[ILUG] Hypocrisy?

[Colm MacCarthaigh]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:19:54PM +0000, John Allen wrote:
> So a lot of hard work was put into this site!, but a Windows 2000 host was 
> chosen, presumably before the site development began.

Nothing wrong with that, personally I find this thread amusing. We're
talking about a website, it doesn't really matter what OS a website
is running on; Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, Windows, Whatever - it's
not really important. They all have their own different management
issues, but none of them really impact their ability to host a website.

People on this list would generally argue that it's harder to secure
and maintain a windows server, but to extend that arguement we should
be worried if any technical companies are using Windows even on their
desktops.

Now what does matter, is the webserver used. I wouldn't trust any
technical company that hosts their website on IIS. Straight away
I would assign them a negative clue-factor. Either they don't know
what they're at, or their management and evaluation structures are
so bad that it's going to impact any services they may offer.

This isnt unique to IIS, I think the same (though to a lesser
extent) whenever I see Tomcat behind a major site, or other such ugly
contraptions. It's important to note though, it only matters if it's
a technical company. What webserver my Airline, Bank or CD seller uses
doesn't bother me in the least - as long as they're good at what they
do and have security sorted out.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net