Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Hosting Software and Control Panels : ASP pages

[Labina]

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

[JBIZ718]

Look into Chillisoft ASP....

That might point you in some direction..

[AndyB]

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

[SI-Chris]

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.

[Tim Greer]

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.

[StephenRS]

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.

[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.

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.))

[Tim Greer]

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.

[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!

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

[Tim Greer]

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.

[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 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.

[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.

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.

[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

[StephenRS]

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

[Tim Greer]

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.