MSFN and MSFN Hosting

[Rischip]

Does anyone else find it amusing that "Microsoft Software Forum Network" and the Hosting Side don't use a single Microsoft Technology?

Linux, PHP, CGI, Apache, CPANEL and so forth. No ASP, ASPX, IIS, Windows.

[Zxian]

I suppose that you can find it amusing if you wish, but on the other hand, you'd usually end up paying more for Windows hosting than Linux hosting. The reason is simple - licences cost money, Linux/Unix based systems don't (unless you buy enterprise support).

[tain]

Plus you are talking about servers (hosting the sites) versus mostly workstation stuff (hosted on the sites).

[Rischip]

I don't disagree with the use of Linux and so-forth. I just find it kind of Ironic.

[mark]

I don't disagree with the use of Linux and so-forth. I just find it kind of Ironic.

True and unless you want to count any donations you make, this site is free also which takes us back to what Zxian said. You will find or you have already found that the 'free spirit' is quite strong here. But there has got to be that yin yang thing. All in balance.

DL

[Rischip]

I completely agree with and use open source software all the time. I have also released some software I have written as open source. It's a great community with a great vision. (If it's not obvious, I never at any time meant anything negative by my statement, just pointing out the obvious Irony)

Click the link in my signature for some open source released by me. (Some of it is original work by me, some of it is open source which I have modified and rereleased with new features that were asked for but never provided by the original author, mainly because I found I needed the features also, but nonetheless I rereleased and made publicly available.)

Forgot to mention. You'll notice that it is Microsoft based software, and the site and the downloads are both hosted on various Linux platforms using CPanel, and the like. A True Ironic Circle.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Rischip

[cluberti]

I've tried to change this in the past, but apparently IPB doesn't run well on Windows .

[lost_packet]

Perhaps even more amusingly, some of us access the forums using a Linux OS to read about the developments in Windows' software.

I also manage a site, hosted on MSFN's Apache server Hosting, advising Windows users on the best strategy to avoid security breaches.

You see, if you are fascinated by computers, you won't discriminate between apples and peaches...

[tain]

It is like one big continuous group hug. So much love. So much love.

[Rischip]

You see, if you are fascinated by computers, you won't discriminate between apples and peaches...

That's funny that you mention Apples. That is my next venture as soon as Leopard is released in October.

Looks like an excellent OS, and the new features, plus the new additions to iLife and iWork. It all looks great!

[Idontwantspam]

Personally, I think the best web-servers run linux, not windows. Linux is more stable (although Windows Server 2003 is pretty stable), and it's FREE! LINUX IS FREE! (As in freedom and beer, unless you want support with your beer, in which case you pay for support. But windows costs a lot with support.) I do prefer Windows Server for a business server, since in my opinion, a windows domain beats anything linux has to offer, especially considering that most applications I use require windows.

My views on apple products:

• iNaming is iAnnoying. iWish they'd iStop it.
  
• iPods are kinda cool-looking, and really cool with iPod linux on 'em. But a Zen is better.
  
• iDon't like the iPhone.
  
• iMacs and MacBooks are cool looking, but I just don't like OSX. Don't ask why. I'll never stop once I start.... I think Apple hardware running Windows would be kind of nice, if it weren't so expensive.
  
• The iRack is hilarious.
  

Back to the subject at hand... considering that MSFN is free, and since IPB supposedly doesn't like windows, I think the current setup is fine. I actually like Apache better than IIS in some ways.

[Zxian]

Personally, I think the best web-servers run linux, not windows. Linux is more stable (although Windows Server 2003 is pretty stable), and it's FREE! LINUX IS FREE! (As in freedom and beer, unless you want support with your beer, in which case you pay for support. But windows costs a lot with support.)

Linux is not more stable... not by a long shot. There's a reason why Apache's been slipping and IIS has been gaining ground over the past few years, and it doesn't have to do with the fact that Linux is more stable or secure.

As a second note - Apache has had more security holes than swiss cheese hit by a 12-gauge, compared to IIS 6 which has...3 in total? None of those are left unpatched either (according to Secunia.com). If someone can find a counter argument, I'm all ears.

As for "free" - Linux is not free. I've had to setup a computing cluster at my university, and it's been a royal pain in the rear. Let me just put it to you this way - had the machines been running Windows, I would have had this setup up and running at full capacity months ago, but since it's all Linux based, I'm being paid to learn and configure this along the way. By the end of the whole ordeal, my wages would probably match the academic licences we could have got for one Server 2003 license and 19 XP licenses.

The only thing *nix has over Windows - NFS. The ability to mount a network share anywhere as any folder is key. It's so much more versatile than network shares or anything else found in Windows.

[Idontwantspam]

While you might have a point about Linux not being as stable - I don't feel like getting in an argument over it right now, I still disagree though - Yes, Linux is free. The only reason it costs so much for you is because you're not used to it. You say "I'm being paid to learn and configure this along the way." Well, suppose a person who knew everything about linux were setting up a Windows environment. They'd be in the same situation.

[Zxian]

The difference between learning Windows and learning Linux - there's only one (maybe two) different versions of Windows that you'd have to learn, while with Linux, you have to dig through the instructions for various distros if you don't find what you're looking for.

When you search for instructions on "Windows XP", you'll find information about Windows XP.

When you search for instructions on "Fedora Core", you'll find some info on FC5, FC6, FC7, and some RHEL. Oh... and not all of the information is the same.

The main problem with laying out Linux is a lack of consolidated information, and the fact that for network admins - it's FAR easier to setup and configure a Windows domain.