Windows?
- Thread starter Bonk
- Start date
1) Windows XP/etc is unlike any of the UNIX like systems that we support which means significant work.
2) Only a tiny fraction of "power" users that LiteSpeed is targeted for would even consider running their web services on windows.
3) Combine 1 + 2 and we came to the conclusion that we will not support MS Windows any time soon. It is currently not practical.
2) Only a tiny fraction of "power" users that LiteSpeed is targeted for would even consider running their web services on windows.
3) Combine 1 + 2 and we came to the conclusion that we will not support MS Windows any time soon. It is currently not practical.
Windows has several issues that large web site operators do not like:
Transparency, security, flexibility, and cost.
You can try Linux on you computer using a free virtualizer such as MS Virtual PC 2004 or VMWare Server. This way, you don't need to repartition your hard drive.
You can also install Linux on your computer by putting it on a separate partition from your Windows install. You search google for linux and windows dual-booting how-tos.
Transparency, security, flexibility, and cost.
You can try Linux on you computer using a free virtualizer such as MS Virtual PC 2004 or VMWare Server. This way, you don't need to repartition your hard drive.
You can also install Linux on your computer by putting it on a separate partition from your Windows install. You search google for linux and windows dual-booting how-tos.
I know that this is an old topic, but I couldn't help but reply to it.
You claim that transparency, security, flexibility, and cost are main issues. This is false.
I believe the only reason to not make a windows version of the client, would be because you are trying to promote the use of Linux operating systems. I use both Windows and Linux, and can easily tell that both have their own perks.
Windows can be just as secure as linux. Also, Linux is not the main operating system in the market, which is why it isn't targetted as much by viruses or hackers. Windows, since it is the main operating system (still), it will be targetted a lot more frequently. You'd be surprised over how many "powerusers" (as you put it) use windows, and cannot switch to this server software because they refuse to having to completely switch operating systems and set it up. That would take twice as long, without much to suggest that it would be for the best.
There is no such thing as complete security though, even Linux isn't completely safe. Again, I add that if someone knows what they're doing Windows can be just as safe. Of course, it may not be, but it would be close enough that the argument is moot.
As for cost, yes it is pretty high up there if one uses windows. However, a "poweruser" as you put it, probably has a business or is affiliated with a big one. So, the chances are very high that the person has a lot of money. Therefore, this argument is also moot; unless we're no longer talking about power users?
You claim that transparency, security, flexibility, and cost are main issues. This is false.
I believe the only reason to not make a windows version of the client, would be because you are trying to promote the use of Linux operating systems. I use both Windows and Linux, and can easily tell that both have their own perks.
Windows can be just as secure as linux. Also, Linux is not the main operating system in the market, which is why it isn't targetted as much by viruses or hackers. Windows, since it is the main operating system (still), it will be targetted a lot more frequently. You'd be surprised over how many "powerusers" (as you put it) use windows, and cannot switch to this server software because they refuse to having to completely switch operating systems and set it up. That would take twice as long, without much to suggest that it would be for the best.
There is no such thing as complete security though, even Linux isn't completely safe. Again, I add that if someone knows what they're doing Windows can be just as safe. Of course, it may not be, but it would be close enough that the argument is moot.
As for cost, yes it is pretty high up there if one uses windows. However, a "poweruser" as you put it, probably has a business or is affiliated with a big one. So, the chances are very high that the person has a lot of money. Therefore, this argument is also moot; unless we're no longer talking about power users?
SimplyMepis
Install SimplyMepis Linux
www.mepis.org
Burn the ISO to CD and then boot your computer with the CD in the drive. The whole operating system will run from the CD. You can also optionally install it on your hard drive if you like it by clicking the install icon on your desktop.
There is also a tool for repartitioning your hard drive in the System->File System menu called QT Parted. This way you can have both Windows and SimplyMepis on your hard drive and choose which one you want to run everytime your computer boots.
Just out of curiosity, how do you define "power" users, and why wouldn't they consider using Windows?
Is there a way I can install Linux on my computer without erasing anything?
Is there a way I can install Linux on my computer without erasing anything?
www.mepis.org
Burn the ISO to CD and then boot your computer with the CD in the drive. The whole operating system will run from the CD. You can also optionally install it on your hard drive if you like it by clicking the install icon on your desktop.
There is also a tool for repartitioning your hard drive in the System->File System menu called QT Parted. This way you can have both Windows and SimplyMepis on your hard drive and choose which one you want to run everytime your computer boots.
OS popularity
Are you talking about OS's used for servers?
Apache has a greater market share than IIS, which leads me to believe that linux is in fact the main OS in the server market. Where to you get your stats?
Also, any linux-based OS is completely configurable, while windows leaves you with very few options.
Also, Linux is not the main operating system in the market, which is why it isn't targetted as much by viruses or hackers.
Apache has a greater market share than IIS, which leads me to believe that linux is in fact the main OS in the server market. Where to you get your stats?
Also, any linux-based OS is completely configurable, while windows leaves you with very few options.
vagueness
What internet services are you talking about?
Have you ever examined the source code of your services to ensure that they are secure? Myself and thousands of developers examine the source of services built for unix OS's. That, and the release cycle of open source software is what makes it so secure.
Windows can be just as secure as linux.
Have you ever examined the source code of your services to ensure that they are secure? Myself and thousands of developers examine the source of services built for unix OS's. That, and the release cycle of open source software is what makes it so secure.
Windows has several issues that large web site operators do not like:
Transparency, security, flexibility, and cost.
...
Transparency, security, flexibility, and cost.
...
Oh and another thing, you think Windows is flexible? Windows has a bigger lockdown on what you can and can't do, than Linux-based OS's. I think Linux-based OS's are more flexible than Windows. I've tried several flavors of linux on this very machine, none-of-which were as strict as the Windows XP Professional I'm using right now or the Windows 7 I have on my gaming computer. Have you tried Windows Vista yet? ... Everyone who uses/used a linux flavor knows that its more flexible than Windows, so you can't use flexibility as an excuse, xing. Its a bold faced lie, and I'm calling you out on it. I want a better reason than "Transparency, security, flexibility, and cost." Did I mention Windows has a bigger software support? Support windows and your so called cost would become irrelevant. I don't think security is quite the issue either. A company does take steps to secure their computers. Besides, LST lists what it's web server secures, from the web server side that is. Not to mention, Linux is just as much at risk as Windows. It's all in the user's response to how secure they wan't their machine. So really, you still have nothing to stand on for not supporting Windows... How about proving me wrong and supporting Windows for a year, or provide some hard evidence of trying to support Windows and the project failed.
After, doing a Google Search on "Which OS has more flexibility" may not have turned up accurate results, but I definitely didn't see Windows mentioned when flexibility was used, while a Yahoo search, using the same words, gave me a hit rough hit. By the way, I could be wrong, but I believe there is a bigger software support for Windows, than for Linux. I'm sure you'll make money off the Windows users.
Guess I won't be spreading the word, seeing how I prefer Windows over Linux cause its "Flexible".
@arron-imc: By the way, arron-imc, where are you getting your facts about Apache making Linux the main OS in the server market? If it can run on Windows, then Apache cannot be called a Linux flavor, perhaps maybe an emulator at best, but certainly not an OS. Apache may be popular, but it certainly does not make the deciding factor in OS choices. It may be just me, but I think its Linux that makes Apache the main web server in the market, not Apache making Linux the main OS in the market. Anyways, I'm just curious to know.