Do asp pages only work on NT servers or do they work on UNIX ones also?

Look into Chillisoft ASP....

That might point you in some direction..

NT servers, unless a Unix host uses Chilisoft (as mentioned above) or an add-on for Apache called Apache::ASP. Those are the only two I know about.

Andy

There's one problem with ASP on Linux that may or may not apply to your situation. Most people looking to use ASP also want to run an Access database, which Linux doesn't support in any form (although ChiliSoft! integrates well with MySQL). If you want to run an Access database, your only option is Windows.

Originally posted by IntelligentHosting.com
There's one problem with ASP on Linux that may or may not apply to your situation. Most people looking to use ASP also want to run an Access database, which Linux doesn't support in any form (although ChiliSoft! integrates well with MySQL). If you want to run an Access database, your only option is Windows.

Yeah, but Access DB isn't anything someone would want to use anyway, really, other than for shopping lists, so I don't assume that would make many people want to stay on NT. However, I don't know why people would want to dare try ASP on Linux, due to the costs and other issues anyway. There's other drawbacks to Linux based ASP, but you're right and NT is sometimes best left to NT.

This might be overkill for your needs, but an option to consider...

Do you have a dedicated server and an extra 96MB of RAM?

You could always run VMWare for Linux and host a Windows NT 4.0 install on it. Chili!Soft isn't cheap ($500)...

100% compatibility, Not much CPU loss, and configuration (of WinNT) is easy -- you can configure it on your own system and move the VMWare image over to your production web server.

Of course, you have to secure both operating systems, but that isn't that complicated. You are dealing with all native Windows NT stuff.

And you would need two IP addresses... but most dedicated server providers give you more than one at no cost...

Now I haven't done this on Linux (I've done the oposite, host Linux on Win2K)... so not sure how hard it would be to configure VMWare to autostart on bootup and so forth... but VMWare has a pretty big following in the Linux community, so I'm sure it isn't too hard to find out.

Like I said at the start, likely overkill for most, but true 100% compatibility while having the same hardware for both Linux and WinNT.

Tim_Greer -- the Access database driver that comes with WinNT4/Win2K is very good if USED CORRECTLY.

As a consultant, I've done more than one replacement of SQL Server and Oracle with the Access driver! Yes, sites that get millions of hits a month.

Good database design is good design. How you plan your tables, field sizes, record sizes, and how you deal with concurrency (record locking)... in your APPLICATION code (ASP / JSP/ Cold Fusion / PHP / etc).

I have a customer right now who has a site running over 1 million hits a month on a Access database with over 600,000 active records. Query times on that 600,000 record table are under 0.02 seconds (single instance). This is on a standard generic server provided by an ISP for $300/month. I see no reason why that database can't keep growing to support over 1 million records.

Based on my observations: Most web developers are not properly trained in SQL design and don't know how to even do very basic things like selecting good key fields. Again and again I see developers choose massive text fields for primary keys instead of the smallest possible field (I'm old fashioned, I use Integer values for all primary key fields).

The goal of a web developer should be to write their application to run on ANSI standard SQL, and perform good on almost any database. Only after your application is all complete should you go back and add special hooks for extra performance. And make them OPTIONS depending on the database used.

My Access-driven sites can easily be moved to SQL Server, Oracle, ProgresSQL, etc. Often without changing any of the SQL. Sometimes fields like currency and datetime need adjustment, but not much.

((All too often on the Microsoft mailing lists and forums people advise "use stored procedures" when the problem is fundamental to the table design... stored procedures just make porting harder, and often are band-aid to fix poor design.))

Originally posted by StephenRS
Tim_Greer -- the Access database driver that comes with WinNT4/Win2K is very good if USED CORRECTLY.

As a consultant, I've done more than one replacement of SQL Server and Oracle with the Access driver! Yes, sites that get millions of hits a month.

[SNIP]




Maybe I got the wrong impression of your post and what you had meant? There's no need to get into a religious war on the web board about MS products, vs open source, etc... right? So, let's not go there and let's not try and act like anyone that argues a point you believe the be true (to you), must not know how to "use it correctly" or insinuate that this is due to only poor design on the part of the people that disagree with _you_. Did I misunderstand that?

Obviously the degree of knowledge and talent a programmer/designer has, the better it will run and this has and always will contribute to the differences in opinion for some people, but I base my comments on the knowledge and experience, not because I didn't know enough to design it well enough -- and it seemed, by your post, that you were basically saying that was the reason for people's differing opinion about MS Access.

The fact is, MS Access isn't known for it's salability and robustness, in comparison to other tools. Ms Access is not completely worthless, but it's simply not the best choice, not in comparison to many other tools.

If someone's interested in reasons, they need to do a search and find their own reasons, since some reasons may or may not be relevant to their needs. I think most of us are aware of the fact that some tools are better than other's, depending on the task at hand. Some tools do better at certain functions, even MS Access in comparison to MySQL, for example, and certainly the opposite.

I was speaking in general terms and on the majority of reasons why MS Access is inferior, but that all depends on the opinion of someone that may or may not be an advocate of Access or MySQL or something else, but let's not assume or insinuate people are less qualified to interject their opinions or statements, in opposition to _you_, because that's just going to start a flame war... and what good is that?

1,000,000 hits a month, is something to go off of, but not enough to really tell us anything. It also depends on many variables. Sure, MS Access can handle so-many accesses, for certain tasks, and maybe even better than MySQL, but MySQL is, in my opinion, superior in the majority of the functions that are most important to me. If you got a site with 1,000,000 hits a _day_, then maybe that would tell us more. I don't think you'll find many people that will say MySQL, for example, can't handle 1,000,000 hits a _month_ either.

There are portability issues, but that also comes with design, and, obviously a poor design is a poor design, in any language, any implementation, any aspect. This is true of anything, but that doesn't provide realistic or relevant evidence that it's not less scalable or robust, and I don't believe it is -- due to the design of the tool alone. Other aspects come into play as well, such as all around system performance and what's available. There's simply too many variables involved here and by the information we have immediately available via researching it, MS Access is simply not the best choice.

However, there are reasons, surely, of why it might be a reasonable, fine or even better choice... I just don't see it, but that's my opinion... of course, you have yours... But I am confident that I "know what I'm doing"... you're not the only developer out there with an opinion, try not to get so offended by mine and insinuate the other party is less qualified or their opinion is less valid.. if that's indeed what you meant, and I get the impression that you did.

You wrote
=========
There's no need to get into a religious war on the web board about MS products, vs open source, etc... right? So, let's not go there and let's not try and act like anyone that argues a point you believe it, must not know how to "use it correctly" or insinuate that this is due to only poor design on the part of the people that disagree with _you_.
==========

I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't even seem to take into consideration anything I wrote!

Hello? Where did I say anything against open source? I referenced SQL Server and Oracle, are those Open Source now? I use both commercial and free tools.

My point was very simple: Most web code out there stinks in terms of database design and concurrency.

Microsoft "web" developers in general are less educated than opensource folks. It is the AUTHORS of the sites that makes Access unreliable, I've seen very few issues with the database itself.

I see servers of all types, Microsoft, Linux, BSD -- crash daily because of poor design. Nothing to do with the operating system selection or language the programs are written in!

I think you shoudl READ what I said, I never said a single thing against MySQL! :angry:

You were the one who said Access was a bad choice, I was just saying otherwise.

Originally posted by StephenRS
You wrote
=========
There's no need to get into a religious war on the web board about MS products, vs open source, etc... right? So, let's not go there and let's not try and act like anyone that argues a point you believe it, must not know how to "use it correctly" or insinuate that this is due to only poor design on the part of the people that disagree with _you_.
==========

I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't even seem to take into consideration anything I wrote!

Hello? Where did I say anything against open source? I referenced SQL Server and Oracle, are those Open Source now? I use both commercial and free tools.

My point was very simple: Most web code out there stinks in terms of database design and concurrency.

Microsoft "web" developers in general are less educated than opensource folks. It is the AUTHORS of the sites that makes Access unreliable, I've seen very few issues with the database itself.

I see servers of all types, Microsoft, Linux, BSD -- crash daily because of poor design. Nothing to do with the operating system selection or language the programs are written in!

I think you shoudl READ what I said, I never said a single thing against MySQL! :angry:

You were the one who said Access was a bad choice, I was just saying otherwise.

Calm down... :-) No need to get angry about it. Actually, I was editing my post to state that "I got the impression by your post and I might be wrong". However, by the time I edited it (I've been busy), you've already read it and responded.

Yes, I'm surely aware of what I said and what you said. I.e.: "You were the one who said Access was a bad choice, I was just saying otherwise." That's exactly my point. I believe it is a bad choice and you state otherwise -- and in the task of doing so, you clearly indicated that I must believe otherwise, do to poor designing... or, as I said, that was the impression I got. I think it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that if people use the common, basic, slow functions, basic and slow design in any type of arena, the results will suffer. You basically said little to no more to support your opposing opinion about it "not being a poor choice", which doesn't hold much water. Exactly what did you genuinely contribute that I didn't "take into consideration"?

I was making an example about you speaking "against open source", not that you were. I should have been more clear about it, just making a point of how ridiculous it seemed.
What you "referenced" is inconsequential, since that wasn't the point.

You said: "My point was very simple: Most web code out there stinks in terms of database design and concurrency." Okay, and your point? How does that show that MS Access is not a poor choice? It doesn't, nothing you said provides any reason to think otherwise. As you said, poor design, is poor design.. no matter what the product. How does that show that MS Access isn't a poor choice, especially in comparison? (And what was originally the subject and content thereof, by the way)?

You said:

"Microsoft "web" developers in general are less educated than opensource folks. It is the AUTHORS of the sites that makes Access unreliable, I've seen very few issues with the database itself."

Yes, I agree that they are less educated in general, it seems. However, I was talking about the "MS developers", as in "the product they develop" (I.e., Access). I'd never be foolish enough to base the quality of a product, based on how many people do or do not understand how to properly use it... why do you? I speak, specifically, in regards to the fact that in comparison, get people that know how to use MySQL and people that know how to use Access.. people that understand the pro's and con's, people that have specific tasks and in general, most people that I'm aware of, will choose MySQL over Access, because Access is not as robust for the amount of tasks that MySQL is, for example. Get pissed off about that opinion of mine all you like, but let's concentrate on the product/tool, not how many poor developers there are out there.


You said: "I see servers of all types, Microsoft, Linux, BSD -- crash daily because of poor design. Nothing to do with the operating system selection or language the programs are written in!"

I agree and that is obvious. This doesn't provide reason to state that MS Access is a good choice.

"I think you shoudl READ what I said, I never said a single thing against MySQL! :angry:"

I did, I suggest you do the same.


"You were the one who said Access was a bad choice, I was just saying otherwise."

Exactly, and you didn't provide a very good reason. I clearly said that it depends on the task at hand, I would never assume that it's just a good choice all around. Try not to take it so personally. This goes back to my original comment... there's no need to start having a religious war about it (or anything else that's ridiculous to argue about), so I'll end it there. People can do their own research and people have different opinions -- none are necessarily more correct, as it greatly depends. Again, nothing personal, I just didn't see you make a valid argument to provide reason to support your claim that MS Access is not a bad choice -- even if it does work for some things. Well, cheers! Whatever works for you.

I'm going to try again... yes, it is about design. Most web site software is of very poor design. I study sites, I try to study all kinds, and in general -- most of what has made it to the web is anything but well designed.

For something to be reliable, it doesn't have to be expensive. It doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't have to be open source or closed, it just has to be reliable.

It does have to be understood. It does have to be used correctly.

We are in a field where most people "in the practice" have not had proper training. These developers have only a few years of experience, and even if they have a long TIME doing things, doesn't mean their experience is good. Often times I've seen people hired for their art skills alone, then given the job of building an interactive / database driven web site.

It would be OK if this was just an odd thing, but it isn't... it is how ALMOST ALL of it is happening right now.

All I'm trying to say...
"Work smatter, not harder". "Better design, not better parts".

Anything can be made to be crap, anything can be made to be gold. Skill and time spent does matter.

Maybe in your world you have seen Access always be bad. In my world, I have seen it bad too. As I have seen MySQL, Oracle, Sybase, PostgreSQL, DB2, you name it -- they can all be done bad.

Web site developers are some of the least experienced of almost all computer developers. The level of entry is trivial, and that is why most sites are unreliable.

This has nothing to do with brand, cost, open vs. closed source. This just has to do with realizing that we are still in an industry that is new and driven by misinformation and confusion. Study the automotive industry from 1920 to 1950, we are pretty much at that level. We haven't even learned about safety, fuel efficiency, production consistency, etc, etc, etc.

Take a step back and think about it. It is all new, there is no consistency ('best practice') from web site to web site, it is utter chaos. The chaos is what makes things unreliable, not the tools.

Just because you have seen something fail 1000 times, doesn't mean it is unreliable. In the screwed up infant world of the web right now, it really can be done wrong by 1000 people :) We could go back and forth and show each other how EVERY Product has failed 1000 times.

My point is very simple: I could make any web site work just as good with either MySQL or Access - and just as reliable! There is nothing within Access itself that makes it unreliable, it is that most people f*ck it up, just like most people f*ck up MySQL.

It is not easy to do things quickly with quality. Right now we (the web software industry) tends to make serious compromises on quality to favor quick release.

Your last reply had a statement that jumped out at me. To me, this one statement is at the root of what you and I disagree on.

You said: ---->> I think it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that if people use the common, basic, slow functions, basic and slow design in any type of arena, the results will suffer. <<----

To me, that is just OPPOSITE of what I believe.

First off, basic functions do NOT have to be slow. The more basic, the more fast! On a SQL database, I promise you that if you use a 30 VARCHAR as your primary key, it is way slower than using a INTEGER. Basics = Integer.

To me, your (quoted above) statement is like saying a football team that has a coach who focuses "ON THE BASICS" can never win.

I have written real sites using BASIC functions that are portable to almost any SQL database, and they work great. I am a people (see quote above).

I personally believe the web is in the state it is (unreliable) because there have been 5 years of steady focus on NEW NEW NEW and not BETTER BETTER BETTER. We need to get BACK to (computer science) basics. Better logic, better code.

In may ways, that is what is going on in the operating system world (open vs. commercial) -- but the web development world isn't focused on quality right now... and needs to! We would rather be using the latest FLASH animation and animated GIF files than focus on how to make a web site database more reliable or robust.

The .com failures are the result of this. Instead of being excited about an idea, let's actually look at the results and how we got there :)

We don't have to agree, I just want us both to understand each other. I think this illustrates where we differ in our believes.

More specific... I believe most web sites are built on very poorly designed database table structures and logic. And that often database design is forced to follow web design... when in reality, they both must work together. This has lead to the "so and so database product isn't reliable" that many take as common experience.

Access was a solid and reliable product YEARS before it ever was used on the web. It wasn't even developed by Microsoft! It is the foolish web developers of the world who have given it a bad name. In many respects, it is one of the best database engines out there -- and free with the operating system (even on Win98). I'm not saying that the other products don't have their place, just that I have seen both MySQL and Access screwed up ... it isn't the products, it is the web developers.

P.S. I do not need to calm down. That is like saying "slow your brain down", or "dumb up"... haha. Sorry if I've upset you, but you have not upset me.

Has he figured out that all I was trying to do was get to 30 posts :)

Look, he said something was bad, and I tried to make the simple point that anything can be MADE to look bad -- and that I had experience with both products and found them to be pretty close to equal. Of course, there are differences, but not that much.

In that spirit:
PostgreSQL is way better than MySQL and Access! hehe.
Reference this: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/08/14/2128237.shtml

Labina, there is one more product I know of that I don't believe was mentioned:

InstantASP for Linux:
http://www.halcyonsoft.com/news/iaspvschili.asp

Originally posted by StephenRS
I'm going to try again... yes, it is about design. Most web site software is of very poor design. I study sites, I try to study all kinds, and in general -- most of what has made it to the web is anything bug well designed.


This is ridiculous.. and this will be the last post about this I cover (I'll breifly respond to the other's and that's the end of it), because of that fact. I'll start by saying, you can drop the attitude, as if you're the only person here qualified to make these statements one way or the other. Also, this claim as to the aspect of a lot of poor designers out there, is not all you're saying. You're saying, in essence, that all products are just as good as others, and it's up to the person, not the tool, which is ludicrous. This is evidenced by your post... Be it you realize that or not, that's what you're saying. It's not a bad product and if people think it is, they must not have the proper training or knowledge. Welcome to troll-ville! That's a friggin' MS advocate, straw-man argument. I see I didn't get the wrong impression.


For something to be reliable, it doesn't have to be expensive. It doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't have to be open source or closed, it just has to be reliable.

It does have to be understood. It does have to be used correctly.


True. However, some things, in comparison, all used correctly, some *must* be better than other's, if both are used to their full potential. Not only that, but some are designed better (product-wise).


We are in a field where most people "in the practice" have not had proper training. These developers have only a few years of experience, and even if they have a long TIME doing things, doesn't mean their experience is good. Often times I've seen people hired for their art skills alone, then given the job of building an interactive / database driven web site.


True. What is the point to complaining about all the poor developers out there? We're all aware of this.


It would be OK if this was just an odd thing, but it isn't... it is how ALMOST ALL of it is happening right now.


Yes, this is true. Now, your point???


All I'm trying to say...
"Work smatter, not harder". "Better design, not better parts".



Good advice, even though people should know this already or find a new line of work if they can't figure it out for themselves! However, your point of why Access is a good choice comes in WHERE?


Anything can be made to be crap, anything can be made to be gold. Skill and time spent does matter.


True, very true. Still though, some products are better than other products. A Viper is better than a Pinto, for example. Do you want better gas mileage, or better performance? Or, are we going to talk about a car that offers both? Or, are we going to say that that no car is any different and it's just the driver that's the problem?


Maybe in your world you have seen Access always be bad. In my world, I have seen it bad too. As I have seen MySQL, Oracle, Sybase, ProgresSQL, DB2, you name it -- they can all be done bad.


I didn't say it's always bad, it works for some things and it might work better for other things even, but in the majority of things, it's a bad choice in comparison. Don't tell me your Pinto can out perform my Viper... it's just not a fact, some products are better than others. Sometimes it depends on what you need to use the product for. However, don't act like I'm a bad driver, because I say that the Viper out performs the Pinto, because it does... I don't care how many bad drivers are on the road, that's irrelevant.


Web site developers are some of the least experienced of almost all computer developers. The level of entry is trivial, and that is why most sites are unreliable.


I'm sure that's true. And, again, I ask you; What is your point to this nonsense? You continue to make these pointless remarks and statements that have nothing to do with Access being a good choice. You are trying to build your way up to the point where you can just say "Well, if you think Access is less quality in comparison to another tool, then you just are a bad, untrained web developer". You go ahead and try and stand behind that statement or opinion and take a poll of how many people are stupid enough to even consider that weak argument!


This has nothing to do with brand, cost, open vs. closed source.


It has everything to do with it! Some products are better quality than others.. deal with it. I'm not talking about how good or bad some developers are, that doesn't even fit into the equation! Sure, some products are easier for the less qualified to use, but that IS why we still have Visual Basic, that IS why we still have Access, that IS why we still have Windows! That IS my opinion! :-)


This just has to do with realizing that we are still in an industry that is new and driven by misinformation and confusion.


Yes, true of some people. But know this; Not all people that disagree with you, are some grossly misinformed dim-wit that just doesn't know better.


Study the automotive industry from 1920 to 1950, we are pretty much at that level. We haven't even learned about safety, fuel efficiency, production consistency, etc, etc, etc.


Irrelevant, desperate points. Again, how is Access not a poor choice when compared to other SQL tools?


Take a step back and think about it.


I don't know, this is all swirling around my head so fast, I can't keep up.. I'm confused and all... I just don't know better. My mother just bought me this computer.. I think I'm in over my head.. I better leave the opinions to people more qualified to think... I don't know, this is just all too profound for me and I'm afraid I am one of those horrible, rebellious and free minded people that like to think for themselves.


It is all new, there is no consistency ('best practice') from web site to web site, it is utter chaos. The chaos is what makes things unreliable, not the tools.


True, to a point, but not entirely or even close to being realistic. Yes, the majority of people have no clue, this is true. However, STILL, that does NOT mean that certain products can not be better than other products. What are you having so much trouble comprehending here? Some "tools" are inferior or just all around bad. It's not ALWAYS the developers. Dare you say you meant otherwise, I'll just call you a liar now.


Just because you have seen something fail 1000 times, doesn't mean it is unreliable.


I agree that's true, if the person wasn't qualified to make that judgment call. Believe it or not, some are though! You're not the only person in the world with experience and you seem to lack any, by your statements. I never said, and you shouldn't assume, that the reasons I give for saying it's a poor choice, was due to my lack of understanding how to properly use the tool or properly design the database. This arrogance of yours, is ****ing pathetic. Is this the best you can do when someone disagrees with your opinion? Be rational, for goodness sakes!


In the screwed up infant world of the web right now, it really can be done wrong by 1000 people :) We could go back and forth and show each other how EVERY Product has failed 1000 times.


No, "we" don't. Don't include "me" in your "we". I don't work that way. I base my opinions on valid tests, benchmarks, theory, design, knowledge, experience, and much more. I don't assume because something failed to work for 1,000 unqualified people, that I should just conform to their statements and agree the product is inferior. I base this on something you obviously don't posses.

My point is very simple:


No it's not, you never made a point! You babbled on about a lot of BS rhetoric and philosophy that served absolutely no purpose, other than to show your biased and will make weak arguments in favor of your opinions. That's nothing new to witness on the Internet, mind you, but most of us are quit used to these lame tactics. You've made no relevant and no good or valid points at all. You simply said that developers are to blame, not the product, basically saying that people that don't agree your opinion about Access not being a poor choice, must be a poor developer. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.


I could make any web site work just as good with either MySQL or Access - and just as reliable!


So, that shows you're knowledge and ability are just that limited. Or, it shows that your task is probably too general to make any comparisons. Don't go and act like I must fault to use Access or understand it, because I do.. I just don't agree with your opinion that it's equal or better quality compared to other tools. That is all I said, but I don't care and just make things up to side step the issues. Evasiveness and wasting time will not impress me.


There is nothing within Access itself that makes it unreliable, it is that most people f*ck it up, just like most people f*ck up MySQL.


True, but provided they actually know what they are doing, they are likely to have an opinion that one is better, or better for certain tasks -- and yes, they do know what they are doing, enough of the time.


It is not easy to do things quickly with quality.


True, A... I mean, B... I mean... Your point? Is all you're going to say, is that people that don't like Access rushed it and didn't put enough time, thought or talent into it?


Right now we (the web software industry) tends to make serious compromises on quality to favor quick release.

Yes, some people do, but again, don't include me in your "we's", because I don't work that way. However, this is ridiculous, and you've made no points that are valid, so you have at it, I'm not going to explain the same things 100 different ways and have you say the same thing, as if you're mind is in another place, talking about another subject. Rant on about whatever you want, this invalid debate is over with as far as I'm concerned.

Go back to comp.databases.ms-access and tell them your theory about the Internet community, you won't have to argue why you think Access is a good tool with them and you can talk about bottled water or astro-turf for all I care, I'm done with this and you.

Originally posted by StephenRS
Your last reply had a statement that jumped out at me. To me, this one statement is at the root of what you and I disagree on.

You said: ---->> I think it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that if people use the common, basic, slow functions, basic and slow design in any type of arena, the results will suffer. <<----

To me, that is just OPPOSITE of what I believe.

First off, basic functions do NOT have to be slow. The more basic, the more fast! On a SQL database, I promise you that if you use a 30 VARCHAR as your primary key, it is way slower than using a INTEGER. Basics = Integer.

[SNIP]


To be clear, I wasn't saying basic isn't fast, stable or proper, just the fact that, as you said yourself even, people have to understand how to properly use it, design it, or code it, depending, for the most efficiency, stability, robustness, etc. I meant that anyway and thought that was what you meant. I simply said that even so, some tools are limited or not designed well and some are better than other's, not just the developers, even if that does play a role in it. As for anything else you want to make out of it that wasn't what I ever meant or said, feel free to assume more and more...

Originally posted by StephenRS
Has he figured out that all I was trying to do was get to 30 posts :)

Look, he said something was bad, and I tried to make the simple point that anything can be MADE to look bad -- and that I had experience with both products and found them to be pretty close to equal. Of course, there are differences, but not that much.

In that spirit:
PostgreSQL is way better than MySQL and Access! hehe.
Reference this: http://slashdot.org/articles/00/08/14/2128237.shtml

"Has he figured out that all I was trying to do was get to 30 posts :)".. so, you were just trying to get your name in a post or just post nonsense for no reason? Okay, I believe that, since you never made a point. I never, never disagreed that any tool or product can't be made to look bad. I and everyone else are completely aware of that fact, you just never made a valid point in protest to me saying that Access was a bad choice.. and that was my opinion, which I have emphasized. Be a smart alec all you like, it doesn't change that fact.

I can post many links, I'm sure, that are baised to one opinion or another, that doesn't mean anything, when it's from a die hard advocate of a certain product over another. I'm not offended by a product being better or worse, I use the most versitile and correct one for the job at hand. I don't need to agree with your views to qualify as a good developer, believe it or not. Arrogance never impressed me, but I will say a smart ass remark anyway -- the fact that you find Access and MySQL basically equal, just shows how much you aren't qualified. In the spirit of that, good luck with your "Junior Wanna-be" status. Cheers! :-)

Tim_Greer -- now you have yourself convinced that I came along to stir up trouble. However, it was YOU who started this by saying something negative.

Reading the thread, Chris Calabrese made the point that Access was a very popular database and it was a key missing component from Linux ASP solutions.

YOU went out of your way to say Access was unreliable, and offered no evidence to back your claim.

I offered a counter to that, that I have actual production web sites using Access and have found it to be very reliable. I also mentioned that performance was good, even under heavy load.

Personally I find MySQL, Access, Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, and ProgresSQL to all be reliable... if used correctly. Some are more forgiving than others, and they all have their share of problems.

I was just trying to counter _your claim_ that Access was unreliable. Unreliable (application) code, bad hardware, and poor table design can make any DBMS seem unreliable. Perhaps this explains why you think it is unreliable, and I do not. Millions of people use it every day.

*rubs his eyes* I'm not even going to try to read all that. :D

Ya theres too much to read here, looks like these two are in their own world on this one.

This is the "software guy's" forum, you ISP's don't understand (joke).

Yha, we did go pretty far off topic for the message thread, but not the forum :)

Originally posted by StephenRS
Tim_Greer -- now you have yourself convinced that I came along to stir up trouble. However, it was YOU who started this by saying something negative.

[SNIP]

I was just trying to counter _your claim_ that Access was unreliable. Unreliable (application) code, bad hardware, and poor table design can make any DBMS seem unreliable. Perhaps this explains why you think it is unreliable, and I do not. Millions of people use it every day.

Again, ignorance, arrogance and generally being an *******. I said it was a bad choice, you said it wasn't. A difference of opinion.

You say:

"Unreliable (application) code, bad hardware, and poor table design can make any DBMS seem unreliable. Perhaps this explains why you think it is unreliable, and I do not."

Again, only a jerk would say that. You simply have to continue to claim that the only reason I can possibly disagree with YOU, would be if I didn't know how to design it or code it properly. This is ridiculous BS, and all you've done. That didn't counter anything.. you simply and only said that I must be unqualified to come to the opinion I have, which is why I said I think you're a dick.

Tim,

I'm just going back to the statement that started this whole mess..... YOU SAID: "Access DB isn't anything someone would want to use anyway".

I'm sorry, but I am SOMEONE, and I have seen it used in MANY ways with great results.

Are you really having that hard of a time accepting that Access is reliable for some people?

Maybe the version you were on had a bug, but you have basically stated that ALL OF ACCESS is unreliable. It just isn't true.

I'm trying to suggest that maybe it ISN'T UNRELIABLE in all cases. Geesh, you don't have to get so personal about this. I never called you any names.

And I never said ANYTHING negative about any other DB product. I think they are all good! In the proper hands...

You say:

"I'm just going back to the statement that started this whole mess..... YOU SAID: "Access DB isn't anything someone would want to use anyway".

I'm sorry, but I am SOMEONE, and I have seen it used in MANY ways with great results."

I say: That's not what your first statement was. Your first statement was, that Access was good, because you personally think it is and it suits your needs. Your needs are not my needs. I clearly stated that it is good for some people's needs and perhaps even better for them, depending on the situation and whom they are. I don't think I would feel comfortable suggesting anyone use it, not when there's better products out there, which brought about your further comments about how they are all good. I disagree with that and you start going off, with every single post from the start, saying that I must just not know how to design or code it well -- refer to all the posts in this thread, that is a fact.

You said:

"Are you really having that hard of a time accepting that Access is reliable for some people?"

Ridiculous, I never said it didn't work for you or that YOU didn't find it reliable. I simply, and clearly said, that I don't think it's as reliable for many things that other similar products offer. You once again said that I must not know how to design it and that they are all the same as far as you're concerned.

You said:

"Maybe the version you were on had a bug, but you have basically stated that ALL OF ACCESS is unreliable. It just isn't true."

I didn't say it was ALL unreliable. I said that I don't have the opinion that people will want to use it when they can use better products that scale better and are more robust than MS Access. I then said, that even MS Access is better for some things, but not many things that I personally consider the most important and general, major aspects. You then said I must not know what I'm doing and that the products are all the same. Wherein, if I find one lesser quality or robust, that I just must not know how to design it. You are the one that seems to have trouble accepting that some products are different.

These two products I personally made examples from, vary greatly in how they are designed (built). Not how the database is designed, but the product. If you don't realize how difference these are, then you're lost. Some of these differences obviously made one product superior over the other, for certain tasks, no matter how well you understand how to design them -- it's how they are built and how they function, things you can't just design around in some cases. I.e., I don't care HOW much you know about both products, MySQL has a must faster read access, and it also can handle more and heavier read requests, this is a fact, because how it's designed.

You can design MS Access to run faster in some aspects too, but the products have a limit -- they are NOT the same. Depending on what you need, Access very well may not scale well or be robust enough -- these things are not due to the design of the database, but of the product. They are not the same, they are not the same, they are not the same. Because products differ, doesn't mean the person designing the database is an inferior coder, because there's no way to make Access compare to MySQL's heavy read robustness. Just one example.

You said:

"I'm trying to suggest that maybe it ISN'T UNRELIABLE in all cases. Geesh, you don't have to get so personal about this. I never called you any names."

Don't be a dick and I won't refer to you as a dick. It's simple. If you want a more civil response, try not insulting me in the process of your initial response. That's not difficult, is it? So, instead of saying "It's just as good, you just must not know what you're doing", you can say "Well, for what I'm doing, it works great -- here's what I'm doing, can you explain the technical reasons of how Access is not as robust or can't scale as well as another product?" But you didn't..

You didn't ask how far the limit might be on a certain type of design, you didn't ask for benchmark results, you didn't ask me to provide anything, other than a blatant attack I had to defend to show how petty that initial response was to my opinion. You left no room, other than for me to explain how what you said didn't make any sense and were invalid reasons to make your opinion hold any water. I don't care if you have a different opinion, I have no trouble accepting it, but don't care try and act like I must be some clueless, poor programmer, because I don't agree that Access is a good product.

THAT was the reason why this annoyed me and for my comments, as well as the length of this thread. I made these reasons clear, yet you resort to the same troll tactics you originally had. Get it through your thick head already, I am not going to tolerate this inane and lame trolling arrogance as being valid, until you make a reasonable claim or argument. That's not going to happen, if you can't even see this for what it is.

You said:

"And I never said ANYTHING negative about any other DB product. I think they are all good! In the proper hands..."

They are all as good as they can be, in the proper hands, so don't be a dick and act like people that find one of them to be a poor tool, to simply be a result of being in the wrong hands, for any BS reason you care to make up. A qualified programmer or designer, will find that some tools are better than others, and some are better than other's for general tasks and some are better than other's for specific tasks. To simply continue to stand there with this ridiculous contention that they are all good, nothing is wrong with any, and anyone that thinks otherwise, is just unqualified somehow, is just.. well, you. I won't continue this any longer. This is exactly how ridiculous this is.

I simply wouldn't allow to sit idly by and let you try and make me or other's appear to be less qualified than you, because you want to try and sound like anyone can spin hey into gold. Some things are flat out crap, some are crap and can do some good things... some are okay and do some things very well that other generally superior products still lack, some are better with the majority of things, some are just better in every way and some are just too experimental to make a judgment call. I'm speaking about anything, including SQL.

It's not like we're talking about Perl versus Python, we're talking about Win32 Perl versus Perl on a Unix/Linux variant. If we were talking about different products that worked so differently, then it would be different, but you're only talking about SQL vs. SQL and how they are all the same, when they are not. Some are not as good as others. I'll end on that note, since you're just going to make up more excuses anyway.

Ditto.

Glad this is electronic....we'd be turning a few redwoods into paper otherwise. <G>

So, back to original ?.....

What you guys were basically saying is, yes ASP can be implemented on a non-NT enviroment, but its not quite as 'reliable' as on a native NT box, so ASP on NT is the best way to go if you are doing ASP and that inorder to get the best "bang for your buck" both the database and interface should be well writen n tweaked for reliability? <pauses, catches breath n chugs Jolt Cola> :)

Kaith Sutai-Rustaz: The original question asked by Labina was: "Do asp pages only work on NT servers or do they work on UNIX ones also?"

Out of this there has been at least 4 solutions proposed:
-- Chili!ASP
-- Apache::ASP
-- I suggested the possibility of running a VMWare copy of NT 4 under a Linux system (true native ASP on Linux).
-- InstantASP

Then the whole issue of Access came up, but not by the original person who posted the question (Labina). We were just having a side discussion (obviously a heated one).

In terms of the ORIGINAL question... I don't even Labina presented enough information in the question to know what the right answer is.

Questions I have relative to the ORIGINAL question:

First off - does UNIX mean Linux?
Second -- Do you just have a few ASP pages that you want to run, or are you talking about a major application (such as an e-commerce suite)?
Third -- Is this your OWN ASP pages, are are you looking for feedback on what the best solution would be for an ISP who wants to host customer ASP pages?

There, right smack back on topic :)

Tim: I plead with you not to take this so personally, I do not appreciate the name calling.

Look, you and I disagree on some things, but I also think you are confused on what I was trying to say. Maybe I didn't do a good job of saying it, but let us start over.

What I'm saying is that a DBMS is like a car. Yes, some are better than others. Some are cheaper, some are faster. Some have more legroom. Relative to each other, some are "more reliable" -- but bottom line -- from the BIG PICTURE -- I'm saying that I believe they are ALL GOOD. Pretty much any car on the market gets you from point A to point B better than walking.

Using the car analogy...
I study accidents and failures. You know what I find? Yes, some cars are the cause of accidents more than others -- but in MOST cases -- we have a driver (pilot) problem! 95% of all accidents are driver caused. Yes, in those 5% remaining -- one car is shown to be better than another -- but we are missing the BIG PICTURE.

Perspectives...
=======================
-- The driver is the web programmer. We are on a information highway populated by drunk (inexperienced) drivers!

-- We shouldn't be adding 100 airbags to ever possible place on the car (DBMS), we should be forcing people (web developers) to have their drivers license suspended!

-- You can say that mySQL is better because it has a 10 gallon gas tank, and Access has only 6 gallons. But when someone goes down the interstate at rush hour, runs out of gas, and is rear-ended and killed -- do you blame the car for having a 6 gallon gas tank? No, the fuel guage was working -- it was the driver's responsibility to make sure they had gas!


More alike than different
===========================
That is the state of the web right now. Most web site code is CRAP, and we need to admit it. It isn't "Compaq vs. Sun", it isn't "Linux vs. WinNT", it isn't "Access vs. MySQL" -- the crisus today is that we are TOO FOCUSED on fixing components and not looking at how we USE those components. ((improving the driver vs. the car))

You don't have to agree, I just want you to understand what I was trying to say. It is NOTHING PERSONAL about you.

From the sounds of it, you write good code. I believe I write good code too. But you must realize that the rare "good code" is surrounded by web sites that are running on terrible code!

Back to Access
==============
I think Access has a reputation of "it sucks" that has mostly come from the fact that it is the most popular tool and has the most people screwing it up. Every single web project I have done on Access has worked out just as good as mySQL or Oracle... and every failure I have studied has always traced to improper use (driving on the wrong side of the road), hardware problems (being hit by another car), or bad code (the damn driver) -- the most frequent cause.

Please, don't take this so personal! You said Access was unreliable, offering no evidence. I post a reply that said I have found it is reliable... and I'm also trying to explain why you and I can both be right. Perception.

I am more than willing to show you some performance and table structures for the site I have running. Access is not unreliable for me and many people, and that is why I'm trying to counter your original statement. Just because YOU have found it unreliable, or have had others validate to you that it is unreliable.... you are missing the BIG PICTURE that we are surrounded by chaos (the currrent web industry).

One last gasp...
============
You do admit that the typical Linux MySQL PHP developer is a lot more experienced than the typical Windows98 Access ASP developer, right?

I'm saying that Access has been brought down by those people. I've ported applications between both Access and mySQL -- in the BIG PICTURE, they really aren't that different. They both store data, they both do it with a resonable amount of resources, and they are both about equally reliable. Each has their own bad versions and releases, but come on -- they are NOT that different.

I believe you are just spreading the "bias" Access sucks and is unreliable. I'm trying to call you on that. It isn't personal, it is a matter of debate -- and you and I have been doing that!

Originally posted by StephenRS
[A big, giant SNIP! ]


I agree with everything you said there, which might surprise you, but I never disagreed with it. I disagreed with the fact that it seemed, to me, that you were blatantly saying I was one of those other, mindlessly biased people, that just spread the false fables of software based on the popular opinion that I have heard other's say, or that I was unqualified somehow. I appreciate you clearing that up, and I wish you had previously.

I have my reasons, due to the design of the tool, as well the the limitations. I admit Access is good for many things, but I simply don't think it's better and that there are better options out there. It also depends on the platform. Of course it's possible and likely to assume someone didn't design a database to scale well and that is therefore their problem, and in most cases I agree it is, but of course that's not always the case either.

I simply didn't want to get into great detail and a long, dragged out discussion of why I said that I wouldn't suggest access. It didn't seem prudent at the time, when someone was just bringing up the side issue of Access and Linux, where I simply said "I wouldn't worry about that anyway, you don't want to use it". I saw after your response, that I ought to have briefly explained that and why I said it. Then again, maybe I'd be better off not even saying anything, since it is a potential for a debate such as we had. However, that's one of the few debates that didn't actually cover any of the technical aspects of why, which was pointless -- I'm sure you'll agree.

I'd be fine discussing the aspects and issues of the reasons why one might be better than another, and depending on what someone's goal and purpose and plan was to best determine it. I just never think among the masses and that's why I had to take what you said personally, because I never assumed or worked that way. I ignore what the masses assume or say that don't apply to the reality of the situation.


It's good to be informed and aware and experienced with things, but definitely you don't want to go on what other people assume. I do know exactly what you're talking about with the majority of coders and designers.. be it network, system, hardware, software, databases, interfaces, whatever. I agree most of it's poorly done, but that's why people like us get paid to fix those problems other people create or don't know how to do it and have it stable, secure and robust, etc. Anyway, if you decide to discuss the issues involved, start a new thread somewhere in the appropriate category and we can go from there. For now though, I think we can agree that this thread, for 95% of it, is worthless at this point, but it's always interesting to argue about things too, sometimes. It's not that I took it personally, beyond what I could only deduce as a direct comment about me at those very times, other than that, there's nothing to argue about anyway.

Since the original question of this thread was so simplistic, and it was answered right away... I don't think we killed that important of one :)

Anyway - you have forced me to consider how I respond to things too. I am never without fault, there is no one who is perfect.

Anyway, good night (assuming appropriate in this global forum). I actually had fun for most of it :confused:

I suggest you forget about running ASP on Linux. What good is ASP without support for 3rd party components.

Well, I've got a customer's site that was done all in ASP and is currently running on an NT server. I'm changing to a Linux host now and will be bringing over the customer's site. The ASP they use is basically a few subroutines, filled with a bunch of Response.Write's and a mail routine. They use ASP to generate their pages based on a template so that they can update the template in one place and all of their pages are thereby "updated" at the same time.

Rather than mess with turning their ASP into PHP and deal with the extension change of all of their pages, I'm going to try Apache::ASP. I'm expecting (fingers-crossed) the simplistic nature of the ASP used will not be more than Apache::ASP can handle. I'm not looking for comments on the odds of my success (although if you've tried it and failed please tell me), but rather just wanted to give an example of a real-world situation where running ASP on Linux would be an attractive solution.

Andy

I think you might be okay. What doesn't work can always be fixed.

Asp can be used on Linux ..it's just several times more powerful and flexible running on Windows.

It's understandable to attempt to use the existing asp already completed. I think that's probably the only use right now for asp on linux. I don't know anyone that would recommend building a new site using asp under linux though :)