with so many options for building and deploying an intranet or web site with web services etc. ASP.NET is way too expensive in overall cost. too many licenses to pay for and security is a big issue with my clients. Maybe Microsoft will focus on making just
one thing and not spread themselves thin. If ASP.NET was ported to Linux or Mac OS X then it would be easier to substantiate the cost. For the time being Im sticking with PHP/MySQL. its faster and easier to deal with and the logic is nicer to deal with then
ASP.NET.
> with so many options for building and deploying an intranet or web site with web services etc. ASP.NET is way too expensive in overall cost not sure how you equate number of options to cost here - surely more options can only be an advantage, and is pretty
much unrelated to cost, at least in a big-picture sense? > too many licenses to pay for ah, a salient point. Sure, there is that, but if we're talking enterprise-class deployment, especially in an existing infrastructure, licencing costs really don't add up
to a lot, and ASP.NET is essentially aimed at enterprise-class development. I could pick out several projects I've worked on where migrating to Linux would have cost a LOT more in real terms than just slotting in an extra Windows box. In fact, what I'm working
on right now is something a Linux/PHP/MySQL guy took on and basically screwed up because Linux wouldn't fit into the existing picture as the client wanted it. So I'm re-writing for a windows platform. > If ASP.NET was ported to Linux www.go-mono.com > For
the time being Im sticking with PHP/MySQL good for you. This is of course your choice and no-one's forcing you. > and the logic is nicer to deal with then ASP.NET. define 'nicer'. and btw ASP.NET is not a language, it's a framework. you know you can
write ASP.NET in perl, right? or didn't you?
RTFM - straight talk for web developers. Unmoderated, uncensored, occasionally unreadable
>Is there a free version of Perl for the .NET Framework? No t as far as I'm aware. I'm sure if there was then activeState wouldn't be able to charge for theirs there's a big ol' listing of .NET language implementations
here
RTFM - straight talk for web developers. Unmoderated, uncensored, occasionally unreadable
In all ways, .NET is more expensive than J2EE to deploy. For example, the Sun Application Server can be deployed in public environments free of charge while the IIS application server must be bought WITH the insecure and expensive 2000/2003/NT operating system.
What's insecure about Windows Server 2003? Look it up before you go brushing the magic wand of death over it. You also must consider the other costs associated with servers, and not just the initial purhcasing fee.
> In all ways, .NET is more expensive than J2EE to deploy Sure, if you compare a free app server on a free OS with a free app server on a pay-for OS, you WILL get that impression. but that's just one small part of the equation. you have to look at, among other
things : ongoing maintenance costs initial setup and configuration costs hardware costs (requirements may differe between the two depending on the app) development of the app itself risk assessment (what could go horribly wrong? will it? will SCO win the case
and force all linux users to pay a steep fee?) disaster recovery ongoing vendor support I'm not going to advocate one side or the other (as I now work at MS that would just be walking into a trap) but I will say if you don't look at the overall picture then
you're not doing a good job of evaluating the situation.
RTFM - straight talk for web developers. Unmoderated, uncensored, occasionally unreadable
>> What's insecure about Windows Server 2003? Look it up before you go brushing the magic wand of death over it. Just because it's Microsoft does not mean it's a good product (as proven before with IIS servers getting cracked worldwide). FYI I have looked it
up and have used Windows Server 2003. Sure it has the nice NT kernel, but all windows server systems have unnecessary services running such as chargen, echo, time, and in some cases domain. I like Windows Server 2003 and love ASP.NET as products, but Microsoft
as a company is not exactly trustworthy so I'm not going to invest much in Windows systems. Another issue is that while Microsoft is bringing "all these great features" they are also sacrificing security for the extra features Microsoft appends to products.
And no I am not a fan of open source, but when open source platforms are more secure than windows platforms, which do you think I'm going to choose?
> Sure it has the nice NT kernel, but all windows server systems have unnecessary services running such as ... So switch them off. Holy shit, if you'd deploy a system in default state then you really don't deserve to be in a position where you
can Yes, there are Linux distros where you can deploy with few [known] security issues, however there is s balance that needs to be struck between simplicity and security. My point is this. Your average ITTard could easily deploy either OS in a very
insecure config. I could deploy a very insecure Win install, and a very secure Lin install. Hell, it's just config. Anyway, back to the point: you don't have one unless you justify it. Please, if you want to appear insightful, add an insightful post.
RTFM - straight talk for web developers. Unmoderated, uncensored, occasionally unreadable
My point is that you windows newbies need to move over to a more secure platform such as UNIX or Linux. I like ASP.NET, but the platform and application server it is served on is too insecure for my liking.
baddsectorr
Member
5 Points
1 Post
ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Nov 05, 2003 02:47 AM|LINK
Atrax
All-Star
18705 Points
3733 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Nov 10, 2003 12:04 AM|LINK
Jason Brown - MVP, IIS
wswartzendru...
Participant
1615 Points
324 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Jul 23, 2004 04:41 PM|LINK
Atrax
All-Star
18705 Points
3733 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Jul 24, 2004 04:31 AM|LINK
Jason Brown - MVP, IIS
JordanF
Member
205 Points
41 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Aug 01, 2004 05:05 PM|LINK
pickyh3d
Star
9696 Points
1955 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Aug 02, 2004 03:44 AM|LINK
Atrax
All-Star
18705 Points
3733 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Aug 02, 2004 06:40 AM|LINK
Jason Brown - MVP, IIS
JordanF
Member
205 Points
41 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Aug 02, 2004 01:44 PM|LINK
Atrax
All-Star
18705 Points
3733 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Aug 02, 2004 02:39 PM|LINK
Jason Brown - MVP, IIS
JordanF
Member
205 Points
41 Posts
Re: ASP.NET is too expensive to deploy
Aug 02, 2004 04:45 PM|LINK