3 ms·

What’s wrong with IIS? It has always been solid (i just mean in general, sure it has its share of shortcomings) I last used it full time in 2015 (about 20% of

by atonse 4y ago

What’s wrong with IIS? It has always been solid (i just mean in general, sure it has its share of shortcomings) I last used it full time in 2015 (about 20% of my career was spent in .net stuff and the frameworks and languages were excellent.) Back then I could do single click deploys out of the box from visual studio straight to IIS in ways much more elegant than anything I had seen in the ruby world. All this was before asp.net core, and all their Linux stuff. It must be even easier now.

gchamonlive 4y ago
> What’s wrong with IIS? In my case Microsoft licensing and the cost that comes with it
- jasomill 4y ago
  In the grand scheme of Microsoft licensing, IIS w/External Connector licensing, while not "cheap", is surprisingly reasonable (IIRC, less than $200/month per physical server, including software assurance, licensing for two VMs per production server, and no charge for VMs on hot standby servers; I believe cloud pricing is similar, if not identical, and possibly cheaper on Azure), assuming trained personnel and any other required Microsoft infrastructure bits (e.g., AD, SQL Server) are already available. And for internal applications where users already have per-user Windows CALs, Windows Server is already licensed and deployed, IIS is effectively free. With that said, it's not obviously better or worse than open source alternatives in general, just different — though, at least from an admin perspective, not necessarily any more different than, say, Apache and Nginx. My own personal bias tends towards deploying on a given application's "native" platform where possible, so I'd generally only consider IIS as an application server for a Windows-native application or application developed using a primarily Microsoft stack. And, for reasons of license cost alone, I'd certainly look elsewhere for any non-revenue-generating personal applications. But in these cases at least, modern IIS releases are, in my experience, stable, reliable, extensible, securable, and as easy to deploy and configure as anything else I've used (mostly Apache and Nginx). I can't comment on scalability because I've never personally had to scale it beyond a few tens of thousands of (total, not concurrent) users. Plenty of dumpster-fire applications are implemented on top of IIS, of course, but that's true of any popular Web application server.
  - merb 4y ago
    > IIS w/External Connector licensing you do not need external connector licensing (only if you authenticate all users against ad)
  - atonse 4y ago
    For the record I grew up administering Linux servers and am way more at home there, and strongly preferred Linux to windows servers. But hasn’t stopped me from appreciating the elegance of those nicely integrated one clock deploys from this .Net days.

by atonse 4y ago

gchamonlive 4y ago

> What’s wrong with IIS? In my case Microsoft licensing and the cost that comes with it

jasomill 4y ago
In the grand scheme of Microsoft licensing, IIS w/External Connector licensing, while not "cheap", is surprisingly reasonable (IIRC, less than $200/month per physical server, including software assurance, licensing for two VMs per production server, and no charge for VMs on hot standby servers; I believe cloud pricing is similar, if not identical, and possibly cheaper on Azure), assuming trained personnel and any other required Microsoft infrastructure bits (e.g., AD, SQL Server) are already available. And for internal applications where users already have per-user Windows CALs, Windows Server is already licensed and deployed, IIS is effectively free. With that said, it's not obviously better or worse than open source alternatives in general, just different — though, at least from an admin perspective, not necessarily any more different than, say, Apache and Nginx. My own personal bias tends towards deploying on a given application's "native" platform where possible, so I'd generally only consider IIS as an application server for a Windows-native application or application developed using a primarily Microsoft stack. And, for reasons of license cost alone, I'd certainly look elsewhere for any non-revenue-generating personal applications. But in these cases at least, modern IIS releases are, in my experience, stable, reliable, extensible, securable, and as easy to deploy and configure as anything else I've used (mostly Apache and Nginx). I can't comment on scalability because I've never personally had to scale it beyond a few tens of thousands of (total, not concurrent) users. Plenty of dumpster-fire applications are implemented on top of IIS, of course, but that's true of any popular Web application server.
- merb 4y ago
  > IIS w/External Connector licensing you do not need external connector licensing (only if you authenticate all users against ad)
- atonse 4y ago
  For the record I grew up administering Linux servers and am way more at home there, and strongly preferred Linux to windows servers. But hasn’t stopped me from appreciating the elegance of those nicely integrated one clock deploys from this .Net days.