PHP Optimized for Windows Server 2008

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."

Comments

In Short

[TheRealMindChild]

So, in short, they aren't using cygwin anymore to compile it.

Re:In Short

[evilklown]

Sounds suspiciously like "Vista Capable" to me.

Re:In Short

[farrellj]

Can we say "Embrace, extend and extinguish", by proxy? I knew you could!

ttyl
          Farrell

FastCGI != Apache Module

[Foofoobar]

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

[theGreater]

Furthermore, FastCGI under IIS (haven't tried with anything newer than 2003r2/IIS6) isn't fully compatible with at least one popular application that I can think of.

http://wordpress.org/support/topic/150672

-theGreater's $0.02.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[arodland]

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

[Firehed]

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

[Foofoobar]

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

[mini me]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[rkcth]

How did you get access to our super secret code?!?!?

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[TheRaven64]

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

[pdxp]

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 and the FastCGI version.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[Spliffster]

well, you could run php as isapi module on iis. I have tried it, i haven't done some performance testing. The problem with isapi is, that you have one configuration (php configuration) per server, no mixing of php4/5 per virtual host.

This makes it a no brainer for anyting but playing with it. After finding this out we tested with fastcgi, it's nice but iis is still extremely complicated to handle and and the os is soo hungry (1gb ram for an intranet server and w2k3 is barely usable on the shell).

finally i convinced them to switch to linux/apache. it was a little work (mostly paths).

What I am trying to say is, it doesn't matter if php is as fast on iis/windows server as on *nix/apache. the os alone is eating up so many resources while doing nothing.

Cheers,
-S

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[jsebrech]

PHP's issues with ISAPI are due to it not being thread-safe. We've tried to deploy PHP as ISAPI on windows, and things run fine until the customer starts using an application module that uses GD, or some other non-thread-safe extension, and then you get sporadic crashes that come more often as the load increases (which is obviously the worst time for a server crash).

FastCGI's benefit is that every FastCGI handler is still a separate process, so you don't run into threading issues, while at the same time not invoking the cost of constant process creation (which on windows is expensive), because the processes are reused.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[arodland]

mod_perl is indeed known to suck (or at least to require a lot of tuning and babysitting), but slow it isn't. Point is, it's just not necessary (or very beneficial) to have an Apache module if the only place your app is going to run is the Request phase. If the PHP devs disagree then IMHO they don't know what they're talking about. Or it's got something to do with that product they're trying to sell you. :)

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[mk_is_here]

PHP don't encourage this anymore.
What they now have are prepare statement in SQL calls, thanks to the PDO.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[Foofoobar]

mod_php doesn't cost anything. Apache doesn't cost anything. FastCGI on the other hand is a product which has upgrades and a server product that costs. So it sounds more like FastCGI and Microsoft have more to sell than the Apache foundation.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[arodland]

mod_php doesn't cost anything. Apache doesn't cost anything. FastCGI on the other hand is a product which has upgrades and a server product that costs. So it sounds more like FastCGI and Microsoft have more to sell Er... no? FastCGI is an open protocol (not product) with scads of free implementations that's compatible with a pile of webservers. As for "having something to sell", I meant Zend, who have a big hand in PHP, and are clearly interested in selling you something.

Re:FastCGI != Apache Module

[Foofoobar]

PHP is a GPL language; ZEND is a company than makes products that extend the language. FastCGI is a protocol; Microsoft and other companies make products you purchase that extend that protocol. Sounds to mean that you are complaining about the same thing I am and would rather have an Apache module as well. :)

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008

[CheekyBastard]

"with performance and stability"

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

Light on details

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Freexe]

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

[slawo]

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

[FishWithAHammer]

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

[Allador]

and compatibility issues are tales from ages ago Not quite.

Mac's are nice, but there are lots of things that wont run or wont run right there.

Outlook (and no, the Mac Office version doesnt count, its garbage)
Eclipse/Java ... this works if you're okay working with an older JVM, but not if not .NET programming
Good IM clients
HUGE numbers of line of business admin apps are windows only ... though that wont affect many devs

Re:Other incapatiblities

[slawo]

Depending on how you look at it... when you are used to vi and command line indeed you don't need the GUI. But then who needs it.
And to the hardware it's just like other PCs... so indeed it lost it's PowerPC appeal... but still, apple has the most innovative daily use design.

If you never tried, or if you tried 5 years ago you can criticize as much as you like, it's pointless.

Re:Other incapatiblities

[FishWithAHammer]

And to the hardware it's just like other PCs... so indeed it lost it's PowerPC appeal...

That's not interesting hardware. Interesting hardware is "not either underpowered or ridiculously overdone." I have no need for a Mini or a Mac Pro, no matter how I slice it. Apple's hardware is pathetic.

but still, apple has the most innovative daily use design.

Innovative is not exclusive of "bad".

If you never tried, or if you tried 5 years ago you can criticize as much as you like, it's pointless.

I work at a place with about 40 OS X machines running Leopard. It's shit.

Re:Other incapatiblities

[Kalriath]

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. Blame the price. Noone wants to pay $4000 for a dev box. (Not in the US)

Re:Other incapatiblities

[slawo]

You are right in one way... The same way the applications like Word, Office and video games will not work on Linux, IRIX or Solaris... But that's not the point.
Actually It will all run on a Mac just the same as on a Dell or on an HP... (You can run Windows natively or virtualized or both) But none the less Apache and PHP will run better on Mac OS than on Windows.
And I use Visio and Visual Studio on my mac (in VMWare Fusion) anyway... So I have the best of 2 worlds ^_^

Re:Other incapatiblities

[slawo]

Blame the price. Noone wants to pay $4000 for a dev box. (Not in the US) Why? I probably payed less than $1500 for my MacBook (I use Euros).
And anyway it's hard to believe US Americans are too poor to buy proper hardware. Mainly when it's cheaper than in the rest of the world. :P

Re:Other incapatiblities

[slawo]

Errrr... MacHTTP? Does it still exist?
100% secure... Well I would not bet my iLife that OpenBSD is 100% secure so even less chance I would bet on Mac OS X.

But for my needs (as a web dev), yes... by far the best OS.

Misleading

[MojoRilla]

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

[dave420]

It's not as bad as you make out. And with IIS7, it now makes a good web server, too.

Re:Misleading

[dedazo]

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

[Dan East]

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

[Santana]

This is misleading.

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

Re:Misleading

[muszek]

Food? Are car analogies not good enough for you?

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[richlv]

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

[kripkenstein]

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

[andigutmans]

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

[Bobb Sledd]

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

[jsebrech]

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

[discogravy]

lots of people eat in their cars, but who prepares food in their cars?

I suppose you could make a very complex analogy about tailgate parties or something, but it really seems like too much trouble.

Re:Misleading

[Allador]

I know this is slashdot and all ... but you could always consider reading a couple sentences after the one you quoted completely out of context.

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. 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. Now the three platforms should be available on a more equal footing, he said. The article SPECIFICALLY states that most develop on windows workstations and deploy on a unix or equiv.

How exactly did my parent get marked insightful? By re-stating a sentence from the article in a hostile, anti-microsoft tone?

Re:Misleading

[Vicarius]

.NET-based applications on the other hand, work great. Server 2003 and 2008 now are great platforms for them. They are "great" compared to what?! Linux running Mono?

Re:Misleading

[RobertM1968]

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.

Not just that, but too many developers need to at least do a portion of their work on a Windows machine (virtual or "real"), simply because no matter how compatible the stuff the server sends, IE displays things just a little different (depending on version, sub-version, fonts installed, how IE decides it wants to handle font request, day of the week...). I run a Windows box (well, two if you count the virtual session on my non-Windows machine)... I don't do my development on it - but I do use it regularly to test what sites I work on.

For some it might be easier to just do all the work on the Windows box and upload/save the running/test copy on the *nix server - for me, I'd rather use Windows as little as possible - too much of a headache, especially since the other half of my job is computer "repairs" [inotherwords: 80% fixing Windows issues or removing viruses/spyware - 20% turns out to be hardware (if that much)]. So, after half day or more of dealing with our customer's Windows quirks/issues/deficiencies (when compared to any other OS - sans apps), I prefer to use it as little as possible. No, this section isn't a rant about Windows... just my preference. The other OS's I use arent perfect either, but they are a lot easier to fix if something does go wrong, and dont require that nightly (my peak working hours - like many "computer nerds") virus/spyware scan that drags the machine to a crawl.

Also, I'd think it logical (since so many companies think they need Windows workstations) that many companies, even with Linux servers, have Windows clients on the people's machines. And of course, as someone else mentioned, many people like doing parts of their development using tools such as Dreamweaver, most of which come only for Windows.

Rob

Re:Misleading

[Jarik_Tentsu]

I'd assume anyone versed with web applications would know that "development" is usually referring to the stage in which the application is programmed and tested...

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

You and TFA are assuming that, should the performance of PHP suffice, people would deploy on win instead of *nix. Is that true? Not for people dealing with service providers who have already expertise and no seat license with *nix. As for the others, windows server software would have to offer something more than linux to justify paying for the license. Is it so?

Re:Misleading

[rfunches]

Those of us with limited bandwidth on our Linux servers and developing PHP on Windows workstations use something like PHPEclipse with XAMPP and test locally first, then upload to the remote server and do final testing and tweaking from there.

Re:Misleading

[TheQuantumShift]

Just combine 'em...

"Windows is like a tuna sandwich with it's bread welded shut..."

Develope =! Deploy?!

[comm2k]

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?

Re:Develope =! Deploy?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '=' in 2263676-title.php on line 1

Nothing to do with optimization

[dedazo]

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

[TheLink]

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.

Re:Nothing to do with optimization

[andigutmans]

That's incorrect. Many changes have been made to PHP over the past 1.5 years to make it run faster and more reliably on Windows. All those patches have been contributed to the PHP source tree. So it's a combination of the FastCGI work Microsoft did and improvements in PHP which make this a viable option for running PHP applications.

Re:Nothing to do with optimization

[jsebrech]

PHP on IIS5/6 had to run as a CGI application... IIS7 introduced FastCGI...

Not true. For years there's been an unofficial FastCGI library for IIS (by Shane Caraveo), that you could use with PHP4 and PHP5. We've been deploying on windows using this library, and it ran stable and at acceptable performance levels.

The new microsoft FastCGI library is simply an officially supported form of FastCGI. It ships with IIS7 by default, and is available as an add-on install for IIS6. It works fine with PHP4 and PHP5, but PHP5 has been optimized for it.

Re:Nothing to do with optimization

[dedazo]

Try and sell Shane Caraveo's unofficial and unsupported library to the average Fortune 1000 CTO and let me know how it goes.

Re:Optimise your spell check

[oxidiser]

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

Marketing

[LingNoi]

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

[Constantine XVI]

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

Re:Marketing

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:Marketing

[theGreater]

As I mentioned previously ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=474960&cid=22636850 ) FastCGI is available (at least as a tech preview) for 2003r2/IIS6 -- it's not all roses and afternoon tea.

-theGreater.

Re:Marketing

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.

It ain't no workstation...

[Fenice]

"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...

[jfbilodeau]

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...

[Allador]

What does your post have to do with the sentence you quoted? I see no relevance.

The sentence you quoted says that the majority of PHP developers develop on a windows workstation, and then the sentence after the one you quoted says that most of these then deploy to a unix or linux.

Given that, what does your response: "I do not know many people using Windows Server as a workstation..." have to do with anything?

Re:It ain't no workstation...

[spongman]

I'm running Server 2008 x64 on my desktop. I'm developing against IIS7, but I won't be writing PHP in the near (or far) future tyvm.

Re:It ain't no workstation...

[Fenice]

I only quoted that they were assuming 80% of developpers were using Windows desktops to do their job (which is probable) while Php devs were focusing the improvement on Win Server Edition -- wich I pointed to be fairly rare at a desktop OS.

Others pointed the lacks of differences between the twos (appart from price).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Optimise your spell check

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Please tag: nowyouhave2problems

[Violet Null]

Go on. You know you want to do it.

PHP on Windows

[corychristison]

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

Re:PHP on Windows

[jfbilodeau]

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

[Pvt_Ryan]

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.. :)

Re:PHP on Windows

[Shados]

Actually, the main thing that makes what the article states possible is FastCGI for IIS 7 and Windows Server 2008 (though there is one decent version for WinServer2003 I beleive). Its just that Zend made a version of PHP that got certified for that version of FastCGI.

If you get any relatively tested "CGI-compliant" environment and use it with that new FastCGI version, it should run just as well. Not just Zend's PHP, and heck, not just PHP at all, it will work with the others too.

Re:PHP on Windows

[jsebrech]

Seriously, though, it said "commercially supported form of PHP". Be sure to take a big mental note of that.
Commercial == fee's.

Zend Core is free. Zend Core in essence is what a linux distro is to the linux kernel. It provides a certified single-installer toolchain (web server + php + db layer + zend framework).

What you can buy from them is a support package for Zend Core, to help you with installation, updating and bug resolving. Being able to pay someone else to deal with PHP performance and reliability issues at a customer's site is a must for any serious commercial deployment.

Re:PHP on Windows

[jsebrech]

Because anyone using UNIX has already moved on to Ruby, or Python, or any other language better suited to web application development.

Could you describe what features of Ruby and Python you think make them better suited for web development?

Re:PHP on Windows

[MrMunkey]

Your link was for Zend Platform. Zend Platform != Zend Core. I've downloaded the Linux version for free to mess around with before. Zend Core for Oracle or IBM is also free. http://www.zend.com/en/products/core/ Now what "commercial" support means is another situation.

Re:PHP on Windows

[corychristison]

That link was in reference to the pricing scheme by charging per CPU being silly.

Why not Apache?

[edmicman]

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?

[jfbilodeau]

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?

[Rakishi]

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

Re:Why not Apache?

[RipSUp]

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?

[jjrockman]

Don't you mean Windows IIS MySQL PHP/Perl? Or, WIMP for short.

Re:Why not Apache?

[rdean400]

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?

[jfbilodeau]

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?

[man_of_mr_e]

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?

[AdamReyher]

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?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

closed source = security through obscurity.

Let's not start this flameware / debate again.

Re:Why not Apache?

[Shados]

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?

[Phroggy]

Don't you mean Windows IIS MySQL PHP/Perl? Or, WIMP for short. Not quite - MSSQL, not MySQL!

Re:Why not Apache?

[Blackknight]

Actually MS would prefer you to use ASP.net

Re:Why not Apache?

[parvenu74]

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? On the IIS 7.0 platform, Microsoft offers LOTS to PHP (and Perl, Python, et al), chiefly though the integrated pipeline, which will allow you to do some very interesting things like build PHP pages and apps that make use of ASP.NET's Membership and Role APIs (or the Session or Application objects, for that matter). I don't know how many people will actually be writing "extensions" to PHP in C#, but it will be possible with IIS 7.

Optimised?

[ConfrontationalGrayh]

OtimiZed?

Re:Optimised?

[chill]

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

Re:Optimised?

[DarkSarin]

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?

[Cal Paterson]

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?

[Phroggy]

more complicated apostrophe use (possessives ending in s always send me to a style guide) Just because Americans rarely follow our own rules doesn't mean we don't have them. Possessives ending in "s" get the apostrophe at the end. The big exception is "its" which is possessive with no apostrophe (as opposed to "it's" which is always a contraction).

Re:Optimised?

[Cal Paterson]

I didn't mean to say American English has no rules. Only that English English has more, and that they are less logical and harder to remember. You're picking a grammar fight when I don't have Fowler's to hand, but from memory;

Singular with an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural without an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural with an s-ending takes word+es'
The United Nations (and other singular entities with plural names) takes word+'s

Between this and contraction forms, it's pretty obvious why apostrophes are dying out.

If you have to contact sales to find out the price

[symbolset]

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

How is this an improvement?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

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?

Hmm

[Vexorian]

Here's an idea: try making slashvertisements less obvious.

Horses for courses

[tringtring]

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

[sdsucks]

"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.

on windows?

[Rhaban]

Previously, PHP 'didn't run as well as it should' fixed that.

Re:Optimise your spell check

[Anonymous Coward]

The English language was invented in England you fucknut.

another prese

[psbrogna]

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.

Re:another prese

[PHPfanboy]

Zend is the PHP Company. I don't think it's any great secret that their aim is to monetize PHP. I'm not sure there's anything inherently wrong with that. Plenty of other companies and individuals monetize PHP by providing software, consulting, hosting and other services around PHP If there's value-add provided, companies will pay.

You're probably perfectly aware that there are a large section of Linux using shops who are perfectly happy to pay, hence the success of RHEL and to a lesser extent SuSE and now Ubuntu all of which offer support around free stuff.

The fact that Zend has worked with IBM on PHP for i5 (AS400) and with Microsoft for decent PHP on Windows only increases the choice of platforms PHP developers have to deploy on, makes PHP projects more popular across other user bases and means that PHP developers have a wider range of employment opportunities available to them. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the future of PHP development is at 6 person consultancies who specialize in tweaking free CMSs, surviving on that free good stuff and creating pure karma (with no disrespect to small web consultancies intended, but it's a limited niche to attract new active members to the community).

If you'd like to spend your time pitching PHP as a strategic application development option to Fortune 500 companies, government departments and other enterprises, I'm sure we'd all be delighted, but there's not much chance of you spending your time doing that, nor quite frankly of those entities listening to you. They do however talk to Zend.

Zend isn't imposing a cost/tax on anybody or demanding that people pay homage/tribute, especially as PHP is a community project and not owned by Zend. During the past 2 years Zend has increased the amount of free and open source work they've done (Zend Framework and the Eclipse-based PDT) so it's not like they take and don't give.

If there is value companies can get from Zend's solution set, then they will pay for it. And they do. It's simple cost-benefit equations. WRT your "siphoning off revenue" if you look at all the companies in the Open Source space (including MySQL, EZ Publish, Acquia and other) they all provide value adds.

And yeah, I work for Zend. And no, you don't have to buy our stuff (but at least come check it out). And no the decision to monetize PHP wasn't made by executives on the fringe of the FOSS world, but rather technology people in the middle of it. (I have no idea whether they have hair up their asses like you claim - but can gladly inform you that that's not a sound basis for a business strategy unless you're a barber looking for a niche....)

Re:another prese

[Allador]

Anybody think the real agenda here is for Zend to better monetize PHP? You do know that Zend PHP Core is free, right? You can pay Zend money if you want, but its only for support.

There is also Zend Framework, which is a big set of value-added packaging and large-deploy/enterprise features. That costs, but you're paying for the integrated packaging and support, not that you cant do those features any other way for free.

They've actually struck a good balance, I think.

WIMP platform

[kabloom]

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


Windows
IIS
MySQL
PHP


Good marketing name.

Bad analogy?

[tepples]

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?

[binaryspiral]

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.

Development vs Hosting

[erat123]

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?

Re:Development vs Hosting

[Shados]

Err? Its not even ambiguous. "Developing on Windows workstations". Developing and Workstation next to each other.

And it would make sense. Obviously tons and tons of people use Windows (and there are some decent web tools to complement the PHP developement, plus stuff like photoshop, etc), but PHP on Windows sucked ass. So obviously the hosting wouldn't be on Windows (most of the time).

Now with this, while you would not migrate a Linux box to a Windows one for PHP, if you just so happen to have a Windows Server with fully configured IIS around (more common than you'd think, with Sharepoint, Exchange, TFS, etc, being relatively popular), you don't need to setup a Linux box just for PHP and nothing else.

There still has to be existing investment reasons and stuff though... one of the main advantages of PHP is that its free... so dumping free PHP on a 4 digit $ box is a bit counter productive in quite a few situations.

Re:Development vs Hosting

[Allador]

Why are so many on /. struggling with this sentence today. It's clear as day.

The sentence clearly states that 75-80% of php developers develop on windows. But then 2 sentences later it says that the majority deploy to unix or linux.

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

[phatslaab]

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.

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008

[Amouth]

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.

Re:Optimise your spell check

[FyRE666]

President Bush? Is that you?

Windows tco winner!

[sjwest]

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.

Optimized double misery

[200_success]

PHP and Windows? They each suck enough on their own.

Anecdotal reports

[Anonymous Coward]

At my company we have run PHP on Windows under a variety of setups.

Our preferred method is as an Apache module, but we've also run it on IIS 6 & 7 as an ISAPI module with no problems for customers who required it. The instability of PHP as ISAPI on IIS is greatly exaggerated - as long as you are not using any unusual libraries that is. And the performance is great.

Re:In Short arul vigg

[arul vigg]

cooooool mate i agree with you said ..nice work there buddy!! arul vigg

Good for WIMP

[x_Curious_x]

It has been a learning curve to get IIS and PHP to love each other, but it is very doable. The running as CGI only constraint is just a myth, as i've been fine running as ISAPI on IIS6 for 1.5 years now. IIS has lagged Apache in some very nice features (mod_rewrite for instance...) and should play catch up to Apache on a lot of functionallity with the new IIS release.

Re:Good for WIMP

[Kalriath]

Mmmhmm, you can now write something like mod_rewrite as an IIS7 module (like before - ISAPI_Rewrite comes to mind) or as a .NET HTTP Module (I've done this before, but in IIS6 it only gets requests that would otherwise make it to the ASP.NET engine - doesn't work like that any more).

I'm actually looking forward to IIS7. So long as it maintains a good security track record, I think it has a better chance with Apache than previous versions did.

They don't charge.

[RJabelman]

The commercially supported PHP they're talking about is Zend Core. Zend don't charge for it. (Although they do, obviously, charge to support it. I think you get one free support ticket when you download it, but I may just be imagining that...)

The thing you're linking to - Zend Platform - is a totally different product that sits on top of Zend Core to supply some high-availability functions, session clustering, Java bridge, monitoring, profiling, etc.

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008

[beav007]

How can php run on Windows with [i]performance and stability[/i] when Windows itself is incapable of both?

Useless reply to a useless troll

[slawo]

If you feel Windows is right for you good for you. If you prefer a System V environment, good for you. As a developer I found the perfect balance between the web tools (apache, perl, php, jakarta...) and the daily casual tools (iLife, iWork) to burn Video from my HD camcorder or to keep organized with iCal...

I recompiled Apache and PHP with the options I need just like on OpenBSD or Linux, it works like a charm. Mac OS is a native BSD environment (Yes I am a BSD fan since long), PHP works perfectly and the tools offered by apple work seamlessly. Mainly Time Machine backups from my small macbook to the Mac Pro, this is perfect!

I have no need for a Mini or a Mac Pro I have no need for a Cray or an EPIA, doesn't mean it's shit or pathetic, it's not the right hardware for me that's it.

Apple's hardware is pathetic. An uneducated guess... Or a peasant's answer... at best. You can chose to buy your components separately... Like anyone who wants to have total control over the hardware. Like any hardware company, SUN Apple or HP will give you the best for the hardware you buy considering they have good drivers for it and a system taking full advantage of it... I stopped buying components since I left College (did buy some upgrades during my studies though). It is not only useless most of the time, it's also time consuming and just dumb if you don't have very particular needs.
I went through 3 Dell laptops (owned) and was the administrator of a dozen more (and of hundreds of other regular PCs) during my studies.
I also had the pleasure (and displeasure) to work at SUN (with Solaris), with SGI workstations, on Windows (3.11 to 2003 Server RC2) on OS2 on QNX, BSDs and some Linux flavors...
Finally none gave me the satisfaction and interoperability I have now with my OS X (and my less used Linux boxes). As a consultant the Mac is much more versatile as I use it for work and for personal daily tasks without the need for visualized environment (apart from .net :()

not either underpowered or ridiculously overdone That's the iMac... Or Macbook. I would love to see what you believe is bad in the Magsafe, the magnetic screen and other hardware designs from Apple... if you know what you are talking about anyway ^_^

I work at a place with about 40 OS X machines running Leopard. How are you related to these 40 machines? Do you use at least one on a daily basis?

It's shit. Well if you don't know how to use it, it sure is shit... Just like Solaris, IRIX, Windows, Mac OS or anything else is shit to my grandma. She prefers the cassette player and the TV.

Innovative is not exclusive of "bad" Indeed, until now Apple provides me with the least worst design I found (for a price an average sized company can pay).
\
Anyway... I'm happy PHP now gets even more compatible with Windows (I heard something similar when 2003 came out)... But if you want the best dev environment for PHP it's definitely the Mac!

Re:Useless reply to a useless troll

[FishWithAHammer]

How are you related to these 40 machines? Do you use at least one on a daily basis?

I am forced to, yes.

Well if you don't know how to use it, it sure is shit... Just like Solaris, IRIX, Windows, Mac OS or anything else is shit to my grandma. She prefers the cassette player and the TV.

Yeah, because using them daily for most of a year means I don't know how to use it. Get a fucking brain.

Indeed, until now Apple provides me with the least worst design I found (for a price an average sized company can pay).

Different strokes for different folks. Your stroke, apparently, is monumentally short.

Anyway... I'm happy PHP now gets even more compatible with Windows (I heard something similar when 2003 came out)... But if you want the best dev environment for PHP it's definitely the Mac!

Oh god, I laughed. The Mac might be the best dev environment for PHP, but it's a damn shame that it sucks for languages worth using for more than ten-minute one-offs.

Re:Useless reply to a useless troll

[slawo]

I would be happy to see what is your favorite environment for home use and for work (and what type of work you do). Then we could compare...

Anyway this thread is about PHP and windows. I just pointed out it still runs better on Mac OS which is a native BSD system.

it's a damn shame that it sucks for languages worth using for more than ten-minute one-offs. Well you might be quite uneducated on the subject so I will help you. On Mac OS X you can use ASM, C, C++, Objective-C, C#, Java, Pascal, Perl, PHP... In fact nearly any language that runs or compiles on Linux, Unixes or BSD.
But as you seem to lack of proper education in computing I understand your confusion and frustration with an unfamiliar OS, just like I get frustrated on half pipes, I'm more of a speed junkie ^_^

I am forced to, yes. How can someone force you to use something that isn't fit for the job? It's up to you to chose a better solution and introduce it to your management. Otherwise I would recommend you quit your company if you didn't get the proper training to do your job. Either way it proves your company isn't serious about it's business.

Yeah, because using them daily for most of a year means I don't know how to use it. A friend of mine has a dog that uses toilets, but that doesn't mean it knows how it's supposed to be used... Apart if toilets were originally designed to quench ones thirst.

Is PHP important nowadays? Didn't sun buy MySQL?

[moonshinerat]

mmmm.... looks like confused and crap code for a confused and crap operating system then?

To be honest actually I've found my pre-release of Server 2008 to be the best OS Microsoft have come up with since 3.11 for Workgroups. It boots twice as fast as Solaris, it's a damn sight more understandable to use than Linux (did I just really say that?), it's got a good command line and really does work properly. In fact, due to the lack of decent network functions S2008 should be the next desktop OS. I really mean that because as a working OS it's like having a fresh *nix install that you can do anything with. Unfortunately it doesn't feel very good as a server OS.

In my book MS should withdraw Vista and use Server 2008 for desktop use and discard any idea of using it on a proper network. I'm sure that someone could create a good desktop GUI for this system and then at least Linux would have some competition.

Re:Optimise your spell check

[smittyoneeach]

No, Afghanistan was properly spelt.

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008

[spongman]

hey, last century just called - it wants its quips back...

Licensing Fees Don't Matter

[bill_mcgonigle]

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?

Look, if you need silly density you can pay for Solaris licenses. If licensing fees matter to you, you run Linux/BSD. If licensing fees don't matter to you, you run Windows, if you like Windows. If you can afford licensing fees and you don't like Windows, you run Linux/BSD.

So, the only people running Windows like Windows and don't care about licensing fees. See?, makes sense.

Re:Licensing Fees Don't Matter

[corychristison]

The entire point of my post was to point out that they had said "The Zend Core commercially supported form of PHP" which brought me to decide to comment on it, as well as point out their obscure pricing practices for other products. "Per CPU"? Who the fuck charges like that? ... that and this was like 14 hours before you decided to comment. It's done, it's over, go home everybody!

Re:Licensing Fees Don't Matter

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Per CPU"? Who the fuck charges like that?

Commercial vendors. It's stupid, but people pay it.

... that and this was like 14 hours before you decided to comment. It's done, it's over, go home everybody!

ADD much?

Why on earth would Microsoft want to optimize PHP?

[bentob0x]

They have their .NET platform with ASP and C# (which is supposed to be a fantastic language). What is the reason behind trying to optimise PHP on Windows Server 2008? Is it to push the vast majority of PHP developers to deploy on a Windows platform to be able to, in a few years, say: "Hey, now that you're on a Windows platform, why don't you have a look at .NET?"

useful reply to a fucking macfaggot

[Anonymous Coward]

An uneducated guess... Or a peasant's answer... at best. Jesus fucking christ, you knobslobber. What in the fuck gives you the right to sneer at ANYONE? Fucking macfaggots...

And get the fuck off PHP and use a real fucking language, tool. Bragging about PHP being done best on the Mac ignores how cocksuckingly terrible the programming languages worth a fucking damn are on that piece of shit. Take the cock out of your mouth and use a real fucking computer, almighty fucking "web developer".

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Vista...

Get a life Bill.

Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008

[Anonymous Coward]

*Ring ring*

It's Pauly Shore on the phone for you. Says he wants his only good joke back...

useless reply to a redneck

[slawo]

almighty [...] "web developer". Who are you calling a web developer!!! Watch your language! :@

And get [...] off PHP and use a real [...] language Sorry I am not a web dev and I don't know too much about this subject... But I need to output some data using GD and generate some XML on my servers.
And PHP is a real language. To me it's as annoying as Java and C# for it lacks multiple inheritance support, but it does what is advertised, it works on linux, BSD, Solaris, Windows and others and that suits my needs. :)

Otherwise if you have better languages to suggest, you are welcome to share your wisdom ;)

php and windows 2008

[skilaq]

totally agree with bentob0x , i dont see apache supporting .NET anytime soon. There is no need for this to happen, .NET will do anything ATM, do why go to inherit PHP aswell. No point! Robert new zealand web designers

Re:Optimise your spell check

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is a Germanic language ... fucknut.