Re: Moving to IIS

You can test web applications and  so on on PWS but you can't configure it
properly. It's OK for developers but that's about all. The NT WS and Windows
95/98m versions are the same. No difference at all. You can run Perl and/or
ASP on IIS. Sometimes ASP runs better, depending on the threading and memory
use of the applications (among other things). Permissions needed are
slightly different. I would avoid FrontPage extensions like the plague. Not
necessary and a real pain when they go wrong, plus the security can be a
nightmare. The MS site gives help on setting up ASP and Perl with IIS. I
haven't tried running perl on PWS, but I suspect that it won't run as well
as on IIS as you can't really tune the configuration.

HTH

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Kathy
  DNRC  Minister for Useful but Irritating Information and Trivia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: Harold A. Driscoll <harold(at)driscoll.chi.il.us>
To: Steve Bassler <bassmstr(at)westol.com>
Cc: HWG Servers <hwg-servers(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Moving to IIS


> At 18:02 29-01-00 , Steve Bassler wrote:
> >Putting aside how I feel about everything Micro$oft, I'm going
> >to have to deal with this, and I think I need some help.
>
> The last time I had to reinstall NT on my server, I put up Apache instead
> of IIS, got it configured for virtual servers, put it onto my laptop,
> configured my laptop for multiple-boot with NT (Apache (default), IIS, or
> neither), and got that all done is less time (including Apache learning)
> than it would have taken to get IIS reinstalled on my server, _not_
> counting the time to research and patch the annoying CGI bugs in IIS.
>
> > Is it [PWS] similar enough to IIS to do this, or is it a
> > different animal altogether?
>
> Yes. To both. It is a crippled IIS, and you'll be able to test most of the
> features. It has most of the bloat, most of the administration capability,
> and complexity, and some of the ways it (PWS v. IIS) is crippled perhaps
> only Redmond could understand.
>
> Also, the Win 98 version is somewhat more limited than the NT version of
> PWS... and of course Perl is similarly limited to what the toy O/S
wannabee
> is able to do.
>
> To sum up, yes, you'll be able to get various CGI scripts and other pieces
> to work under PWS. Will you be able to put all the pieces together there,
> that gets a maybe, with a better chance with PWS under NT workstation than
> with 98.
>
> >Second: Frontpage.  How useful is it?  Do I need it?
>
> If you like bad HTML that fails even basic portability tests, only then
can
> I imagine you'll want it. It rivals Micro$oft Office as being a great
> concept that fails in the implementation and delivery.
>
> >Third: ASP.  I've done all my scripting in perl so far.
> >Can I continue to do so or will I need to bite the bullet
> >and learn ASP?
>
> Perl can be run via CGI, or via ASP, as well as via command line. Some
have
> suggest ASP being the Redmond Kids attempts to put SSI (server side
> includes) on steroids... and the analogy includes the side-effects for
> many. <g>
>
> >Does it do anything that perl can't, or do it faster
> >or more efficiently (considering the platform/environment)?
>
> Perl can do many things easily that are difficult with other tools. Perl
> can call DLLs and other Windows complexities, and has wrappers (such as in
> the Win32 modules) for just about anything you might encounter.
>
> There is a very high overhead to start tasks and do a lot of other basic
> things under NT. So there are games played to improve performance by
> increasing complexity. And they can be played with Perl as well as just
> about anything else.
>
> So the answer is that you can use Perl for just about anything you need.
> Depending on how many layers of muddleware (middleware) are involved, it
> might be an ideal tool, or possibly a quite inefficient one.
>
> >That should be enough to start chewing on, don't you think?
>
> You may wonder if your are chewing, or being chewed upon. <g>
>
> Safe computing,  /Harold
>
> ps. Under a lame excuse of server security, the Redmond Kids have
> deliberately broken a few CGI environment variables, interestingly two
that
> are particularly relevant to portability. Check out the Microsoft
Knowledge
> Base for cryptic details on how to fix this, if it matters to you.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Harold A. Driscoll                 mailto:Harold(at)Driscoll.Chi.IL.US
> #include <std/disclaimer>                 http://Driscoll.Chi.IL.US
>

HWG: hwg-servers mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA