Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

[David]

I have seen postings that indicate some developers are creating PHP
apps for a Windows server environment. I am not sure if they run
underr IIS or Apache, but I wonder why Windows and PHP vs. the
PHP/Apache/Linux triumvirate.

I would think that if you developed under windows, why not stick to
ASP.net and IIS. If you want to use Apache, why not stick with Linux.

Mostly curious.

[Ken Robinson]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?


David wrote:[color=blue]
> I have seen postings that indicate some developers are creating PHP
> apps for a Windows server environment. I am not sure if they run
> underr IIS or Apache, but I wonder why Windows and PHP vs. the
> PHP/Apache/Linux triumvirate.
>
> I would think that if you developed under windows, why not stick to
> ASP.net and IIS. If you want to use Apache, why not stick with Linux.[/color]

I develop my PHP code on a Windows laptop using local copies of
Apache/PHP/MySQL. By doing this, I don't have to be connected to the
Internet at all times and debugging is much easier. I don't have to be
uploading the code to the host all of the time and it reduces the
possibility of replacing working code with test code that may be buggy.
I don't even have IIS turned enabled on my laptop.

Apache runs on many differenct platforms, not only Linux.

Ken

[tom pester]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

I am beginner in php under windows. My reason for learning the language is
hat my employer wants me to have this skill :)
I have programmed in asp for 5 years and 2 years in asp.net and if it wasn't
for my employer I would never have given php a chance.

I must say php is a platform where you can acheive professional results very
quickly. It takes me back to the old classic asp days but now with lots and
lots of usefull functions.

Its always good to look at another approuch even if you can solve the problem
with your old skill. You always learn this way.

And its good to know that once I master php I can target unix, windows, etc
for deployment (unix is free, windows server are $$).
If you know asp you are confined to the windows world of doing things (there
is mono of course, I haven't tried that).

Cheers,
Tom Pester

[ManChild]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

David wrote:[color=blue]
> I have seen postings that indicate some developers are creating PHP
> apps for a Windows server environment. I am not sure if they run
> underr IIS or Apache, but I wonder why Windows and PHP vs. the
> PHP/Apache/Linux triumvirate.
>
> I would think that if you developed under windows, why not stick to
> ASP.net and IIS. If you want to use Apache, why not stick with Linux.
>
> Mostly curious.[/color]

I use PHP on Windows - the reason I do so as apposed to using ASP is
that I know my applications can be deployed on almost any OS and
Webserver combo known to man. I guess its my way with the heavy
emphasis on standards and CSS and so forth but I it gives me an edge
over using ASP. Ironically if I develop PHP on Linux I seem to have more
problems dealing with Windows after the fact that the other way round -
so I develop on Windows, test on *Nix and it seems to work well.

I do also code ASP/SQL Server/Oracle apps - simply because some clients
run Windows environments and PHP is not supported as policy.

J

[NC]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

David wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I have seen postings that indicate some developers are creating
> PHP apps for a Windows server environment. I am not sure if
> they run underr IIS or Apache, but I wonder why Windows and PHP
> vs. the PHP/Apache/Linux triumvirate.[/color]

Any number of reasons, really. Here are a few:

1. You want to have both PHP and ASP available for development
and testing. One way to solve this problem is to run PHP
under IIS (with ASP already there).
2. You want PHP to be a part of an application suite somehow
tied to Windows. One of my PHP/MySQL applications, for
example, contains a third-party data update utility
implemented as a Windows executable.
3. You want to automate certain tasks under Windows, and
command-line PHP attracts you as just the tool for the job.
4. You want command-line scripting with advanced capabilities
(such as access to databases, reading remote files, etc.)
5. You already have a Windows server running, but want to
deploy a PHP application.
[color=blue]
> I would think that if you developed under windows, why not
> stick to ASP.net and IIS.[/color]

Because PHP runs under IIS, too; also, PHP allows you to
break away from object-oriented programming, which in many
cases is unnecessarily confusing.
[color=blue]
> If you want to use Apache, why not stick with Linux.[/color]

What if you don't want to use any Web server at all (as in
command-line scripting)?

Cheers,
NC

[Chung Leong]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

At my place of employment we have a pair of quad-Xeon servers running
Windows 2000, Apache 2, Microsoft SQL Server, and PHP. We went with the
Windows route mainly for human resource reason. Everyone here knows
Windows already, whereas relatively few people know Linux. This makes
staffing and hiring much easier. Our office desktop support guy, for
instance, double as our server admin.

Why not ASP.Net and IIS? ASP.Net is a pain to work in while IIS
administration is still very much a dark art.

So we basically took the route of least unresistance, picking
technologies that seem most convinient.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

Chung Leong wrote:[color=blue]
> At my place of employment we have a pair of quad-Xeon servers running
> Windows 2000, Apache 2, Microsoft SQL Server, and PHP. We went with the
> Windows route mainly for human resource reason. Everyone here knows
> Windows already, whereas relatively few people know Linux. This makes
> staffing and hiring much easier. Our office desktop support guy, for
> instance, double as our server admin.
>
> Why not ASP.Net and IIS? ASP.Net is a pain to work in while IIS
> administration is still very much a dark art.
>
> So we basically took the route of least unresistance, picking
> technologies that seem most convinient.
>[/color]

Chung,

Yes, ASP.Net can be a pain in the posterior. But so can PHP, Perl or
other languages. It's all in what you're familiar with. And any of
these can generally do the job in web programming.

If your programmers weren't familiar with either PHP or ASP.Net, then I
can understand your decision to go the PHP route. It's easier to learn
and many programmers can come up to speed more quickly than ASP.Net. Of
course, it also has the advantage of being more portable.

However, if a large percentage of your programmers were already familiar
with ASP.Net, it would make more sense to go that route, IMHO.

You also might look at the possibility of migrating to Linux/Apache in
the future. I got my first Linux VPS a couple of years ago. I knew
virtually nothing about Linux at the time - and very little about
Apache. But I was able to pick both up in my spare time through some
books and web sites. And now I'm far from an expert - but I consider
myself competent enough to install software (without using the Debian
package manager), make changes to the Apache configuration file, and so
on. I wouldn't sell myself as a Linux admin - but I can handle my own
machines. Of course, I also remember the DOS 1.0 days - so I'm quite
comfortable working from a command prompt - that does make a difference!

My suggestion would be for you to get a test machine and install Linux
and Apache on it. Let people play with the machine (ensure you have
backups of the install - they WILL crash it at some point! :-) ).

The reason I say this is - Windows makes a decent desktop system. But
it has a large amount of unnecessary overhead. For instance, my VPS has
128K of RAM - and I'm not using all of it. I have 3GB of disk space -
but I'm only using a little over 1GB for the actual system. And
response time is great.

I've become a believer in using Linux for website. But I still think
Windows makes a more user-friendly desktop.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Henk Verhoeven]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

David wrote:[color=blue]
> I have seen postings that indicate some developers are creating PHP
> apps for a Windows server environment. I am not sure if they run
> underr IIS or Apache, but I wonder why Windows and PHP vs. the
> PHP/Apache/Linux triumvirate.
>
> I would think that if you developed under windows, why not stick to
> ASP.net and IIS.
>If you want to use Apache, why not stick with Linux.
>
> Mostly curious.[/color]

Some of my customers use windows, others use linux. If i don't want to
deny them this choice (IOW, if i do want all of them to be my
customers), why would i learn two languages if one suffices? Why would i
build my reusable components twice if php runs on both?

Henk Verhoeven,
www.phppeanuts.org.

[Chung Leong]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:[color=blue]
> The reason I say this is - Windows makes a decent desktop system. But
> it has a large amount of unnecessary overhead. For instance, my VPS has
> 128K of RAM - and I'm not using all of it. I have 3GB of disk space -
> but I'm only using a little over 1GB for the actual system. And
> response time is great.[/color]

Computing resource is cheap, while human resource is expensive.
Decisions are sometimes therefore made with greater regards to the
latter--that's the point I was trying to make. Windows might not be the
best OS for web hosting, but hiring a Linux/Unix guy was out of the
question.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

Chung Leong wrote:[color=blue]
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>[color=green]
>>The reason I say this is - Windows makes a decent desktop system. But
>>it has a large amount of unnecessary overhead. For instance, my VPS has
>>128K of RAM - and I'm not using all of it. I have 3GB of disk space -
>>but I'm only using a little over 1GB for the actual system. And
>>response time is great.[/color]
>
>
> Computing resource is cheap, while human resource is expensive.
> Decisions are sometimes therefore made with greater regards to the
> latter--that's the point I was trying to make. Windows might not be the
> best OS for web hosting, but hiring a Linux/Unix guy was out of the
> question.
>[/color]

Yes, computer resources are cheap. But maintenance becomes expensive
when you need two or three Windows machines to do the same job one Linux
machine can do. Windows is good - but quite frankly it's a resource
hog. As long as your web site isn't very busy, Windows will do just
fine. However, if your site gets busy, you'll find Windows will run out
of resources much faster than Linux will.

I understand hiring a Linux guy is out of the question. That's why I
suggested getting a Linux machine in house and let your people play with
it. It's a great way for them to learn Linux in their spare time (or
when they just need a break from programming). Get a couple of good
books and let them go at it. Even if they crash the machine, it's only
a test machine, after all (warning - do NOT do "rm -R /"!).

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Mladen Gogala]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:26:42 -0500, David wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have seen postings that indicate some developers are creating PHP
> apps for a Windows server environment. I am not sure if they run
> underr IIS or Apache, but I wonder why Windows and PHP vs. the
> PHP/Apache/Linux triumvirate.[/color]

Actually, Windoze is a better platform for a developer as there are many
more good IDE packages. If one writes it correctly, PHP application will
run on any platform. Windoze is the most comfortable for the vast majority
of developers and has things like Visio, MS-Project, Word, Outlook, Excel
and alike which are all miles ahead of their OO alternatives like Dia,
AbiWord, GNUmeric or OO.

--

http://www.mgogala.com

[Chung Leong]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:[color=blue]
> Yes, computer resources are cheap. But maintenance becomes expensive
> when you need two or three Windows machines to do the same job one Linux
> machine can do. Windows is good - but quite frankly it's a resource
> hog. As long as your web site isn't very busy, Windows will do just
> fine. However, if your site gets busy, you'll find Windows will run out
> of resources much faster than Linux will.[/color]

But the procedures and software for such tasks as back-up and patch
installation are the same for the web servers as they are for the file
and print servers, as well as desktop machines around the office. Using
Linux would mean having a separate sets of procedures and tracking
another OS for updates.
[color=blue]
> I understand hiring a Linux guy is out of the question. That's why I
> suggested getting a Linux machine in house and let your people play with
> it. It's a great way for them to learn Linux in their spare time (or
> when they just need a break from programming). Get a couple of good
> books and let them go at it. Even if they crash the machine, it's only
> a test machine, after all (warning - do NOT do "rm -R /"!).[/color]

There is a different between being able to do something and having a
certificate stating you can do something. The guy in charge of the
servers has a MSCE. He is not certified to administrate a Linux server,
nor was that in his job description when he was hired.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

Chung Leong wrote:[color=blue]
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> But the procedures and software for such tasks as back-up and patch
> installation are the same for the web servers as they are for the file
> and print servers, as well as desktop machines around the office. Using
> Linux would mean having a separate sets of procedures and tracking
> another OS for updates.
>[/color]

With the packages handlers the distributions use, updating is even
easier than with Windows. One command does it all - and if you wish,
that can be performed automatically.
[color=blue]
>
>
> There is a different between being able to do something and having a
> certificate stating you can do something. The guy in charge of the
> servers has a MSCE. He is not certified to administrate a Linux server,
> nor was that in his job description when he was hired.
>[/color]
Yes, there is a difference. Having a certificate means you passed the
test. It does NOT mean you can do the job. I've seen too many people
with (insert your favorite certificate here) not be able to do the job
they are 'certified' for. And I've seen too may people without (insert
your favorite certificate here) be able to do a much better job than
someone certified. Give me someone with experience over a "certified"
person any day.

And BTW - I'm not picking on MSCE or any other particular certification.
I'm speaking of most certifications out there today. A one or two day
"cram course" will get you by the test - but not teach you how to do the
job.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?

Mladen Gogala wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:26:42 -0500, David wrote:
>
>
> Actually, Windoze is a better platform for a developer as there are many
> more good IDE packages. If one writes it correctly, PHP application will
> run on any platform. Windoze is the most comfortable for the vast majority
> of developers and has things like Visio, MS-Project, Word, Outlook, Excel
> and alike which are all miles ahead of their OO alternatives like Dia,
> AbiWord, GNUmeric or OO.
>[/color]

You mean you don't write all your PHP in vi? :-)

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Chung Leong]

Re: Developing PHP under Windows - Why?


Jerry Stuckle wrote:[color=blue]
> Yes, there is a difference. Having a certificate means you passed the
> test. It does NOT mean you can do the job. I've seen too many people
> with (insert your favorite certificate here) not be able to do the job
> they are 'certified' for. And I've seen too may people without (insert
> your favorite certificate here) be able to do a much better job than
> someone certified. Give me someone with experience over a "certified"
> person any day.[/color]

Ah, but if the guy with the certificate fails to do his job, it's his
fault. If the guy without the certificate fails, it's the manager's
fault for assigning a task to someone who isn't unqualified.