| 9:03 am on Apr 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Any ideas anyone?
| 5:49 pm on Apr 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
php is always better on apache, which is always better on linux. Why on earth would you even think of running a product like this on windows? It's ok for development, no traffic, no load, etc, but once you go live put it on what it should be run on.
| 10:31 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Why on earth would you even think of running a product like this on windows?"
If I knew, I wouldn't ask.
| 10:49 am on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To be honest I don't think it matters which environment you put it into. PHP+MySQL on IIS or PHP+MySQL on Apache are pretty much the same, and can handle similar traffic on a single server. If you want to use mod_rewrite, use Apache.
| 8:48 pm on Apr 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
peewhy, all of the tools are developed either on freebsd or linux. They run better on linux or bsd systems, the windows stuff is more of an afterthought. I think the real reason apache was released for windows was just so web developers who couldn't handle running a linux platform could still develop in apache.
This is very obvious when you run them on windows then switch to the actual platform the tools are developed on.
Apache windows is a hack. Let me rephrase it then: I would never dream of running a production web server on Windows if I wanted to use PHP, PERL, MySQL, PostGRE, Apache, etc. And I'd never run these on anything but Apache even though you can do it. Well, I'd never dream of running a production server on IIS / Windows anyway, but if I am going to use IIS, it's for one and only one reason: I need to use .net or .asp. That's the only reason I can think of to use that platform.
And since you'd have to pay me at least $200 an hour to deal with Microsoft web stuff I'd say it's a safe bet that I'll never work in that area again, LOL...
| 3:50 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My host offers both windows and linux, the latter being only £10 per year more.
The host also offers an MS version of MYsql as well the the 'original'.
I'm not a programmer, nor script writer so my natural instinct is to go with the one that offer the least trouble and maximum help when things go wrong.
I'm playing with Joomla at the moment so the whole environment is a completely new learning curve and I would like to put it onto one and hopfully forget about the server rather than getting error warnings.
With the greatest respect to experts and techies, it is all very clear and straight forward to them. I often talk to my clients about HTML and completely lose them unintentionally.. I know how they feel whilst I read about your opinions in the world of Apache, Linus and IIS!
| 4:03 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I use a variety of systems where I work, from Apple to Linux to Windows... I can't say I've ever had a problem with IIS + MySQL + PHP...
I know they're built for Linux, and yes I can see why you'd think they'd run better. But unless you're going to run cluster servers I dont see why you can't run a production server with IIS+MySQL+PHP on a windows server.
| 5:42 pm on Apr 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm pretty sure there is an Anti Bill Gates campaign!
| 12:44 pm on Apr 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Alternatively you can check with e107, its nice content management system written in php and it can be best for both window and linux server.
| 8:16 am on Apr 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
etechsupport, I'll take a look at e107.
I wonder of the orignators has any connection with Joomla in previous lives...or vice-verca.