Actually, you can. The GUI is an optional environment subsystem.
If it's that simple then why doesn't everyone do it? Hmmm? Why aren't all programs optimized for that and enabled to run at a command line? You'd think everyone would want this right? Faster apps, better functionality.
But I don't see it happening. What part of the equation is being left out? Licensing costs? More than likely.
And unless you are running a version of Apache from 1984 (or a version for AIX on windows), it never required cygwin... NEVER! In which case it begs the question: what the hell kind of comparison are you trying to make by comparing a recent version of IIS to a version of Apache thats 10 years old?!!
Seriously dude. Objectivity isn't my strong point but at least I don't try to act like it is. Try testing out a recent version for a truly objective critique.
And just to make an additional point about memory availability.... do that control-alt-del again and take a look at physical memory and kernel memory, and look at total, available, paged, etc. Notice that the numbers are alot smaller than they should be? Go ahead. Take some time to do the math, I'll wait.
Done yet? No. Well I guarantee you will notice a shortage. Why? Where is that extra memory being used? Hmmmm I wonder. Where oh where could a GUI based OS be putting all that extra memory? You can't shut down the Windows in Windows my friend.
Thanks for playing. Feel free to get back to your pipe.:)
Apache doesn't need cygwin. Who the hell told you that? I run an install just fine without CYGWIN; you only need CYGWIN to use system calls. If you don't use them or find an alternate method or approach (which there are several), you don't need cygwin at all.:)
And Apache does not need 100 processes. I swear you Microsofties have some sweet crack over there that you guys are smoking to keep spitting out all this bullshit.
Regardless, it's still faster and more stable on Windows than IIS anyday:)
Well just do a ctrl-alt-del and take a look at the mem usage on all those idle apps. Those look like valuable resources that could go elsewhere and over half of them cannot be turned off at any given time.
Hell I can run a http daemon on Linux that runs off a potato! I can install a web server on a usb memory stick! It is so lean on system resources, it's not even funny.:)
As for threads per child, this is ideal and is one of the reasons it IS faster! The faster you can spit out data, the less time the person will be on your system hogging resources. Would you prefer them to hang around on the system for a few seconds longer? Well if you are an IIS developer, it sure would seem that way.
You don't have to sell me on how crappy Windows apps run on Unix environments though... they don't even run that well in their native environments.:)
Extra processes running are extra processes running. In a windows environment, you cannot separate out certain processes that are unnecessary and they will always be running in the background.
Apaches threads can be modded. The entire conf can be changed. If you think a default install is all there is to maintaining a server, I'll send you a ticket to reality so you can visit us sometime.
Not relevant. They have released builds for native environments and the codebase can be tweaked and recompiled so it should run equally well in an equivalent architecture.
Apache takes into consideration Windows way of doing things and the build is geared for it.
Windows unfortunately has background processes that you really can't do anything about and Linux can be run without X-windows unlike Windows. As such, that has been my experience as to why one machine can handle more requests than the other. Most Linux web servers run without X-windows.
I'm curious to see what the response would be and whether it will be a sidestep dodge or whether they have an 'honest' answer. Frankly my money is on the sidestep dodge.
They could claim it's cause they are built for Linux but this isn't the case; They are built for a variety of platforms.
They could claim that the binaries are poorly put together but you can always do your own build too which makes the argument moot.
I was just wondering what their point of view was since they constantly knock Linux but I don't see them switching off Akamai's load balancing either which is solely Linux and pulls their butts out of the fire every time they have a major patch or DDOS.
As a web developer for a Microsoft vendor, I have had the ability to work on both platforms... Linux and Windows. I run my own site on Linux which gets 1.8 millions hits a month (1800 unique IPs a day) and my companies website which runs on a Win2K box gets slightly less (most of which is directly from MS). The problem I have is that while running pretty much identical apps and using an AMP (apache, mysql and php) build on both, Windows consistently is slower by a huge margin.
Internally, Microsoft employees using Firefox has jumped from 4.5% to nearly 10% in the last year. I believe this is mostly due to the developers and sys admins.
Well suppose you use your brain for a change and give that jerky knee a rest, eh?
It is often stressed to me and others to 'eat your own dogfood' but to those of us with cerebral activity beyond that of a sea cucumber (present company included), we realize that Microsoft doesn't always make the best product.
And so we find it fascinating whenever we find someone booting up a Mac, reading a Linux book or Listening to an Ipod.
I work out with my Ipod at the Microsoft Health club all the time and it is the ONLY music player I see! Every once in awhile I will spot someone with one of those tiny little MP3 players but practically everyone brings their Ipod's to work out.
There are some good hacks built into the browser to speed it up if it's too slow. Just increase the number of requests and watch the load time decrease to nearly instantaneous.
Well it's interesting that you would comment on cross browser compatibility as Firefox is the most W3C compliant browser in existence. If other people use settings and CSS in a way that is not compatible with W3C standards, should you blame the browser or the idiots who choose to code specifically for one browser?
Using your logic, you would blame Firefox for not being able to use ActiveX as well.
There's a reason why people are swarming away from IE to Firefox instead of Safari or Opera; it's just the best browser on the market right now.
You mean do I think that IBM and Redhat and Intel and AMD and more can afford a lobby? You know you're right, I heard those companies only exist of a couple of guys working out of there garage. They probably are all dirt poor.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you can. The GUI is an optional environment subsystem.
If it's that simple then why doesn't everyone do it? Hmmm? Why aren't all programs optimized for that and enabled to run at a command line? You'd think everyone would want this right? Faster apps, better functionality.
But I don't see it happening. What part of the equation is being left out? Licensing costs? More than likely.
And unless you are running a version of Apache from 1984 (or a version for AIX on windows), it never required cygwin... NEVER! In which case it begs the question: what the hell kind of comparison are you trying to make by comparing a recent version of IIS to a version of Apache thats 10 years old?!!
Seriously dude. Objectivity isn't my strong point but at least I don't try to act like it is. Try testing out a recent version for a truly objective critique.
And just to make an additional point about memory availability.... do that control-alt-del again and take a look at physical memory and kernel memory, and look at total, available, paged, etc. Notice that the numbers are alot smaller than they should be? Go ahead. Take some time to do the math, I'll wait.
:)
Done yet? No. Well I guarantee you will notice a shortage. Why? Where is that extra memory being used? Hmmmm I wonder. Where oh where could a GUI based OS be putting all that extra memory? You can't shut down the Windows in Windows my friend.
Thanks for playing. Feel free to get back to your pipe.
Apache doesn't need cygwin. Who the hell told you that? I run an install just fine without CYGWIN; you only need CYGWIN to use system calls. If you don't use them or find an alternate method or approach (which there are several), you don't need cygwin at all. :)
:)
And Apache does not need 100 processes. I swear you Microsofties have some sweet crack over there that you guys are smoking to keep spitting out all this bullshit.
Regardless, it's still faster and more stable on Windows than IIS anyday
Unnecessary processes? Like what?
:)
:)
Well just do a ctrl-alt-del and take a look at the mem usage on all those idle apps. Those look like valuable resources that could go elsewhere and over half of them cannot be turned off at any given time.
Hell I can run a http daemon on Linux that runs off a potato! I can install a web server on a usb memory stick! It is so lean on system resources, it's not even funny.
As for threads per child, this is ideal and is one of the reasons it IS faster! The faster you can spit out data, the less time the person will be on your system hogging resources. Would you prefer them to hang around on the system for a few seconds longer? Well if you are an IIS developer, it sure would seem that way.
You don't have to sell me on how crappy Windows apps run on Unix environments though... they don't even run that well in their native environments.
Extra processes running are extra processes running. In a windows environment, you cannot separate out certain processes that are unnecessary and they will always be running in the background.
Apaches threads can be modded. The entire conf can be changed. If you think a default install is all there is to maintaining a server, I'll send you a ticket to reality so you can visit us sometime.
You windows guys crack me up.
In an older time, this might be an answer but even with that in mind, the speed variance would be minimal considering the resources of modern servers.
Besides, Apache, MYSQL and PHP for Windows are system specific builds. They take into consideration the Windows platform and requirements.
Not relevant. They have released builds for native environments and the codebase can be tweaked and recompiled so it should run equally well in an equivalent architecture.
Apache takes into consideration Windows way of doing things and the build is geared for it.
Windows unfortunately has background processes that you really can't do anything about and Linux can be run without X-windows unlike Windows. As such, that has been my experience as to why one machine can handle more requests than the other. Most Linux web servers run without X-windows.
I'm curious to see what the response would be and whether it will be a sidestep dodge or whether they have an 'honest' answer. Frankly my money is on the sidestep dodge.
They could claim it's cause they are built for Linux but this isn't the case; They are built for a variety of platforms.
They could claim that the binaries are poorly put together but you can always do your own build too which makes the argument moot.
I was just wondering what their point of view was since they constantly knock Linux but I don't see them switching off Akamai's load balancing either which is solely Linux and pulls their butts out of the fire every time they have a major patch or DDOS.
As a web developer for a Microsoft vendor, I have had the ability to work on both platforms... Linux and Windows. I run my own site on Linux which gets 1.8 millions hits a month (1800 unique IPs a day) and my companies website which runs on a Win2K box gets slightly less (most of which is directly from MS). The problem I have is that while running pretty much identical apps and using an AMP (apache, mysql and php) build on both, Windows consistently is slower by a huge margin.
Why is this?
So if something goes wrong with your setup, a commercial company will quickly take credit? Riiiiight.
I know Microsoft readily accepts monetary responsibility for their products being crap and causing crashes, viruses and trojans in my system.
In fact, Bill and Steve cut me a check weekly.
So... how do they propose doing this? Opening a bunch of Mexican restaurants on Mars?
Hey now... put down that crayon and get back on your blanket or no milk and cookies for you.
It's completely programming in Visual Basic.
Internally, Microsoft employees using Firefox has jumped from 4.5% to nearly 10% in the last year. I believe this is mostly due to the developers and sys admins.
Hiya Trollie McTroll.
Well suppose you use your brain for a change and give that jerky knee a rest, eh?
It is often stressed to me and others to 'eat your own dogfood' but to those of us with cerebral activity beyond that of a sea cucumber (present company included), we realize that Microsoft doesn't always make the best product.
And so we find it fascinating whenever we find someone booting up a Mac, reading a Linux book or Listening to an Ipod.
Feel free to crawl back under your rock now.
I work out with my Ipod at the Microsoft Health club all the time and it is the ONLY music player I see! Every once in awhile I will spot someone with one of those tiny little MP3 players but practically everyone brings their Ipod's to work out.
Yep, this is very true throughout Microsoft's history. Whoever is modding you down is a sadly misinformed MS toadie.
I like this idea better than the previous Belgian Waffle Card.
oops... color me stupid. Sorry. Damn me and my jerky knee!
There are some good hacks built into the browser to speed it up if it's too slow. Just increase the number of requests and watch the load time decrease to nearly instantaneous.
Well it's interesting that you would comment on cross browser compatibility as Firefox is the most W3C compliant browser in existence. If other people use settings and CSS in a way that is not compatible with W3C standards, should you blame the browser or the idiots who choose to code specifically for one browser?
Using your logic, you would blame Firefox for not being able to use ActiveX as well.
There's a reason why people are swarming away from IE to Firefox instead of Safari or Opera; it's just the best browser on the market right now.
Really? Firefox is working just great for me :)
You mean do I think that IBM and Redhat and Intel and AMD and more can afford a lobby? You know you're right, I heard those companies only exist of a couple of guys working out of there garage. They probably are all dirt poor.
Well... only for two year old mentallities.
If the doodled shoe fits...