to the tooling you need (I can't comment on this: I've no SQL Server experience).
- byoung2 16y ago
  I would even argue that even if the FOSS alternative is inferior, it is more attractive than the MS option because of the price. Look at this: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx vs this: http://www.mysql.com/downloads/ http://www.mysql.com/downloads/
byoung2 16y ago
I was following the logic in the original post: I'd be worried if I was Microsoft. And I know their profit is driven by enterprise, but today's startups are tomorrow's enterprise customers. I think that's very true, and for that reason, Microsoft should be worried. For a young startup, free and open source is a more economical way to get up and running quickly without eating into your ramen budget. For 2-3 guys in a tiny apartment, setting up a few LAMP boxes in a closet is basically free. Even if Microsoft is actually better than the free alternatives, the fact that it costs money is a deterrent for many startups, who in a few years will become big enterprise customers.
wmoxam 16y ago
"IIS is believe it or not a very good webserver" Does it have a portable config file yet? Or do you still have to use scripts to transfer website configurations (which breaks when you have sites configured with SSL for example). I still have nightmares about reconfiguring IIS by hand for 100+ site IIS servers because the damn transfer script failed hardcore. At least when they switched the config to an XML format I could back it up easily, but it was still machine specific...
xiongchiamiov 16y ago
> Python and Ruby? You mean those languages which also runs on .NET? Aside from the fact that IronPython, at least, is a second-class citizen (I don't know much about the state of IronRuby), the OP was asking why one would choose Microsoft rather than some open-source solution. Stating that Windows also runs popular scripting languages is not an argument against that. What you should be addressing is whether or not PHP/Java/Ruby/Python can replace the oft-used .NET languages, as well as whether Mono is a suitable replacement for the CLR.
trustfundbaby 16y ago
> IIS is believe it or not a very good webserver, fewer exploits than Apache and just as extensible. And you can extend it with .NET-code. No need for that icky C to do that. Which is why its the most popular web server on the interwebs right? Oh wait .. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/08/11/august-2010-web-server-survey-4.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/08/11/august-2010-web... What about the fact that you need to pay a pretty penny for the operating system you want to run IIS on? IIS can also not run Django or Ruby On Rails (2 major programming frameworks) reliably last I checked, While Apache can handle pretty much anything and even .NET using mono. Simply put IIS isn't at the forefront of any innovation when it comes to web development, which is pretty much the hot thing right now. > .NET is a very good development platform with lots of stuff happening. I guess that's why they came out with ASP.NET MVC which unabashedly copies Ruby on Rails/Django right? PHP is maturing and while people might cast aspersions on it, It go out on a limb and say its still a vastly more popular web programming language than anything we've seen from Microsoft. Throw in a couple of really good development frameworks like CakePHP, CodeIgniter, Zend etc, and I'm not sure who should be laughing at who here (Visual Basic .NET anyone?). > You mean those languages which also runs on .NET Did you hear about the IronRuby debacle? http://blog.jimmy.schementi.com/2010/08/start-spreading-news-future-of-jimmy.html http://blog.jimmy.schementi.com/2010/08/start-spreading-news... And how many serious Python/Ruby programmers run .NET to program in their favorite languages. > plus it has tooling support which makes using PostgreSQL seem like the dark ages. This has been addressed ... but just take a look at the MS SQL server price list http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx, and tell me if 'tooling support' is worth that much. To most startups and developers out there, the answer is no. > Microsoft does really have a lot of good stuff on the table. Sure. but thats not the point. The point is that, there are several strong alternatives to Microsoft products everywhere you look, and as time goes along, Microsoft stuff will become more and more marginalized. Like the creator of Rails says here, http://bigthink.com/ideas/21601 http://bigthink.com/ideas/21601 I can go through my day without really thinking about Microsoft now, just a few years ago that was simply not the case (IE, Hotmail, Windows, .NET).

by trezor 16y ago

gmac 16y ago

You're setting up a straw man if you argue that the least good item on the FOSS list is less good than the MS equivalent. You need to show that for the best item on the list. For example, my experience with MySQL is mixed, but PostgreSQL is a beautiful, beautiful thing. So here it seems to come down to the tooling you need (I can't comment on this: I've no SQL Server experience).

byoung2 16y ago
I would even argue that even if the FOSS alternative is inferior, it is more attractive than the MS option because of the price. Look at this: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx vs this: http://www.mysql.com/downloads/ http://www.mysql.com/downloads/

byoung2 16y ago

I was following the logic in the original post: I'd be worried if I was Microsoft. And I know their profit is driven by enterprise, but today's startups are tomorrow's enterprise customers. I think that's very true, and for that reason, Microsoft should be worried. For a young startup, free and open source is a more economical way to get up and running quickly without eating into your ramen budget. For 2-3 guys in a tiny apartment, setting up a few LAMP boxes in a closet is basically free. Even if Microsoft is actually better than the free alternatives, the fact that it costs money is a deterrent for many startups, who in a few years will become big enterprise customers.

wmoxam 16y ago

"IIS is believe it or not a very good webserver" Does it have a portable config file yet? Or do you still have to use scripts to transfer website configurations (which breaks when you have sites configured with SSL for example). I still have nightmares about reconfiguring IIS by hand for 100+ site IIS servers because the damn transfer script failed hardcore. At least when they switched the config to an XML format I could back it up easily, but it was still machine specific...

xiongchiamiov 16y ago

> Python and Ruby? You mean those languages which also runs on .NET? Aside from the fact that IronPython, at least, is a second-class citizen (I don't know much about the state of IronRuby), the OP was asking why one would choose Microsoft rather than some open-source solution. Stating that Windows also runs popular scripting languages is not an argument against that. What you should be addressing is whether or not PHP/Java/Ruby/Python can replace the oft-used .NET languages, as well as whether Mono is a suitable replacement for the CLR.

trustfundbaby 16y ago

> IIS is believe it or not a very good webserver, fewer exploits than Apache and just as extensible. And you can extend it with .NET-code. No need for that icky C to do that. Which is why its the most popular web server on the interwebs right? Oh wait .. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/08/11/august-2010-web-server-survey-4.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/08/11/august-2010-web... What about the fact that you need to pay a pretty penny for the operating system you want to run IIS on? IIS can also not run Django or Ruby On Rails (2 major programming frameworks) reliably last I checked, While Apache can handle pretty much anything and even .NET using mono. Simply put IIS isn't at the forefront of any innovation when it comes to web development, which is pretty much the hot thing right now. > .NET is a very good development platform with lots of stuff happening. I guess that's why they came out with ASP.NET MVC which unabashedly copies Ruby on Rails/Django right? PHP is maturing and while people might cast aspersions on it, It go out on a limb and say its still a vastly more popular web programming language than anything we've seen from Microsoft. Throw in a couple of really good development frameworks like CakePHP, CodeIgniter, Zend etc, and I'm not sure who should be laughing at who here (Visual Basic .NET anyone?). > You mean those languages which also runs on .NET Did you hear about the IronRuby debacle? http://blog.jimmy.schementi.com/2010/08/start-spreading-news-future-of-jimmy.html http://blog.jimmy.schementi.com/2010/08/start-spreading-news... And how many serious Python/Ruby programmers run .NET to program in their favorite languages. > plus it has tooling support which makes using PostgreSQL seem like the dark ages. This has been addressed ... but just take a look at the MS SQL server price list http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx, and tell me if 'tooling support' is worth that much. To most startups and developers out there, the answer is no. > Microsoft does really have a lot of good stuff on the table. Sure. but thats not the point. The point is that, there are several strong alternatives to Microsoft products everywhere you look, and as time goes along, Microsoft stuff will become more and more marginalized. Like the creator of Rails says here, http://bigthink.com/ideas/21601 http://bigthink.com/ideas/21601 I can go through my day without really thinking about Microsoft now, just a few years ago that was simply not the case (IE, Hotmail, Windows, .NET).