Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Launches Free Web Software Eco-System

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the and-i'm-sure-it-will-be-bug-and-bloat-free dept.

133

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft, inspired perhaps by the ease of selecting and installing iPhone apps, has taken a similar approach to gather back market share of its IIS web server in a predominantly Apache/PHP market. 10 open source CMS, gallery, wiki, and blog tools were chosen to populate the eco-system, dubbed Web App Gallery. Developers must agree to principles and can now submit their PHP or .NET application for inclusion. Once an application is in the gallery, Windows users use Microsoft Web Platform Installer, released in a keynote at MIX this week, which inspects the the local system, and installs and configures dependencies like the IIS webserver, PHP, URL re-writers, and file permissions. Screenshots show this to be quite easy for the typical computer user. This could provide some real competition for WAMP and Linux shell install processes."

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first shill (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303131)

Astroturf!

But... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303161)

Does it run Linux?

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303967)

Will it blend?

Re:But... (1)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304715)

Will it tie my shoelaces?

Microsoft and what? (4, Insightful)

Kickboy12 (913888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303173)

It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.

You think this is a sign Microsoft is legitimately trying to reach out to the web community? Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?

Generally, I think the last thing the web needs is more servers running IIS.

Re:Microsoft and what? (5, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303241)

You think this is a sign Microsoft is legitimately trying to reach out to the web community? Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?

Um.. what's the difference? One thing I can promise you is that Microsoft, like any other company, does what it feels is in its best interest. ie, they aren't trying to do anyone a favor here, they're trying to make more money.

Re:Microsoft and what? (1)

Kickboy12 (913888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303353)

I guess the difference would be their target audience. Are they targeting some random joe who wants to setup a wordpress blog? Or are they targeting server administrator who would be making the decisions about what software to use?

I can't really tell to be honest.

Re:Microsoft and what? (3, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304491)

I'm inclined to think that they want to put IIS (and ASP.NET) in front of as many casual Windows-based web developers as possible. Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work - especially since a number of PHP web apps require some odd hacks to get them to work under IIS.

In order to be "deployable" under these settings, new developers will have to use the same hacks and/or workarounds, and could well forget to address how the standard behavior will act on *AMP servers, theoretically creating a bunch of new PHP web apps that will only deploy properly on PHP/IIS servers.

Of course, the number of hosts that are offering PHP/IIS rather than *AMP is absolutely miniscule, so these apps catching on (if this is the case) is slim to none.

Part of me thinks that it's more a ploy to get .NET in front of PHP developers, trying to sell them on the "look at all of this premade, drag-and-drop functionality" thing, but I doubt that will make a difference. Devs that need what .NET offers are going to already be using IIS setups and PHP devs will probably ignore it due to the relatively steep learning curve (or just being forced to work in Visual Studio unless you want to memorize an entire framework).

So... I have no idea. If my cynicism is correct, then I see what they're trying to do but don't see it working that well. If not, then your guess is as good as mine.

Re:Microsoft and what? (5, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304719)

Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work

Ah but it will, Microsoft developers don't tend to look outside the box to see if there's anything else out there - they generally assume that MS provides all they would ever need, and if MS doesn't provide it, its either not available at all, or they never needed it anyway.

This is why this will succeed, the MS blogs and communities will pick up on it and suddenly they'll think its the best thing ever. I doubt they'll actually use much PHP, that's just the teaser to pre-populate the site with apps, they'll all get taken over with ASP.NET MVC stuff before too long -the MS crowd just don't like to install 'foreign' stuff like PHP when they will think nothing of installing over a gig of .net framework to start playing with C#.

So - I don't know if it'll work well either.

Re:Microsoft and what? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27306121)

Isn't Microsoft Developer an Oxymoron?

Microsoft software distribution... (0, Flamebait)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307213)

the Geocities of our day.

Has it ever struck anyone else that aside from a mediocre Update center Microsofts software delivery mechanism is archaic, almost fundamentally useless? If this level of innovation wasn't systemic throughout our industry (and many others) they would have been laughed out of business a long time ago.

Re:Microsoft and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27308035)

I used to look outside the box all the time and all I ever saw was a bunch of php script using dynamic SQL. Once I controlled the retching impulse, I quitely deleted the app and moved on.

I hear that mySQL started supporting parametrized stored procedures some time ago so maybe some of the newer PHP developments are taken advantage of it.

I did run SugarCRM (on IIS) for a handful of clients for some time but we kept running into weird little bugs in odd corners of the app. Writing custom CRM's (in ASP classic) for a mid-sized company was easier then attempting to fix Sugar in a way that wouldn't be clobbered by the next update.

regards,
Mr. Have not yet found a reason to abandon ASP classic.

Re:Microsoft and what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303249)

It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.

Nonsense [thepiratebay.org]

Re:Microsoft and what? (4, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303261)

It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.

Search for 'Microsoft' in google. One of the top results will be "Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

Re:Microsoft and what? (1)

Lanu2000 (972889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303933)

It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.

Search for 'Microsoft' in google. One of the top results will be "Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

This begs the question... you search for Microsoft every day?

Re:Microsoft and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304675)

No, just on the days that Microsoft still has the desktop OS market share.

Re:Microsoft and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303347)

Generally, I think the last thing the web needs is more servers running IIS.

Why? I don't get the problem with IIS - I get it if you simply hate MS, but IIS 6 (and I assume 7 is as good, but don't know from first hand experience (you probably don't either)) is a decent web server. And wtf do you care about what *other* web servers are running. If you aren't the sys admin, you are just another client and I fail to see how running Drupal on IIS or Apache matters to the client.

Re:Microsoft and what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303637)

Because of that whole embrace, extend and extinguish thing. Install some proprietary hooks (remember Frontpage) and portability goes out the window.

Honestly now, can you imagine Microsoft releasing something that wouldn't involve a mechanism like that? They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase market share as much as possible.

It'll take a while but they've got plenty of patience (and money).

Re:Microsoft and what? (1)

wap911 (637820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305503)

Could not have said it better myself.

And I might add:

If your not part of the solution, then there are plenty of big bucks to be made prolonging the problem.

And as my doctor once said:
A patient cured, is a customer lost.

Re:Microsoft and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303787)

it'll matter to the client when their website is replaced by goatse images.

Re:Microsoft and what? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303399)

You'll notice, "free" applies to other people's software. Microsoft, ever infinitely gracious, deigns to allow you to give your software away so that they can sell more of theirs.

Nobody should be surprised by a move like this. Web applications, CMSes and the like, are complementary goods to web servers and OSes. Everybody wants goods complementary to their own products to be cheaper, so as to drive demand. This isn't some sort of philosophical revolution, just Econ 101 + self interest on MS's part.

Re:Microsoft and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304457)

Isn't this the same that Oracle, RedHad and NOVELL do?

Re:Microsoft and what? (3, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303481)

Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?

This is MS trying to show everyone they can play in the "cloud" with the cool kids. It's the Zune for SAS.

Back in the day MS came out with Explorer and hosed Netscape. Seems like ever since they wait for the trend to establish itself and then come in with a competing product trying to recreate that market capture moment from years ago. Only they show up late with products that are usually tied to their OS platform and maybe a little dorky.

Microsoft trying to be hip and trendy sometimes reminds me of a middle-aged guy hitting on his daughters college-age friends.

Re:Microsoft and what? (2, Funny)

Kz (4332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304607)

Only they show up late with products that are usually tied to their OS platform and maybe a little dorky.

Doesn't that describe IE?

Re:Microsoft and what? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304925)

Explorer never hosed Netscape, it doesn't compete in any way with any Netscape product that ever existed. Internet Explorer on the other hand drove Navigator into the ground and they are still recovering from that.

Re:Microsoft and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27306695)

Microsoft trying to be hip and trendy sometimes reminds me of a middle-aged guy hitting on his daughters college-age friends.

"hello, I'm a PC... and holy shit I haven't seen tits like those in 30 years!"

does the ballmer dance...

Re:Microsoft and what? (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304067)

Honestly, if their agreement made it so they would host projects for Apache as well, I'd totally jump onboard. I mean after all, sourceforge hosts projects for Windows and IIS. Why does Microsoft segregate? If they are talking about embracing open source, they can't sit here picking and choosing. They need to embrace or STFU already. You can't be kinda pregnant.

Re:Microsoft and what? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27305137)

It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.

Not "free" as in beer, "free" as in cheese in a mousetrap...

Microsoft is a business... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307071)

Trying to attribute 'human' values, even malice, to a company is like dressing your poodle. 'Microsoft' has no intent, only individuals have intent. What they do have is a large, constantly changing body of managers along with a history of cut-throat business policies and more often then not, sub-par products.

What do you think they'll do?

Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (3, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303179)

PHPNuke and other CMS'es or weblog thingies like Wordpress made it simple to create websites for the masses of people that just wanted something simple to host their website. Of course, they never kept up with any of the updates or didn't even give a hoot about security. Next thing you know you have a bunch of websites that are cracked and now serve ads and malware.

Re:Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303223)

This must be a spammers dream come true.

With the existing windows botnets, you wind up losing capacity during parts of the day as people are shutting off their pc's to save energy and the climate. You don't have those problems with internet connected webservers and the bandwidth is usually greater.

Re:Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303377)

Next thing you know you have a bunch of websites that are cracked and freelance developers can charge big bucks to fix.

FTFY
Danger and opportunity are often the same!

Re:Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (4, Insightful)

tearmeapart (674637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303993)

...and I think the others are usually a lot easier to install. Microsoft's takes at least 5 steps (with steps like 1. "Download, Configure, Install MySQL").

Meanwhile, on many other systems, it is a lot less work:
Ubuntu:
1. In the Programs menu, click "Add/Remove"
2. Select the CMS (or whatever) that you want, and click "Install"
3. Enjoy.

Other debian systems:
1. apt-get install my-favourite-cms

Freebsd:
1. cd /usr/ports/www/my-favourite-cms; make install

And finally, a quick comparison between this new Microsoft way and the usual ways with GNU Linux/BSD:
Installing is easier with GNU Linux/BSD
Configuration is easier with GNU Linux/BSD
Support is generally more available with GNU Linux/BSD
Writing plugins is generally a whole lot easier with GNU Linux/BSD because the code is available

Especially with the new tools available, I believe IIS deserves to die.

Re:Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (2, Insightful)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305475)

It isn't apache (the webserver) that provides the comfort you describe. The package managing system is. So why should IIS (the webserver) die?
Someone should provide a package managing system to enable the comfort for IIS. Oh, look at that, the summary says Microsoft is doing that.

Re:Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27306935)

If you need access to the source code of a system write plugins for it, the plugin system in place isn't a very good one IMHO

Yeah, so what? (0, Flamebait)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307541)

Yeah? So what? In Linux or BSD, do you get the nice user experience with a pretty icon to click to install the product? No? I didn't think so!

Microsoft web Platform installer or... (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303183)

... Windows-like synaptic for web apps.

This just in... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303189)

Spider invites flies into web. Film at 11.

Big deal. (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303263)

"Microsoft, inspired[1] perhaps by the ease of selecting and installing iPhone apps, has taken a similar approach to gather back market share of its IIS web server in a predominantly Apache/PHP market. 10 open source[2] CMS, gallery, wiki, and blog tools were chosen to populate the eco-system, dubbed Web App Gallery.

[1] I think submitter mis-spelled "feeling threatened".

[2] Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?

Re:Big deal. (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303429)

Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?

Open Source != Good. Closed Source != Bad. Just as open source and bad are not mutually exclusive, closed source and good are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what Stallman thinks. I have used quite a few closed source programs that I like quite a bit, and quite a few open source programs that were plain awful. And vice versa. The idea that in order to be a Good Thing (tm) it has to be Open Source (tm) is a Weird Thing (tm).

Re:Big deal. (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303467)

Whoosh.

Admittedly, a bad joke.

But, as someone's sig once said:

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Re:Big deal. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303579)

Ha. I've actually considered buying the shirt; I just forgot what the summary said... :)

Re:Big deal. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303487)

This is probably tangental; but Stallman takes no position on the quality of proprietary or free software programs. His position is strictly concerned with the ethics and implications for freedom of the two.

It is the business side guys, the ones who talk about "open source" who advance the argument that the development model produces better, as opposed to freer or more ethical, software

You don't have to agree with him; but you should, in that case, at least disagree with him rather than somebody else entirely.

Re:Big deal. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303627)

True, but "good" and "bad" do not necessarily only refer to quality. I think a lot of knee-jerk (which, in this case, apparently was a joke that I missed :) ) reactions of "Microsoft! Closed source! Lynch them!" come from more the "ethical" side than the business side... the sort of "I think Linux is the end-all operating system" mentality. Not to say someone usually comes out and says it like that, but there does appear to be that stance taken when non-Linux (or more generally, anything-related-to-Windows) topics come up.

Re:Big deal. (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304065)

If I choose Microsoft they will strive to trap me, perhaps not today but someday and for the rest of my life.

The fact that Microsoft is a greedy little spider is not something that should ever be ignored.

Re:Big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27305549)

US law requires greed for listed companies. You can be sued otherwise for not maximizing the investors capital.

Re:Big deal. (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307585)

Open Source != Good. Closed Source != Bad. Just as open source and bad are not mutually exclusive, closed source and good are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what Stallman thinks.

I don't know. Just like the next guy, I think Stallman is probably as crazy as a shit house bat, but my experience has typically been both:

1) Open source = good
2) Closed source = bad

Now, I'm not talking about ALL representative examples of each model. But the representative/preferred examples of major applications within those categories do tend to be better, in my experience: OpenOffice > MS Office, vlc or xine/mplayer > windows mediap layer, Firefox > IE/Opera, Linux > Windows, deb/rpm > msi, etc. - all better than the commercial (usually MS) alternatives. There are a lot more examples.

It's not a rule without exception, granted. But the point remains that when it comes to software users can actually use without it interfering with their work (or preventing them from working) Open Source almost invariably does provide a better option.

Re:Big deal. (2, Funny)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303929)

[1] I think submitter mis-spelled "feeling threatened".

I think you misspelled "misspelled." ;-)

Not needed for server apps (5, Insightful)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303301)

Servers are maintained by people who are not computer newbies and need a GUI. Normally they know how to handle a shell.
Extremely ease install routines for server applications suggest that maintaining a server and keeping it secure is a trivial task, just like clicking those shiny "install" buttons. This is not the case, and you better know how to keep your server save if you run it on the web, especially if you make the somewhat disturbing choice to run it under Windows.

Re:Not needed for server apps (4, Insightful)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303335)

There are plenty of people with servers out there that don't know what they're doing and couldn't restart a service if their control panel software got hosed.

Re:Not needed for server apps (3, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303383)

And we shouldn't encourage those sort of people to run servers.

Re:Not needed for server apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303463)

And we shouldn't encourage those sort of people to run servers.

Oh, we absolutely *should*, the endbalance and cost justifies it plust it's easy for maintenance!

~ Consultant (a.k.a that "expensive dude" that cleans up the mess after you when you're in panic weaving your arms while your own IT-staff can't fix it)

Re:Not needed for server apps (0, Flamebait)

NineNine (235196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303773)

"And we shouldn't encourage those sort of people to run servers."

Perhaps servers shouldn't be so damned complicated to run. But then, I guess IT guys are kinda' like the RIAA... desperately doing whatever they can to hold onto their jobs...

Re:Not needed for server apps (1)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303913)

Um.... servers are so damned complicated because they are entirely customizable (kinda like Linux, but running Windows). Servers and server software have never been marketed to the general public, only to IT nerds who actually know how to customize it to what they need it to do. Thus, servers aren't made to be easy, nor can they be easy.

Re:Not needed for server apps (0, Flamebait)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303949)

I guess cars should be as easy to fix as building a car out of Lego. Anything less and it's the automotive people protecting mechanic's jobs.

By making things easier means you're pushing all the technical knowledge on fewer people (ie the ones building the system) and when it all falls apart you have to rely on the smaller group of people to fix it and by doing so protects a limited set of jobs even more while leaving servers more vulnerable all because some tit thinks he should be able to run a server without having to read the instructions.

Re:Not needed for server apps (5, Insightful)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303369)

That may be true for larger sites, but there's a huge market for low-cost, turnkey web hosting usually fronted with cPanel or Plesk. Microsoft wants to get into that market.

Re:Not needed for server apps (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27306995)

So IIS is low cost? As low as Apache?

Re:Not needed for server apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27307651)

I imagine this will evolve similarly to how FrontPage extensions evolved.

First, only IIS had FP extensions. Then, everyone wanted them so they could seamlessly upload web sites from within FP. And so the open source community implemented FP extensions for Apache - so all 'hosted' services out there now have FP extensions. In Linux, on Apache.

PHP is portable. These packages are, likely, just PHP, MySQL db creation and insert scripts, and such similar things. Maybe they'll convert the DB to run on MS SQL/lite or something like that. But someone, somewhere, will implement something similar for Linux sooner than later.

Hell, Godaddy already has something very similar to this; they've got dozens of applications you can install with the click of a radio button. So maybe there's no catching up that needs to be done.

Re:Not needed for server apps (1, Flamebait)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303503)

Real administrators don't use package managers, either. Real administrators know how to handle compiling from source for anything they want to install and spending two hours configuring it for their system.

Real Linux users don't use silly things like synaptic and apt-get and other such command line tools. Real Linux users use wget to get a tarball and compile from source, editing menus in gnome or kde by themselves (if they ever use gnome or kde, most of the time Real Linux Users just use lynx).

The point of a GUI is not necessarily just for "computer newbies." I imagine you are using a GUI to post, in fact, and not using Lynx.

That said, you're right, normally they'd know how to handle a shell; but just because some people like having automatic configurations for all the default stuff doesn't mean they are a newbie. Can they be? sure. But using a GUI or automatic configuration tool of some sort does not mean you ARE a newbie. Just, the computer can fill in a lot of blanks a lot faster than I can.

Re:Not needed for server apps (2, Funny)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303573)

Pffft. Real administrators don't download others software... they rewrite everything from scratch themselves.

Re:Not needed for server apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303621)

...in assembly

Re:Not needed for server apps (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303669)

You're right... sed -i s,Real\ Administrator,Quasi-Real\ Administrator,g

Re:Not needed for server apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303515)

Brilliant! Let's take the overworked IT guy at a mid sized company and make sure that he has to spend an additional 10 hours a week to run a web server.

Seriously, you're an idiot. MS realizes that the results the software produces (information dissemination in the case of most web apps) is what is important. MS realizes that people don't want to have to learn 1000 commands just to run a simple portal system.

Elitist nerds think that running a web server should be so difficult only those that don't have a social life should be able to do it. See the difference...

Re:Not needed for server apps (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304025)

Running a server requires some technical knowhow. The more you attempt to "dumb it down" the higher chances you have with someone who really doesn't know what they are doing to admin a server. This is a bad thing for a few reasons, A) A GUI or any other "helper" program makes your server more insecure, a simple command line install running only Apache and a firewall is going to have less security holes by default then the person running Apache, a Firewall all under X and KDE. B) It is very, very, very, easy to socially engineer GUI attacks. On the other hand, its a lot harder on a command line because most of the documentation is standardized. C) If you don't even know what you are doing, how are you securing your box? If someone can't understand a command line, how are they possibly going to understand the complexities in making a server reasonably secure?

The overworked IT guy should know how to run a server using the command line if one of his principle duties is running a server. A command line is no slower than a GUI (its faster in most cases) to someone who knows how to use it. If you hire someone to run a server, they better know what they are doing.

Re:Not needed for server apps (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304155)

No, "elitist nerds" just realize that if you screw this up you could end up being responsible for hosting kiddie porn.

Being "easy to setup" and "easy to setup correctly" are worlds apart.

Even the shiny happiness of Windows doesn't alter this. (despite all the propaganda to the contrary)

Re:Not needed for server apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303687)

As a server admin who does know how to handle a shell, one click installs for when a dev asks me for a new application environment will do nothing to lower my ability to secure my server, but save me several steps that are tedious even with a command line.

Just because there's an easier way doesn't mean that it's useless to power users. Unless you've also voiced your disapproval of apt-get.

Re:Not needed for server apps (0)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303769)

especially if you make the somewhat disturbing choice to run it under Windows

Many webmasters out there use ASP and ASP.NET for their websites. It is a workable platform that many major websites use as an alternative to PHP. However, you cannot run this on a Linux server, as ASP and the .NET framework were both made by Microsoft.

The other product that you can't run on a Linux server is ColdFusion. Although this has a much smaller client list, this will not run on Linux.

Some people even choose to use Windows servers just so they can resell the bandwidth at a much higher rate; most charge $10/month higher on Windows than on Linux, saying that the higher cost is a result of the Windows licensing fees. Over time, that can lead to a much higher profit margin with Windows than with Linux.

Thus, it is not altogether disturbing to use Windows for your web server. It really just depends on what you do with it.

you are wrong (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303873)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=asp+under+apache [lmgtfy.com]

http://weblogs.asp.net/israelio/archive/2005/09/11/424852.aspx [asp.net]
"How to make Apache run ASP.NET / ASP.NET 2.0

Don't ask me why... but i've been asked to make Apache run ASP.NET.

IT Worked !

Even worked with ASP.NET 2.0 Site !

Following are the instruction to make Asp.Net work under apache:"

Re:you are wrong (0, Redundant)

charlesnw (843045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304431)

Right..... he said run under linux. Not run under apache. So your rather rude let me google that for you link wasn't helpful.

Re:you are wrong (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305853)

Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I've seen a .NET product forced to run on a Linux server too. Yes, it worked (by and large). Was the amount of time wasted on both sides of the project far, far more than the cost of buying a copy of Windows Server? You bet.

Right tools for the right job. Yes, I could use a clawhead hammer to screw in a screw if I absolutely had to, but like hell am I going to waste my time trying when I could just go out and spend $3 on a screwdriver.

Re:Not needed for server apps (1)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27306537)

Sigh. This isn't for servers. This is for developers. You know, the people who develop that which is eventually deployed to your precious servers, without which those servers would be useless â" as servers tend to require something to, you know, SERVE.

Jesus. Server administrators should be happy about this. Let Joe Developer hack away at his Wordpress install on his local machine, rather than bugging you right away to install it on the server.

Re:Not needed for server apps (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307619)

Analogy:

Clicky server application installs, made publicly available on the Internet, is akin to a blind man saying "look, I can drive a train!" if they've ridden on the subway a time or two.

Admiral Ackbar has a comment about this. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303331)

"It's a trap!"

Re:Admiral Ackbar has a comment about this. (1)

gnool (1005253) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303653)

Dugg for Admiral Ackbar

Re:Admiral Ackbar has a comment about this. (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303727)

BTW: wrong site for "digging"

Re:Admiral Ackbar has a comment about this. (1)

gnool (1005253) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307533)

That was the point :-) Admiral Ackbar ascii art gets posted on digg so much that I thought it might be amusing if I acted like I was on digg... I guess it wasn't.

Re:Admiral Ackbar has a comment about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303829)

Reddit +1 for great justice

probably: we'll likely still get lock-in (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27307689)

I suspect MS will do something dastardly, like customizing the various CMS systems they use to use MS SQL when they did not do so previously, with different table and row names within the database, providing no ways for your an average user to export the data into any other format than MS SQL.

Sure, it's workable, but for someone who doesn't know how to install things manually - never mind what was installed in the first place? Good luck. He's locked in and stuck using IIS on Windows, now.

Ironic: free software will be providing MS with another avenue for vendor lock in.

Can you avoid lock in? (2, Funny)

EvilIntelligence (1339913) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303351)

And since it only runs on Windows, its just more reason send Microsoft some more money! Oh wait! I LOOKED at an ASP page earlier. I think I owe Ballmer another quarter....

Open source used to undermine Linux (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303557)

The reason why Microsoft is giving support to open source applications is not because it wishes to support open source.

It is because it fears the open source operating system more than anything else. It imagines that if they welcome open source application developers onto the Microsoft platform they will be able to undermine support for the rival operating system (Linux).

If and when the rival operating system fades into disuse, those open source application developers will find that the Microsoft embrace can be every bit as fatal as a boa constrictor's

Question marks are not a valid subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303577)

There was nothing hard about self-extracting exes and zip archives, why would users want anything different?

Yeah, The App Store (5, Insightful)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27303589)

Microsoft, inspired perhaps by the ease of selecting and installing iPhone apps

Yup. Cuz nobody's every thought about a package manager before. Especially not one with a nice, GUI front end.

Hey, maybe Microsoft will adopt something similar for the Xbox 360. You know, to make it easier to download add-ons, small games, videos, and so on. They could call it, I don't know, Xbox Live Marketplace or something. Too bad it's too late for them to have done it for the Xbox. Real shame that.

My Vagina Hurts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303767)

Feels slashdotted.

Winey ass pussies.

Re:My Vagina Hurts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27303819)

try douching the sand out of it

Re:My Vagina Hurts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304959)

Hey, Kathleen Fent, is that you?

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304015)

Finally, I was getting sick and tired of being in control of my own development environment. Now I can hand over control to a company that regularly cannibalizes its own developer base for new ideas and code.

Steal from me, Microsoft!

Playing Catch up to OSX and Linux (1)

acomj (20611) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304139)

Seriously, I do some web dev volunteer stuff. On OSX setting up AMP is so easy. The machine comes with apache and php to start with. Most apps (PHPAdmin/ joomla/ smarty) install easily.

My friend who helps out runs Ubuntu and its again a straight forward installs to get his LAMP going.

Re:Playing Catch up to OSX and Linux (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304519)

this is mostly to get third party stuff and the dev tools. If the goal is just to get a web dev environment setup period, then it IS pretty much that simple in Windows too, as its preinstalled, its just not activated. You go in the Add/Remove programs, click IIS and ASP.NET, and thats pretty much it. You're missing the database (but for something simplistic, Jet is built in...otherwise you just get SQL Server Express with a next next next finish wizard).

This just makes that all even -easier-, and setup stuff like Joomla, Drupal, SQL Server Express, or Visual Web Developer 2008 install all from one place... but beyond that, it is fairly straight forward out of the box, even compared to how its done on macs and linux.

Re:Playing Catch up to OSX and Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27306667)

My friend who helps out runs Ubuntu and its again a straight forward installs to get his LAMP going.

Hmph. You kids, with your fancy lamps. In my day, a switch used to be good enough for us.
Now get off my lawn.

This is a good thing for open source applications (1, Informative)

VisualVoice (592060) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304293)

Disclaimer: I work for http://acquia.com/ [acquia.com] , and we provide commercial support and network services for the open-source Drupal CMS. Over several weeks, we worked with Microsoft to make sure Drupal would be well represented in the Windows Application Gallery to provide IIS users access to an easy to use Drupal installation. The result is here http://www.microsoft.com/web/gallery/AcquiaDrupal.aspx [microsoft.com] We already provide Drupal Windows and Mac stack installers for Apache at http://acquia.com/downloads [acquia.com] and so this was a natural extension of our mission to increase Drupal usage. Overall it was a positive experience and a way for us to ensure that the Drupal market continues to grow by supporting end-users who are committed to Microsoft's IIS and can't or prefer not use Apache. Microsoft of course also is motivated to ensure IIS is a great platform for any application, so we see this as a win-win. If you'd like to learn more, our CTO Dries Buytaert wrote about it when the Windows Application Gallery launched at http://buytaert.net/microsoft-promoting-drupal [buytaert.net]

Web Software Eco-System (2, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304295)

If it is an entire Eco-System it must include the viruses too I assume?

Matt Asay rules. RMS just holds one end up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27304351)

and the world follows what RMS warns against, makes money and moves on. Meanwhile RMS keeps adding clauses to the GPL and hair to his beard :-)

A platform question (1)

galego (110613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27304549)

OK ... I've only read up on it a little so far, but I have to ask:

Most of those apps use mysql on the backend (at least WP and Drupal do ... and those are two of the main apps touted). BUT! The platform only mentions SQL Server as far as I've read so far. Is MySQL quietly installed or is this some port of those apps that uses SQL Server? Some DB Abstraction Layer (find that hard to believe)?

Mod me down for not reading enough or being lazy if you want, but I an still trying to figure out how they include some of these apps without including MySQL

Anyone actually played with it yet?

Re:A platform question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27305051)

MySQL is not included AFAIK and must be installed from the MySQL site to use it with these apps.

DB Abstraction Re:A platform question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27306635)

Some DB Abstraction Layer (find that hard to believe)?

Actually, db abstraction layers (aka orm [wikipedia.org] ) can be, and often are, implemented. This is generally easier done if your app doesn't do anything special in terms of sql. If you use the common dto/dao/bo methodology for your business stack, the DAO's [wikipedia.org] are essentially the abstraction layer for the db interface. To implement the actual db abstraction you can simply isolate all your db queries into text files for each db vendor. Then you can either configure the application at install time, or test the db at run time to figure out which vendor specific db queries to use.

Linux was there first (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305113)

This could provide some real competition for WAMP and Linux shell install processes.

sudo apt-get install wordpress

Oooooh yeah, that *was* difficult!

Also, this isn't Microsoft copying Apple as much as it's copying Fantastico [netenberg.com] . Fantastico (when combined with cPanel) has had the "point and click to install your web app" thing down for year. Proprietary, yes. Buggy, yes. But it works and is a standard feature on any decent commercial Linux webhosting account.

Re:Linux was there first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27305645)

yeah yeah. Wake me if you ever manage to install litmus.

Re:Linux was there first (1)

JumpDrive (1437895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305657)

But you have to remember that these people would have to look up this command on the Web.
And since they are primarily using IE, their computer is usually hosed, so they can't get to the web to look for the information.
That's why they have all these point and clicky things in their servers and support phone lines that charge by the hour.

But for right now, I'm still ahead of the curve, I support Linux servers and only linux servers. Those guys working on MS servers work to hard and know less about what they are doing usually.

I for one am glad they still have command line interfaces. Makes it look like I'm doing something complicated. And I am by their standards, I actually read up on what I am doing.

What if you build it and no one shows UP? (1)

skibaldy (35022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27305873)

I wish Microsoft well in their endeavor.

PackageKit and free web software. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27307323)

There are already open source projects for this kind of functionality.

PackageKit [wikipedia.org] already have a basic start [gnome.org] for something like this.

The web frontend for PackageKit can be further developed. The web software developers should be encouraged to develop simple web based configuration for their applications.

Easy to configure web based applications with PackageKit based package management have a lot of positive aspects.
PackageKit - Main Page [packagekit.org]
PackageKit - Screenshots [packagekit.org]

Installing public web pages from tarballs has always been a major potential security problem. It makes total sense to use the distros packages and security maintenance for web applications.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>