Board index » delphi » Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!


2007-02-25 09:31:00 PM
delphi172
"Relaxin" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote

"Tom" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
news:45df7ae7$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>
>
>Why do you think MOST use LAMP instead of WIMP? TCO perhaps?
>
They don't.
www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1930216,00.asp
Interresting article:
"Besides, since Linux is far cheaper to deploy than Windows, I
strongly suspect that Linux's growth in terms of number of
installations, instead of dollars, beats Windows soundly."
Qoud erat demonstrandum :)
Daniël Mantione
 
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

"Daniël Mantione" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

"Relaxin" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
>
>"Tom" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
>news:45df7ae7$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>>
>>
>>Why do you think MOST use LAMP instead of WIMP? TCO perhaps?
>>
>They don't.
>www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1930216,00.asp

Interresting article:

"Besides, since Linux is far cheaper to deploy than Windows, I
strongly suspect that Linux's growth in terms of number of
installations, instead of dollars, beats Windows soundly."

Qoud erat demonstrandum :)

My point behind pointing to this article, is that Linux CURRENTLY does NOT
beat Windows, like Tom was insisting.
It may in the future, but not right now.
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

Gbenga A{*word*73}la writes:
Quote
With Microsoft romancing with Zend Technologies, and
appreciating Open-Source applications (& even OS: Novel
SUSE Linux), it is only a matter of time before WAMP
Appreciate? That made me chuckle. Isn't it more like, we now
"appreciate" Open Source a bit more because we were able to con Novell
in to paying us money so we don't sue them? And if you use another Linux
distro, anything not owned by Novell, then we could easily come after
you for infringing on our copyrights/patents? I think that is more how it
goes. :)
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

Gbenga A{*word*73}la writes:
Quote
Perhaps I should
have written: "Total cost of ownership on WAMP will be
cheaper than Total cost of ownership on LAMP."

Are you being paid by Microsoft or own their shares? :)
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

"Relaxin" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote

"Daniël Mantione" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
news:45e18f94$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>
>"Relaxin" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
>>
>>"Tom" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
>>news:45df7ae7$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you think MOST use LAMP instead of WIMP? TCO perhaps?
>>>
>>They don't.
>>www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1930216,00.asp
>
>Interresting article:
>
>"Besides, since Linux is far cheaper to deploy than Windows, I
>strongly suspect that Linux's growth in terms of number of
>installations, instead of dollars, beats Windows soundly."
>
>Qoud erat demonstrandum :)
>
My point behind pointing to this article, is that Linux CURRENTLY does NOT
beat Windows, like Tom was insisting.
Linux does not beat Windows in revenue, this is correct.
Pointing at this article in the context of this thread he
was suggesting that the number of WAMP installations will
outgrow LAMP installations. This is totally bogus, for the
reason that a Windows server is not necessarily a WAMP server
and a Linux server not necessarily a LAMP server.
In Apache+MySQL+PHP installations, Windows does barely exist.
Just for the record, I think both MySQL and PHP suck; they are
easily outpowered by competing solutions. However, both have
become industry standards.
Quote
It may in the future, but not right now.
In terms of installations, the article was suggesting Linux
has already beat Linux. Based on the numbers (1,6 billion
versus 5,7 billion), this is probably correctly reasoned,
since the average price of a Windows server is easily 4 times
the price of a Linux server.
Just to illustrate, I work in the HPC business, selling
clusters. They run our own Linux distribution based on
OpenSuSE or Scientific Linux. A cluster consists usually of a
few hundred servers and we are selling 2 to 5 of them per
month. Lets say, per month we deploy about 2000 Linux servers
and pay zero licensing.
If Linux sales are 1,6 billion, that is really huge.
Daniël Mantione
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

Mr. John A. Jackson writes:
Quote
Once again, Borland, er, uh, CodeGear simply does it better than expected!
In regards to a PHP product, deployment to Linux/Apache is the least I
would expect.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

Quote
>Why do you think MOST use LAMP instead of WIMP? TCO perhaps?
>
They don't.
www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1930216,00.asp
Did you read the article?
Please see:
news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
While this site is not Linux specific, it does indicate that Windows servers
have less than 1/2 of the apache installations, which was the point of the
OP. What do you think most apache installations run on? :-)
Your article only makes the point stronger. While showing that Linux does
not have as many installed servers (in the workplace), it certainly picking
up. (Wake up call for Codegear).
So thanks!
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

"Luke" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
2. Windows memory management and (management style in general e.g.
required restarts after updates) is just pathetic. I deal with Linux
servers with uptimes up to 2 years. I have many friends who manage
Windows servers and they have to reboot every month.
eh, to each his own experience. I cant tell you the number of times I've
installed Linux only to have it fail to even boot on the first start up. On
the otherhand, I used to work for a company that had Windows web servers
that never, ever came down except to upgrade hardware. Its just a matter of
having admins that know what they are doing and know how to pick the right
hardware for the job.
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

"Bob" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
GrandmasterB writes:

>eh, to each his own experience. I cant tell you the number of times I've
>installed Linux only to have it fail to even boot on the first start up.

Sounds like the person installing it was the point of failure.
Which was the point of my post. I will try to be less subtle in the future
for those who need things spelled out for them. Skilled Windows admins can
keep windows servers up and running indefinately. Less skilled admins
can't. Its the people, not really the OS. Both OS's (in their server form)
are perfectly capable of running for long periods.
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

GrandmasterB writes:
Quote
>>eh, to each his own experience. I cant tell you the number of times I've
>>installed Linux only to have it fail to even boot on the first start up.
>Sounds like the person installing it was the point of failure.

Which was the point of my post.
Well, it is well known that Linux installations require a modicum of
competence, while windows installations are designed to be basically
click and shoot for the less capable. ;-)
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

So what, as long as the person in question knows what to
click and shoot. That should make him/her more capable.
Perhaps with Microsoft introduction of PowerShell, maybe
Wins Admin can join the league of scripters!
Bob <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Well, it is well known that Linux installations require a modicum of
competence, while windows installations are designed to be basically
click and shoot for the less capable. ;-)
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

Bob writes:
Quote

Well, it is well known that Linux installations require a modicum of
competence, while windows installations are designed to be basically
click and shoot for the less capable. ;-)
What you are saying is that Windows is actually *more* robust, not less.
That is a bad thing how?
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"Bandwagons are like streetcars, there'll be another along in a few
minutes."
 

Re: WAMP will beat LAMP pretty soon!

I personally think that virtual hosting will become the norm over the next few years. One quad/quad-core Xeon machine with 32GB of RAM can easily host 40-60 virtual machines. This box will be running something very lightweight as the host, like a minimal Linux distro.
Mac OS X users now have Parallels, and VMWare is due to release their VM Host for OS X "by summer". Parallels just issued an update that has support for something called "Coherency" that lets you run Windows apps right from the OS X desktop as if they're native to OS X. In fact, they're running in a VM. X Windows already does something similar.
Wine is making good headway as a solid simulation platform for Windows-in-Linux environments.
In contrast, MS has decided to "protect" Vista users against themselves by prohibiting the three simplest / cheapest versions of the OS from being used in virtual environments. Some mumbo-jumbo about how virtual hosting presents more security threats than otherwise. Sheesh! And the price of their server software licenses have gone up.
Corporations will continue to work with WAMP because they've got site-wide Microsoft licenses. The rest of us will use LAMP because it's: cheaper; more reliable; takes less time and effort to administer; and VMs will allow the easy migration of Windows services and apps to wherever they're needed.
-David
"Gbenga A{*word*73}la" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote

With Microsoft romancing with Zend Technologies, and
appreciating Open-Source applications (& even OS: Novel
SUSE Linux), it is only a matter of time before WAMP
(Windows Apache MySQL, PHP/Perl/Python) beats the heck
out of LAMP (Linux...). Why? Consider the next paragraph

Very simple: Windows OS dominates the desktop; there are
more Windows professionals than Linux's professional.

So, ladies and gentlemen, if you specialize on WAMP and .NET,
you are set for life! Thank you Microsoft, thank you CodeGear.
Now you can see that if Microsoft and CodeGear create a temple,
the rest of the world will go there to worship!