All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

My battle with dotNet

<< < (2/4) > >>

Doctor V:
Its already been said above, but the answer to this one is so obvious its crazy.  All this article is doing is comparing a newer M$ product to an old M$ product, what kind of comparison is that.  PHP would open up a can of whoopass at ASP.net.  Also notice that the company isn't talking about how much money they are gushing out for M$ universal subscription service.  They could more than double their performance just by using free software.  Most in corporate America are taught to believe that you get what you pay for, and somthing that is free can never be better than somthing that costs alot of money.  But that way of thinking has no solid logical base.

rtgwbmsr:
If you want my opinion (having used various .Net servers):

Pros:
1) It [feels] "faster" than Windows 2000 server. I'd love to post benchmarks, but I can't (unless you can afford bail money).

2) It is easier to set some things up that were way too fucking complicated in Win2k.

3) No luna/Fisher-Price waste of processor cycles

Cons:
1) Closed source

2) Security issues (we managed to bring it down from the outside in a number of ways)

3) Still way behind in speed compared to an optimized/tweaked Linux server.

4) OS itself uses too much of everything (resources, etc)

5) Price

6) Some things are still way to hard to setup (DNS: A, MX, etc, Zones) Not that these are easy things, but they make it more difficult than it has to be.

rtgwbmsr:
As for ASP.NET/PHP:

In the words of M$
 
quote: ASP.NET is a set of technologies in the Microsoft .NET Framework for building Web applications and XML Web Services. ASP.NET pages execute on the server and generate markup such as HTML, WML or XML that is sent to a desktop or mobile browser. ASP.NET pages use a compiled, event-driven programming model that improves performance and enables the separation of application logic and user interface. ASP.NET pages and ASP.NET XML Web Services files contain server-side logic (as opposed to client side logic) written in Visual Basic .NET, C# .NET, or any .NET compatible language. Web applications and XML Web Services take advantage of the features of the common language runtime, such as type safety, inheritance, language interoperability, versioning, and integrated security.
--- End quote ---


In the words of the Muffin Man (me)
 
quote: Security Hazard
--- End quote ---


Comparing ASP.NET to PHP:
ASP.NET is:
Way more complicated
Harder to learn
Must use proprietary (M$) browsers
Must use M$ software (IIS, VB.NET, J#)
Must buy M$ development software (VB.NET, J#)

How's that for a counter argument?

xyle_one:

quote: How's that for a counter argument?
--- End quote ---

good, thank you. all i needed was an argument. Please do not get me wrong, i do not in any way support dotNET or microsoft. I am just trying to sway two very stubborn people. they do not want to change, and they just sorta accept it. not cool.
thanks for the replies though. it will be very helpful.

jtpenrod:

quote:And if you notice they are comparing ASP.NET to ASP. One Microsoft technology over another. This is in no way a comparison to open source. If you'll also notice they put a lot of people out of work.
--- End quote ---
This really isn't an issue. After all, had they gone Linux, they still would have put some of their staff out of work. With Linux, you don't need an army of MCSEs to molly-coddle the servers to keep them working. Linux servers just work, and work, and work. They'd require a much smaller support staff with Linux.

The very shittiness of MS soft does, indeed, put lots of people to work. Hell, it's even created entire industries dedicated to nothing more than overcoming the many manifest short-comings of MS. Had MS done their job right the first time, there'd be no Symantec, or MacAfee, or Zone Alarm. We wouldn't need all that AV soft, with the attendant need for repeated subscriptions for virus updates.    Nor would there be any near as much need for elaborate firewalls to keep these systems somewhat safe.

Whatever will such companies do without MS?
_______________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

Their fundamental design flaws are completely concealed by their superficail design flaws.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page