Couple of points. I think the non-standard Microsoft way of serving up active content (ASP vs. standard CGI) needs to be played up as a peril to all budding web-masters.
ASP pages can't be ported to any other system that I know of.
Standard CGI on NT sucks; you need to go with ASP if you have to use NT/IIS.
Windows, 9x and NT, has problems with uptime - if you want uptime and real-world reliability, you need a mainframe or *nix system.
According to this study, NT sucks with any kind of delay in the line - real-world kinds of conditions. (Click on a ZD net story and wait 20-30 seconds to start reading it...)
Now, suppose you start writing an active-page site. You use Windows, because it is cheap and available. As soon as you make that decision, your boss should consider firing you. You simply can't grow the site into a mission-critical, 24x7 kind of site without re-writing the whole thing when you outgrow the NT box. (And check out the Economist link, where Groves says if you're not on the web in five years, you won't be in business!)
This sounds great, until you read the fine print. If I recall correctly, all the Linux installations are custom, which means they only you $250-350 to install Redhat Linux on each box.
There are a couple of errors in this article. First, export versions of the more popular browsers have 40-bit encryption; domestic versions have 128-bit. Although with this increase in cracking speed, I sort of wonder for how many years even 128-bit encryption will be secure - that's the size the AES hopes to formalize in another 2-3 years. Will the crackers outpace the encryptors?
Second, it's my understanding that most (if not all) banks now use Triple DES. This gives them an effective key length of over 100 bits; maybe someone can chime in with the _right_ number. Banks are safe for now.
Slashdot Mirror
"The press are picking up on this, including some non-IT rags (see Linux Today). This is going to be a PR disaster of the finest water.
"Expect a(nother) name change for NT5/W2K sometime during the fall. That'll let them pretend it's a different product."
No, they'll merely change the slogan (drumroll please):
It just doesn't work.
ASP pages can't be ported to any other system that I know of.
Standard CGI on NT sucks; you need to go with ASP if you have to use NT/IIS.
Windows, 9x and NT, has problems with uptime - if you want uptime and real-world reliability, you need a mainframe or *nix system.
According to this study, NT sucks with any kind of delay in the line - real-world kinds of conditions. (Click on a ZD net story and wait 20-30 seconds to start reading it...)
Now, suppose you start writing an active-page site. You use Windows, because it is cheap and available. As soon as you make that decision, your boss should consider firing you. You simply can't grow the site into a mission-critical, 24x7 kind of site without re-writing the whole thing when you outgrow the NT box. (And check out the Economist link, where Groves says if you're not on the web in five years, you won't be in business!)
This sounds great, until you read the fine print. If I recall correctly, all the Linux installations are custom, which means they only you $250-350 to install Redhat Linux on each box.
Don't count your savings before they hatch.
There are a couple of errors in this article. First, export versions of the more popular browsers have 40-bit encryption; domestic versions have 128-bit. Although with this increase in cracking speed, I sort of wonder for how many years even 128-bit encryption will be secure - that's the size the AES hopes to formalize in another 2-3 years. Will the crackers outpace the encryptors?
Second, it's my understanding that most (if not all) banks now use Triple DES. This gives them an effective key length of over 100 bits; maybe someone can chime in with the _right_ number. Banks are safe for now.