×

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!

PHP Optimized for Windows Server 2008

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the dogs-and-cats-living-together dept.

182

Stony Stevenson writes "It used to be that popular PHP applications would run more poorly on Windows Server than on a Linux or Unix servers, for which PHP had been optimized. Specialist in the PHP language Zend Technologies now says that's no longer the case. The Zend Core commercially supported form of PHP has been certified by Microsoft as ready to run 'with performance and stability' on Windows Server 2008, said Andi Gutmans, co-founder and CTO of Zend. Previously, PHP 'didn't run as well as it should on Windows,' said Gutmans, despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

182 comments

Optimise your spell check (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22636726)

Maybe /. editors should optimize their spell-check.

Re:Optimise your spell check (5, Informative)

oxidiser (1118877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636804)

It's a British spelling. Like my handle (Oxidiser) or Aluminium.

Re:Optimise your spell check (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22638194)

Fuck you, fuck Britain (or England or the UK or what-the-fuck-ever), fuck the queen, fuck prince Henry or Harry or whatever, fuck Afghanistan, fuck him being in Afghanistan for 10 weeks on a 6 month tour of duty (fucking typical Euro-trash pussy). Oh, and fuck you (again).

Re:Optimise your spell check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22636862)

Maybe you should use the same personality for the subject and message next time.

Re:Optimise your spell check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22638494)

The English language was invented in England you fucknut.

FastCGI != Apache Module (4, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636736)

As a CGI you still have to make extra system calls that you don't have to make as an apache module. Running under FastCGI is a good first step but it still doesn't make it as fast as running it as an Apache Module. In a recent post on Slashdot about how Microsoft is learning from open source, they claim they made IIS more modular like Apache but this is not the case as PHP proves otherwise they could run it as a module.

I applaud the effort to embrace open source languages though and hope they continue along this path of self improvement.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22636776)

I just dropped a double deuce. A double deuce is when you drop a deuce, think you're done, start wiping, and then you feel the second deuce slide into your lower colon. Oftentimes, the second deuce is an unstoppable monster, as was the case this time. As we say in the business, it was a real bowl filler.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (4, Informative)

arodland (127775) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636944)

In my testing (Perl, not PHP, but I don't think it particularly matters here), a "real world app" ran 98% as fast under FastCGI as under mod_perl -- and FastCGI is easier to deploy, easier to maintain, and (in the simple case) better on memory. Is it really worth chasing that extra 2%?

Of course, in the case of PHP, there's an extra incentive. I don't trust PHP's security or sanity for shit. So I'd much rather have it running in its own process with its own permissions than have it dynamically linked directly into my webserver :)

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637138)

PHP's security isn't so much a problem compared to non-security-conscious developers working with it since it's so damn easy to pick up. If you're running stuff like $query="INSERT INTO `users` (`name`) VALUES '${_GET['name']}';";, it really doesn't matter what language you're using.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (2, Funny)

mini me (132455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637386)

Very true. I once inherited a Ruby on Rails project that had code similar to this:

@variable = eval("@#{params[:variable]}")
I think I'd rather see SQL injection vulnerabilities.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639230)

If you're running stuff like $query="INSERT INTO `users` (`name`) VALUES '${_GET['name']}';";, it really doesn't matter what language you're using.
But a language which uses this kind of thing, rather than a printf analogue with encoded type information is much more likely to encourage this kind of code. The PostgreSQL C interface contains a printf-like function which doesn't include the arguments in the SQL string at all, it puts pointers to arguments and the arguments themselves in the packet sent to the server so there is no escaping ever required because string arguments never go through the SQL parser. The same is true of most databases, and yet PHP still makes it easier to assemble queries as strings and throw them at the DB than use a sane interface.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637204)

a "real world app" ran 98% as fast under FastCGI as under mod_perl

I know this is getting off-topic, but the reason people usually choose mod_perl over (?:plain|fast)CGI is its featureset [apache.org]. Those apache handlers are really nice for transparent or demanding applications.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637770)

I think the other determining factor has been that under Apache FastCGI support blows. Unless they've managed to actually fix this more recently with the advent of Ruby on Rails. I went to Lighttpd a while ago so I'm not sure where apache support now stands.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637230)

Yeah but thats mod_perl. mod_perl has been known to suck. The recommended way from Zend and Apache for PHP has always been as an apache module. Also to get alot of the added benefits like virtual hosting and stuff, you need to upgrade and the upgrade costs. For that you may as well stick with the apache module.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (3, Interesting)

pdxp (1213906) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639484)

PHP used to also ship as an ISAPI module, but it did pretty much the same thing that the CGI did- reload the interpreter for every single request. I'm not sure why they bothered with FastCGI when it would've required about the same amount of effort to write an ISAPI extension. It might have to do with the fact that PHP's source code was more spaghetti-like than any PHP code one could dream up, and not trivial to follow or modify.

It would be interesting to compare the performance to that of Python [insert framework name here] on Windows, both the ISAPI version [sourceforge.net] and the FastCGI version [python.org].

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008 (1, Funny)

CheekyBastard (1142171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636744)

"with performance and stability"

Excellent. This way, when it turns out to be false, they can always say: "We didn't mention 'good' performance.

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008 (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639216)

it is better than trying to figure out what MS app is lieing to you..

right now i have an exchange box that is failing backup's.. it fails do to a check sum error.. dig further and it says it is failing check sum because of a bad sector....

it is a VM... it is using a virtual disk... and the physical disk the virtual disk is on is fine...

it just makes you scratch your head and ask.. what the fuck.

Light on details (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22636750)

It would have been nice to know the areas that they optimized to get the performance increases. Unfortunately the article is a little light on the details.

Other incapatiblities (2, Insightful)

Freexe (717562) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636754)

There are still many other compatibility issues between PHP on Windows and Linux that make it hard to push things from a Windows box straight to a Linux box without extra testing.

Re:Other incapatiblities (0, Offtopic)

slawo (1210850) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637530)

I never ran into hard compatibility issues when working in Windows.dev/Linux.prod. And never ran into any issues since i switched to the Mac.dev/Mac.prod solution ^_^
Even Mac.dev/Linux.prod is totally seamless.

It really makes me wonder, why on earth developers don't all switch to the mac? Price is definitely not an excuse anymore, and compatibility issues are tales from ages ago.

I also do some .net programming from time to time, it runs perfectly well on VMWare Fusion. The sole inconvenience is the fact that you have to activate your windows twice every time you reinstall (once on Native/Bootcamp and once in VMWare).

The Mac loves you. Join the cult of Apple!

Re:Other incapatiblities (1, Funny)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637932)

It really makes me wonder, why on earth developers don't all switch to the mac? Price is definitely not an excuse anymore, and compatibility issues are tales from ages ago.

Because the Mac is an irksome piece of shit with a bad UI and uninteresting hardware.

Re:Other incapatiblities (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22638184)

Says the guy working on a Window Package Manager. Way to combine the worst of both worlds, dude!

Maybe you should have looked into implementing drag-install Windows application bundles.

Re:Other incapatiblities (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22639074)

I don't see why Macs are more often used. They were the first machines with a web server (MacHTTP), and because OS X is proven as 100% secure, there are no worries about an Xserve box getting rooted.

Its by far the best platform out there, a bug free OS for a buggy world.

Re:Other incapatiblities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637876)

I have to respectfully (almost entirely) disagree. While there are a few small caveats, most of the issues can be avoided entirely by writing reusable code.

Misleading (5, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636758)

This is misleading.

75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations.
And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows? Probably not that many. Windows isn't a great server operating system.

Re:Misleading (4, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636840)

exactly. I develop php apps on windows, have dreamweaver upload them to Linux, and then test it out through my browser. Saying most people develop a web application on OS XYZ is like saying 95% of people prepare their food in the kitchen while implying that is where they also eat it.

Bad analogy? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639036)

Saying most people develop a web application on OS XYZ is like saying 95% of people prepare their food in the kitchen while implying that is where they also eat it.
Most homes I've been in have a fused kitchen and dining room. Is it different outside the United States?

Re:Bad analogy? (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639346)

Most homes I've been in actually have separate dining rooms and kitchens. Most homes I've been in are built before 1960s when more open floor plans were becoming popular - but I enjoy having a messy kitchen when having the folks over for dinner, I get to go enjoy our meal in the dining room without having to clean up the kitchen until after I kick them out of the house.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637162)

Sure, I may develop on windows, but I edit files that are hosted on a linux server which is where I actually host them. I've heard from so many people that are the "rebooters" who spend the day rebooting windows servers because they can't stay up and running.

Re:Misleading (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637164)

Windows isn't a great server operating system.

Not for PHP applications, no. Good enough for light testing, but not production.

.NET-based applications on the other hand, work great. Server 2003 and 2008 now are great platforms for them. So when you say "isn't a great server", I expect you mean "for the language/technology I choose to work for", much as Mono-based apps are not exactly mainstream or very well tested in Apache.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637970)

No, I would expect that the poster means exactly what they said. Windows is not a great server OS. After waiting nearly 20 years for it to become one, this might be a good time to stop thinking it's ever going to happen.

Re:Misleading (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22638690)

mmmmno, not really. you fail it, as usual.

Re:Misleading (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637184)

Windows isn't a great server operating system.
Are you maybe thinking about II5 and windows 98? Because if you maybe you need to get caught up on the times and quit comparing the latest version of Linux to a 10 year old version of Windows.

Re:Misleading (0)

Dan East (318230) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637196)

Quite right, and this is actually the preferred scenario. If you are developing in an environment that performs more poorly than the production environment, then you won't be in for an unpleasant little surprise when your app hits the real world.

Re:Misleading (4, Informative)

Santana (103744) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637222)

This is misleading.

Only if you have problems reading English. That sentence clearly speaks about development, not deployment.

Re:Misleading (2, Insightful)

richlv (778496) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638032)

actually, it is misleading. it does not have any reasonable connection with the fact itself/article.
well, unless those developers run windows 2008 server on their workstations.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22638078)

I develop in VMs under linux and it's irrelevant because I deploy and test on servers, not on my workstation. FCGI and reverse proxy solutions (mongrel etc) are common, I've developed sites on mod_php/Apache for deployment with php_fcgi/nginx and vice-versa.

IIS is a poor choice for production server, not for performance reasons but because it's basic and configuration sucks. That makes it a poor choice for development too, may as well use nanoweb [nanoweb.si.kz] or something.

Re:Misleading (2, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638466)

This is misleading.

Only if you have problems reading English. That sentence clearly speaks about development, not deployment.

No, he was right on the mark. You are correct that the sentence clearly says development. But the point is that mentioning development in this context is misleading. It doesn't matter where code is written, it matters where the code is run, if you are talking about the performance of the code. TFA is misleading in that respect. It seems their point has an underlying assumption that development and production should be on the same OS or something like that; under that assumption the quote makes sense. It's a faulty assumption though.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22638600)

And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows?

Well, the very next line says that "When they deployed their Windows-based applications to production, their performance was disappointing and they tended to develop on Windows and deploy under Unix or Linux."

So your question was answered in the article. The one that you could have read if you had clicked the handy link. I know it's cliche at this point to suggest that someone RTFA, but seriously, RTFA. It's only a few paragraphs.

Re:Misleading (2, Informative)

andigutmans (1250708) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638702)

That is exactly the point. There are very few Windows deployments because PHP on Windows was 2-3 times slower than on Linux and unstable before we made the said improvements in PHP and Microsoft built FastCGI support into IIS 7.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22639134)

Eh? There are very few Windows deployments because there's zero reason to deploy on IIS unless you're running PHP in an MS shop. It's one thing to say a percentage of developers develop PHP code on their windows desktops, quite another to say there was ever any intent of running it on a Windows server. You do of course realize Microsofts next move if users do start deploying on their stack?

/me runs off to try the caucho runtime -- so long and thanks for all the paamayim nekudotayim!

Re:Misleading (1)

Bobb Sledd (307434) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639102)

If you work for the military and build web-apps, you don't get a choice between the two. (And it isn't Linux.)

Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised they even had PHP configured on their boxes at all (I thought it was only ASP at first). And a pretty up-to-date version as well.

Re:Misleading (-1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639264)

And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows? Probably not that many. Windows isn't a great server operating system.


That's crap. Windows Server 2008 is an excellent server OS, and WS2003 isn't half bad either.

Re:Misleading (4, Insightful)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639472)

And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows?

My company's PHP based software runs over 95 percent on IIS servers. We have a single customer that uses linux for their web server platform (a university). We're talking about big customers here, like Siemens and ISS (one of the world's largest cleaning firms), with dozens of servers each running our platform, all of them Windows servers.

We've been deploying PHP on fastcgi the whole time. ISAPI has never been stable, and CGI has always been too slow.

Tthe situation changes for non-intranet web apps. Those tend to be linux-hosted because people tend to outsource their hosting. But for in-house hosted software, most of the time you have to fall back on the existing network team, who is usually specialized in windows, so they tend to prefer windows-based web servers, even if it's just for the sake of uniformity.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22640148)

"Windows isn't a great server operating system"

It wasn't but it is now. So prove that it's not great, without falling back on your stats and agruments that are 8-10 years old.

Develope =! Deploy?! (0, Redundant)

comm2k (961394) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636766)

despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations."
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they deploy on Windows does it?

Nothing to do with optimization (5, Interesting)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636778)

PHP on IIS5/6 had to run as a CGI application, because their ISAPI handler implementation was historically crappy and unstable under load. CGI under the thread-oriented (as opposed to process-oriented in *nix) pipelining model of Windows was usually not a good performer. IIS7 introduced FastCGI, which is what Zend used to "certify" PHP to run on Server 2008. But FastCGI is not an optimization, it's a new execution mode for IIS. Nor was PHP modified (AFAIK) in any way to run effectively on FastCGI. Python apps also run very well on it (which personally is more exciting to me than PHP).

Re:Nothing to do with optimization (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638844)

I like FastCGI because it's cleaner than stuff like mod_perl (and seems more robust too).

It's like CGI in that you can write FastCGI apps in all sorts of different languages, and they are more portable across different webservers (if they support fastcgi and you can figure out how to turn it on).

Years ago I tested my FastCGI perl apps which were on Apache on a Zeus webserver and they worked fine (can't recall if they worked faster, they might have :) ). Unless Microsoft has been naughty again, they'd probably work fine on IIS7 too.

Unfortunately for Zeus, Apache was fast enough (Zeus then was definitely faster for static stuff).

Some people object that fastcgi is old and "development has stopped". To me it just means the line (interface) was drawn at the right spot - don't need to keep moving it about so much or changing it. People keep saying you get so much more control with mod_perl etc, but fastcgi is good enough for webapps - you can practically spit out whatever HTTP headers you need, I don't forsee needing to write a program for Apache to suddenly do something other than HTTP/HTTPS (e.g. POP3), so what would mod_perl make easier? Sure mod_perl is a bit faster, but if you're using perl already ;).

Though FastCGI isn't as popular, I just hope webservers don't stop supporting it.

Marketing (2, Interesting)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636810)

Meh, I wouldn't believe Zend. They're in corporation with Microsoft to provide better interoperability... They're not going to go into a deal with Microsoft and then say, "Still sucks on Windows server" are they?

Surely it should also run better on all windows servers so why just 2008? Unless they're trying to find reasons for you to upgrade..

Re:Marketing (3, Insightful)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636860)

Sounds like IIS 7 (in '08) has something called FastCGI which they used to get the better performance.

Re:Marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22636926)

'has something called FastCGI'?

merely thinking that should disqualify you from any discussion on this subject.

Re:Marketing (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639358)

FastCGI is also available as a free add-on for IIS6 (WS2003) from Microsoft, and I can confirm that it works quite well. I'm seeing 3-4x more requests per second in my stress testing using IIS/WS2003 compared with a similarly configured Apache 2.x server.

This is comparing Apache 2.2 in mpm-prefork mode with mod_php to IIS6 with FastCGI.

Re:Marketing (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636946)

Surely it should also run better on all windows servers so why just 2008?

Changes to IIS, with related changes by Zend. Sounds like the two coordinated changes improve performance.

It ain't no workstation... (1)

Fenice (1156725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636828)

"despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations."

I do not know many people using Windows Server as a workstation...

Re:It ain't no workstation... (2, Interesting)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636994)

You mean there's a difference between Windows as a workstation and Windows as a server beyond price? Oh, and the crippling of a couple of services?

Maybe I should become one of the 75% to 80% of PHP developers who use this 'Windows' thing and see the difference myself.

Re:It ain't no workstation... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22640014)

I am using Windows Server 2008 as a gaming platform because of the fact it installs so little stuff by default as well as having a good set of network tools.

Historically, MS server OSes have been solid. I have been using them instead of desktop OSes since NT 4.0. Client operating systems have more bells and whistles, but gewgaws such as media centers and other stuff are useless to me unless on a dedicated machine.

PHP on Windows (4, Insightful)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636906)

... like Ruby on Rails?

Just kidding. Seriously, though, it said "commercially supported form of PHP". Be sure to take a big mental note of that.
Commercial == fee's. Based on Zends track record of charging for things, it's not going to be cheap for single developers... I have a feeling it'll be in the area of $800-$1500 per CPU or something silly like that [zend.com]... in which case, why not just use a UNIX/derivative?

If you have to contact sales to find out the price (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637102)

Then the answer is: "More than it's worth."

Windows tco winner! (2)

sjwest (948274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639718)

Php guru: you need a windows zend license.
Boss: So if we pay somebody else it will work better in windows
Php guru: yes
Boss: Windows has great tco doesnt it.

Re:PHP on Windows (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637108)

in which case, why not just use a UNIX/derivative?


Because anyone using UNIX has already moved on to Ruby, or Python, or any other language better suited to web application development. Generally speaking, Windows users are behind the technology curve and are still using PHP, thus it makes sense to have Windows Server the preferred PHP platform.

Re:PHP on Windows (1)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637126)

RoR doesn't sound as cool as PoW. They'll have to come up with a kooler phonetic acronym if they don't want to loose too many developers. ;)

Re:PHP on Windows (0, Flamebait)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637466)

Have to agree..

Mind you I nver noticed a performance hit on windows.. Infact Windows + apache + php runs just fine :/

Besides lets be honest here who in their right mind uses a windows webserver for php..

Oh wait, people who dont know any better.. :)

Why not Apache? (5, Insightful)

edmicman (830206) | more than 6 years ago | (#22636974)

We run a .NET shop here, but even I wonder, why not just install Apache on Windows? Errrrr, or why not just go the easy route and put up an Ubuntu LAMP server? Everything I work on is in Windows, but I just don't see the benefit of running PHP on Windows...what does [Microsoft say] the Windows platform offers for PHP that running it on freely available platforms doesn't?

Re:Why not Apache? (1)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637084)

It's not what PHP has to offer that MS wants. They are hoping to migrate OSS developers to the Windows platform.

Sorry, but as for me, you won't see my LAMP become a WAMP anytime soon.

Re:Why not Apache? (5, Funny)

RipSUp (987194) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637398)

They don't want your LAMP to become a WAMP, they want it to become a WIMP (Windows/IIS/MSSQL/PHP)

Re:Why not Apache? (3, Interesting)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637990)

Agreed.

In 2004-05, I wrote a PHP application for a client. We had agreed ahead of time that the app would be written in PHP. Upon delivery, everything worked great on the test (WIMP) server that I set up myself. When the technician was called in to put the application in production, he said no problem. I should point out that the fellow is a hard-core and experienced MCSE.

A month later, the application was not installed. I called the technician to find out what was happening, and I was given the story of being too busy. I offered to do it myself, but they would not agree to that. The tech promised to install it ASAP.

A week later, still nothing. Called again. After I pressed the technician as to why he would not install it, the answer he gave we what that 'installing foreign application like Apache & PHP may destabilize the server ecosystem.' According to him, it should have been written in ASP(.Net).

What a wonderful Microsoft-ish answer. He finally agreed to install PHP after I pointed out that PHP CAN run on IIS.

The FUD and BS that MS crams down their MCP just makes my blood boil. Disclaimer: I _was_ a MCP and MCT, so I know the type of stuff Microsoft feeds.

The appplication works. It still being used today by dozens of offices across Canada (coast-to-coast). And as far as I know, the maintenance has been near 0.

Most of my applications are LAMP, and the maintenance time/cost has been near 0.

Re:Why not Apache? (1)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637572)

And for Zend, it opens up shops that are exclusively IIS and might have banned PHP in the past for performance reasons.

Re:Why not Apache? (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637206)

If they install apache then MS can't try to lock them into using windows for the server, duh.

Re:Why not Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637418)

I don't know what Microsoft says, but if you already have a Windows box that you can use
and you CAN'T install another box for whatever reasons, then that would be one advantage.

Same reasoning behind using it with IIS.

It's also a great first step in the direction of moving away from Microsoft products
altogether.

-M

Re:Why not Apache? (0)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637994)

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there have only been 3 non-critical security flaws found in IIS in the last 5 years, while Apache has had how many?

Re:Why not Apache? (1)

AdamReyher (862525) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638334)

Why not be able to run both at the same time? .NET is great in that it allows you to access an insane variety of services and applications which weren't originally written with the web in mind. PHP is great in that it is geared directly at web-based applications. I can imagine a few scenarios where I'd love to be able to run both at the same time and pass information between them. PHP running better on Windows based systems only helps. Microsoft is trying to make Windows Server more friendly towards all types of applications, and so far they've made massive improvements.

Re:Why not Apache? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638768)

Because if you have a Windows domain fully configured in a large corporation, integrating IIS with all that is a snap. Actually, it most likely -already- is: Reporting Services, Sharepoint, Exchange, they all use it.

So my question is: Why use 2 web servers when you can use only one, especially one thats already installed and locked down?

Re:Why not Apache? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22640244)

If you're a smaller windows shop, you don't have to hire more admins.

Optimised? (1)

ConfrontationalGrayh (1199233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637052)

OtimiZed?

Re:Optimised? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637144)

Not if you speak the Queen's English, it isn't. Spelling it with a "Z" is American.

Re:Optimised? (0, Offtopic)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637404)

Actually, wouldn't that be more a case of writing the Queen's English?

Honestly, though, I've always liked the British spelling of a lot of words as opposed to the Americanized version that I've grown up with. I seems classier in most instances.

Re:Optimised? (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639516)

Classier? The only advantage of English English is that wordplay, puns and so on are easier because we generally include more variations on words (for example a computer runs programs but a television shows programmes).

But the rules are far stricter if you intend on writing for an audience that expect correctness (I don't write correctly for slashdot). Frankly, there are many more small rules than are really worth observing, such as past participles (learnt and earnt), split infinitives (never allowed, and for no good reason), more complicated apostrophe use (possessives ending in s always send me to a style guide) and the serial comma (which, like I just did, is always omitted).

The real problem is that making a mistake on these points is very easy, and makes you look an idiot.

American English is hard enough, frankly.

Re:Optimised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637366)

Heh.

How is this an improvement? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637120)

If it "didn't run as well as it should on Windows"
.. and now it DOES
but windows doesn't run as well as it did BEFORE ...
doesn't that mean that we're just back to square one?

PHP 'didn't run as well as it should on Windows,' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22637686)

"PHP 'didn't run as well as it should on Windows,' said Gutmans, despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations.""

Based on the sheer volume of RFI (Remote File Inclusion), SQL Injection, and logic failure there is no doubt that I believe 80% of the PHP lusers were developing on Windows. Hell, take a peek at Milw0rm and laugh at all the Joomla components getting owned.

PHP should run at -15% efficiency on Windows to help throttle compromise; tar-pitting for shovelware.

-evilghost

Horses for courses (1)

tringtring (1227356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637802)

We do most all php app development on Windows but we use Linux for our web servers...a good chunk of folks known to me do the same - development on W and run on L. Frankly, I'm yet to come across anyone in my acquaintances who runs the programs online on Windows servers...but then I and most folks known to me run bootstrapped companies with little money (VCs yet to smile on us)...

75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows (1)

sdsucks (1161899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22637976)

"75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows"

-- But how many of those scripts are being served from windows servers? I strongly suspect far less.

Re:75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Wind (1)

phatslaab (1046786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639070)

Probably, but that wasn't his point. I bet that production WinPHP servers are probably somewhere between 0 to 3% (or less) of the PHP being served on the entire net. But he was talking about people who develop on Win machines usually run IIS or Apache/PHP locally to test their apps, then upload to a *nix machine after testing. Problem is that PHP stability on Windows is garbage and it makes it difficult to properly benchmark an app when the same PHP code produces different runs results. I personally don't fool with IIS but I still get a tremendous amount of crashes using the FastCGI/PHP & Apache on Windows for testing locally. In my opinion they still have a long way to go.

another prese (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638512)

Anybody think the real agenda here is for Zend to better monetize PHP? I don't know the numbers but my working assumptions are: some big % of web sites use PHP, the vast majority of them are not doing it on Windows, & the vast majority aren't paying Zend anything nor are they going to be receptive to any sort of costs being imposed on them.

On the other hand, if there's a market segment used to paying somebody for their software, and paying every year to keep it running, wouldn't that be a great market segment to expand into if you're looking for revenue? This sounds to me like a solid motivation for Zend to better support the Windows world (or at least issue PR statements to this effect). Side note: I'm not suggesting that Zend will get more money out of PHP users on Win directly, but MS will probably get more server rev. if PHP is better supported on Win, which might mean that MS provides some incentive to Zend.

I think every once in awhile some executive on the fringe of the FOSS world gets a hair up his ass and assumes he can monetize some market leading piece of FOSS- completing missing the point that the market share was probably enabled by two things: quality code thats does something useful and available at no/low cost. As soon as you try to siphon off revenue, you're going to upset the applecart and the result may be a decline in market share. Sorry- free rides are pretty hard to come by no matter how clever you are with smoke and mirrors or bait & switch.

WIMP platform (0, Redundant)

kabloom (755503) | more than 6 years ago | (#22638754)

So now we're going to hear more about the WIMP stack for web publishing?


Windows
IIS
MySQL
PHP


Good marketing name.

Development vs Hosting (1)

erat123 (1114479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22639042)

despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations


does that mean 75% to 80% of the code was "developed" or "hosted" on a windows box?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...