Topic: Windows and Open Source Server Apache

[Steffen]

Got the following interesting read from our member Brian:

Talk about your Romeo and Juliet: Neither the open-source nor the Windows communities seem to be able to accept a marriage of open-source server components and Windows operating systems.

IT managers trying to use open-source applications on Windows systems are often seen as cheapskates who should upgrade to the "real" Windows products. And many in the open-source community see WAMP setups as being fine for development or testing, but sadly lacking for real production environments and requiring a step up to "real" Linux and Unix implementations.

The tide may be turning, though.

Based on our forays into user forums for many top open-source enterprise applications, there are many IT managers attempting to run open-source products on Windows servers—attracted, no doubt, to the benefits and efficiencies of using open source without having to become Linux administrators.

The results of our WAMP stack tests indicate that these folks might be on to something. Our WAMP stack setups included Windows Server 2003, Apache, MySQL and the PHP-based XOOPS; Plone running on Windows Server 2003 R2; and JBoss and MySQL on Windows Server 2003.

All three of these systems were among the leaders in average transactions per second, with JBoss on Windows far outpacing its Linux brethren, with 16.79 average transactions per second. These implementations also did very well in the download tests. Where they were mediocre were in average hits per second and in average throughput.

Still, during the entire length of each test, none of these systems choked. Like the turtle in the fable, they moved somewhat slowly but they were steady. They never excelled, but they never broke down.

The results we saw with the WAMP stacks were probably the biggest surprise in our entire test. Enterprise IT managers shouldn't hesitate to look into the option of deploying open-source stacks on a Windows Server platform.

For some businesses, this will truly be the best of both worlds.


Source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1983367,00.asp


Steffen

[Brian]

I noticed that speed was there, and no issue of stability. I question the truthfulness of the Linux lovers who complain about security and stability of Windows in a true and pure production environment where the sysadmin is qualified to do his or her job.

How many networks that are Windows based, were hacked because Windows is so easy to setup, and while far easier to secure than Linux / Unix, not so easy to secure as compared to base install?

I my estimation, reading what many have said with practical and real experience, Windows is as secure as Linux, period.

Speed is there.

Security is there.

I have some issues with stability, but that is quite unique to those that do the extreme EXEC calls that I do, few do that. With PHP 5 I will be able to embed Perl, make CGI calls from ISAPI PHP, that will be so nice once I get the time to update.

--
Brian

[Jorge]

[Brian]

That is my point, one is secure from the get go, thus you have to find the appropriate ways to relax security to allow you to do what you need to do, and nothing more.

On the other had, after about a week of trying to run Fedora 5 as Secure Linux, United States NSA standards, I gave up!

The scale must be balanced for usability and security. More sucure, less useful / usable. More usable less secure - pure and simple.

With rare few exceptions, and even then I would content it is only for simple minded reasons, there are no real solutions for small to medium enterprises that are not available or could easily be available for Windows + Open Source.

With speed not an issue, with resources less of an issue (thanks to a large part to sites just like this one), with security not an issue, I see no point in bothering wtih pure Open Source, but rather a hybrid of both.

For the individual do-it-yourself type, Linux is cheaper. For an enterprise, rarely is Linux a cost savings, or much of a cost savings. And how about Linux for the desktop?

I work in a MS dominated environment, we use Active Directory heavily for MS and non-MS applications. We run print servers, file servers, multiple domains, subnets, physical locations linked by T1's, what the hell would Linux offer us?

Security?

Hell no, not in anyway. Save one thing, we use security appliances that at their core are essentially Linux based, and that is where Linux is strong, not as a user friendly or less expensive alternative to enterprise Windows operations.