An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft, inspired perhaps by the ease of selecting and installing iPhone apps, has taken a similar approach to gather back market share of its IIS web server in a predominantly Apache/PHP market. 10 open source CMS, gallery, wiki, and blog tools were chosen to populate the eco-system, dubbed Web App Gallery. Developers must agree to principles and can now submit their PHP or .NET application for inclusion. Once an application is in the gallery, Windows users use Microsoft Web Platform Installer, released in a keynote at MIX this week, which inspects the the local system, and installs and configures dependencies like the IIS webserver, PHP, URL re-writers, and file permissions. Screenshots show this to be quite easy for the typical computer user. This could provide some real competition for WAMP and Linux shell install processes."
It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.
You think this is a sign Microsoft is legitimately trying to reach out to the web community? Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?
Generally, I think the last thing the web needs is more servers running IIS.
You think this is a sign Microsoft is legitimately trying to reach out to the web community? Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?
Um.. what's the difference? One thing I can promise you is that Microsoft, like any other company, does what it feels is in its best interest. ie, they aren't trying to do anyone a favor here, they're trying to make more money.
I guess the difference would be their target audience. Are they targeting some random joe who wants to setup a wordpress blog? Or are they targeting server administrator who would be making the decisions about what software to use?
I'm inclined to think that they want to put IIS (and ASP.NET) in front of as many casual Windows-based web developers as possible. Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work - especially since a number of PHP web apps require some odd hacks to get them to work under IIS.
In order to be "deployable" under these settings, new developers will have to use the same hacks and/or workarounds, and could well forget to address how the standard behavior will act on *AMP servers, theoretically creating a bunch of new PHP web apps that will only deploy properly on PHP/IIS servers.
Of course, the number of hosts that are offering PHP/IIS rather than *AMP is absolutely miniscule, so these apps catching on (if this is the case) is slim to none.
Part of me thinks that it's more a ploy to get.NET in front of PHP developers, trying to sell them on the "look at all of this premade, drag-and-drop functionality" thing, but I doubt that will make a difference. Devs that need what.NET offers are going to already be using IIS setups and PHP devs will probably ignore it due to the relatively steep learning curve (or just being forced to work in Visual Studio unless you want to memorize an entire framework).
So... I have no idea. If my cynicism is correct, then I see what they're trying to do but don't see it working that well. If not, then your guess is as good as mine.
Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work
Ah but it will, Microsoft developers don't tend to look outside the box to see if there's anything else out there - they generally assume that MS provides all they would ever need, and if MS doesn't provide it, its either not available at all, or they never needed it anyway.
This is why this will succeed, the MS blogs and communities will pick up on it and suddenly they'll think its the best thing ever. I doubt they'll actually use much PHP, that's just the teaser to pre-populate the site with apps, they'll all get taken over with ASP.NET MVC stuff before too long -the MS crowd just don't like to install 'foreign' stuff like PHP when they will think nothing of installing over a gig of.net framework to start playing with C#.
The redistributables are not exactly a gig - though I always think like that because they are huge (I have to download the full ones to install on my customer's site as they're not connected to the internet)
But: add them up, its not a gig, but its getting there:
You'll notice, "free" applies to other people's software. Microsoft, ever infinitely gracious, deigns to allow you to give your software away so that they can sell more of theirs.
Nobody should be surprised by a move like this. Web applications, CMSes and the like, are complementary goods to web servers and OSes. Everybody wants goods complementary to their own products to be cheaper, so as to drive demand. This isn't some sort of philosophical revolution, just Econ 101 + self interest on MS's part.
Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?
This is MS trying to show everyone they can play in the "cloud" with the cool kids. It's the Zune for SAS.
Back in the day MS came out with Explorer and hosed Netscape. Seems like ever since they wait for the trend to establish itself and then come in with a competing product trying to recreate that market capture moment from years ago. Only they show up late with products that are usually tied to their OS platform and maybe a little dorky.
Microsoft trying to be hip and trendy sometimes reminds me of a middle-aged guy hitting on his daughters college-age friends.
Explorer never hosed Netscape, it doesn't compete in any way with any Netscape product that ever existed. Internet Explorer on the other hand drove Navigator into the ground and they are still recovering from that.
Honestly, if their agreement made it so they would host projects for Apache as well, I'd totally jump onboard. I mean after all, sourceforge hosts projects for Windows and IIS. Why does Microsoft segregate? If they are talking about embracing open source, they can't sit here picking and choosing. They need to embrace or STFU already. You can't be kinda pregnant.
PHPNuke and other CMS'es or weblog thingies like Wordpress made it simple to create websites for the masses of people that just wanted something simple to host their website. Of course, they never kept up with any of the updates or didn't even give a hoot about security. Next thing you know you have a bunch of websites that are cracked and now serve ads and malware.
...and I think the others are usually a lot easier to install. Microsoft's takes at least 5 steps (with steps like 1. "Download, Configure, Install MySQL").
Meanwhile, on many other systems, it is a lot less work: Ubuntu: 1. In the Programs menu, click "Add/Remove" 2. Select the CMS (or whatever) that you want, and click "Install" 3. Enjoy.
Other debian systems: 1. apt-get install my-favourite-cms
Freebsd: 1. cd/usr/ports/www/my-favourite-cms; make install
And finally, a quick comparison between this new Microsoft way and the usual ways with GNU Linux/BSD: Installing is easier with GNU Linux/BSD Configuration is easier with GNU Linux/BSD Support is generally more available with GNU Linux/BSD Writing plugins is generally a whole lot easier with GNU Linux/BSD because the code is available
Especially with the new tools available, I believe IIS deserves to die.
It isn't apache (the webserver) that provides the comfort you describe. The package managing system is. So why should IIS (the webserver) die? Someone should provide a package managing system to enable the comfort for IIS. Oh, look at that, the summary says Microsoft is doing that.
"Microsoft, inspired[1] perhaps by the ease of selecting and installing iPhone apps, has taken a similar approach to gather back market share of its IIS web server in a predominantly Apache/PHP market. 10 open source[2] CMS, gallery, wiki, and blog tools were chosen to populate the eco-system, dubbed Web App Gallery.
[1] I think submitter mis-spelled "feeling threatened".
[2] Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?
Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?
Open Source != Good. Closed Source != Bad. Just as open source and bad are not mutually exclusive, closed source and good are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what Stallman thinks. I have used quite a few closed source programs that I like quite a bit, and quite a few open source programs that were plain awful. And vice versa. The idea that in order to be a Good Thing (tm) it has to be Open Source (tm) is a Weird Thing (tm).
This is probably tangental; but Stallman takes no position on the quality of proprietary or free software programs. His position is strictly concerned with the ethics and implications for freedom of the two.
It is the business side guys, the ones who talk about "open source" who advance the argument that the development model produces better, as opposed to freer or more ethical, software
You don't have to agree with him; but you should, in that case, at least disagree with him rather than somebody else entirely.
True, but "good" and "bad" do not necessarily only refer to quality. I think a lot of knee-jerk (which, in this case, apparently was a joke that I missed:) ) reactions of "Microsoft! Closed source! Lynch them!" come from more the "ethical" side than the business side... the sort of "I think Linux is the end-all operating system" mentality. Not to say someone usually comes out and says it like that, but there does appear to be that stance taken when non-Linux (or more generally, anything-related-to-Wind
Servers are maintained by people who are not computer newbies and need a GUI. Normally they know how to handle a shell. Extremely ease install routines for server applications suggest that maintaining a server and keeping it secure is a trivial task, just like clicking those shiny "install" buttons. This is not the case, and you better know how to keep your server save if you run it on the web, especially if you make the somewhat disturbing choice to run it under Windows.
There are plenty of people with servers out there that don't know what they're doing and couldn't restart a service if their control panel software got hosed.
That may be true for larger sites, but there's a huge market for low-cost, turnkey web hosting usually fronted with cPanel or Plesk. Microsoft wants to get into that market.
Real administrators don't use package managers, either. Real administrators know how to handle compiling from source for anything they want to install and spending two hours configuring it for their system.
Real Linux users don't use silly things like synaptic and apt-get and other such command line tools. Real Linux users use wget to get a tarball and compile from source, editing menus in gnome or kde by themselves (if they ever use gnome or kde, most of the time Real Linux Users just use lynx).
Sigh. This isn't for servers. This is for developers. You know, the people who develop that which is eventually deployed to your precious servers, without which those servers would be useless â" as servers tend to require something to, you know, SERVE.
Jesus. Server administrators should be happy about this. Let Joe Developer hack away at his Wordpress install on his local machine, rather than bugging you right away to install it on the server.
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I've seen a.NET product forced to run on a Linux server too. Yes, it worked (by and large). Was the amount of time wasted on both sides of the project far, far more than the cost of buying a copy of Windows Server? You bet.
Right tools for the right job. Yes, I could use a clawhead hammer to screw in a screw if I absolutely had to, but like hell am I going to waste my time trying when I could just go out and spend $3 on a screwdriver.
Running a server requires some technical knowhow. The more you attempt to "dumb it down" the higher chances you have with someone who really doesn't know what they are doing to admin a server. This is a bad thing for a few reasons, A) A GUI or any other "helper" program makes your server more insecure, a simple command line install running only Apache and a firewall is going to have less security holes by default then the person running Apache, a Firewall all under X and KDE. B) It is very, very, very, easy to socially engineer GUI attacks. On the other hand, its a lot harder on a command line because most of the documentation is standardized. C) If you don't even know what you are doing, how are you securing your box? If someone can't understand a command line, how are they possibly going to understand the complexities in making a server reasonably secure?
The overworked IT guy should know how to run a server using the command line if one of his principle duties is running a server. A command line is no slower than a GUI (its faster in most cases) to someone who knows how to use it. If you hire someone to run a server, they better know what they are doing.
And since it only runs on Windows, its just more reason send Microsoft some more money! Oh wait! I LOOKED at an ASP page earlier. I think I owe Ballmer another quarter....
The reason why Microsoft is giving support to open source applications is not because it wishes to support open source.
It is because it fears the open source operating system more than anything else. It imagines that if they welcome open source application developers onto the Microsoft platform they will be able to undermine support for the rival operating system (Linux).
If and when the rival operating system fades into disuse, those open source application developers will find that the Microsoft embrace ca
Microsoft, inspired perhaps by the ease of selecting and installing iPhone apps
Yup. Cuz nobody's every thought about a package manager before. Especially not one with a nice, GUI front end.
Hey, maybe Microsoft will adopt something similar for the Xbox 360. You know, to make it easier to download add-ons, small games, videos, and so on. They could call it, I don't know, Xbox Live Marketplace or something. Too bad it's too late for them to have done it for the Xbox. Real shame that.
Seriously, I do some web dev volunteer stuff. On OSX setting up AMP is so easy. The machine comes with apache and php to start with. Most apps (PHPAdmin/ joomla/ smarty) install easily.
My friend who helps out runs Ubuntu and its again a straight forward installs to get his LAMP going.
this is mostly to get third party stuff and the dev tools. If the goal is just to get a web dev environment setup period, then it IS pretty much that simple in Windows too, as its preinstalled, its just not activated. You go in the Add/Remove programs, click IIS and ASP.NET, and thats pretty much it. You're missing the database (but for something simplistic, Jet is built in...otherwise you just get SQL Server Express with a next next next finish wizard).
This just makes that all even -easier-, and setup stuf
OK... I've only read up on it a little so far, but I have to ask:
Most of those apps use mysql on the backend (at least WP and Drupal do... and those are two of the main apps touted). BUT! The platform only mentions SQL Server as far as I've read so far. Is MySQL quietly installed or is this some port of those apps that uses SQL Server? Some DB Abstraction Layer (find that hard to believe)?
Mod me down for not reading enough or being lazy if you want, but I an still trying to figure out how they include
This could provide some real competition for WAMP and Linux shell install processes.
sudo apt-get install wordpress
Oooooh yeah, that *was* difficult!
Also, this isn't Microsoft copying Apple as much as it's copying Fantastico [netenberg.com]. Fantastico (when combined with cPanel) has had the "point and click to install your web app" thing down for year. Proprietary, yes. Buggy, yes. But it works and is a standard feature on any decent commercial Linux webhosting account.
Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than
being flat broke and having a stomach ache.
-- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"
But... (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.
You think this is a sign Microsoft is legitimately trying to reach out to the web community? Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?
Generally, I think the last thing the web needs is more servers running IIS.
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think this is a sign Microsoft is legitimately trying to reach out to the web community? Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?
Um.. what's the difference? One thing I can promise you is that Microsoft, like any other company, does what it feels is in its best interest. ie, they aren't trying to do anyone a favor here, they're trying to make more money.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the difference would be their target audience. Are they targeting some random joe who wants to setup a wordpress blog? Or are they targeting server administrator who would be making the decisions about what software to use?
I can't really tell to be honest.
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm inclined to think that they want to put IIS (and ASP.NET) in front of as many casual Windows-based web developers as possible. Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work - especially since a number of PHP web apps require some odd hacks to get them to work under IIS.
In order to be "deployable" under these settings, new developers will have to use the same hacks and/or workarounds, and could well forget to address how the standard behavior will act on *AMP servers, theoretically creating a bunch of new PHP web apps that will only deploy properly on PHP/IIS servers.
Of course, the number of hosts that are offering PHP/IIS rather than *AMP is absolutely miniscule, so these apps catching on (if this is the case) is slim to none.
Part of me thinks that it's more a ploy to get .NET in front of PHP developers, trying to sell them on the "look at all of this premade, drag-and-drop functionality" thing, but I doubt that will make a difference. Devs that need what .NET offers are going to already be using IIS setups and PHP devs will probably ignore it due to the relatively steep learning curve (or just being forced to work in Visual Studio unless you want to memorize an entire framework).
So... I have no idea. If my cynicism is correct, then I see what they're trying to do but don't see it working that well. If not, then your guess is as good as mine.
Parent
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work
Ah but it will, Microsoft developers don't tend to look outside the box to see if there's anything else out there - they generally assume that MS provides all they would ever need, and if MS doesn't provide it, its either not available at all, or they never needed it anyway.
This is why this will succeed, the MS blogs and communities will pick up on it and suddenly they'll think its the best thing ever. I doubt they'll actually use much PHP, that's just the teaser to pre-populate the site with apps, they'll all get taken over with ASP.NET MVC stuff before too long -the MS crowd just don't like to install 'foreign' stuff like PHP when they will think nothing of installing over a gig of .net framework to start playing with C#.
So - I don't know if it'll work well either.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The redistributables are not exactly a gig - though I always think like that because they are huge (I have to download the full ones to install on my customer's site as they're not connected to the internet)
But: add them up, its not a gig, but its getting there:
plus another 50 odd Mb for th
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.
Nonsense [thepiratebay.org]
Parent
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not every day you see "Microsoft" and "Free" in the same headline.
Search for 'Microsoft' in google. One of the top results will be "Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Parent
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody should be surprised by a move like this. Web applications, CMSes and the like, are complementary goods to web servers and OSes. Everybody wants goods complementary to their own products to be cheaper, so as to drive demand. This isn't some sort of philosophical revolution, just Econ 101 + self interest on MS's part.
Parent
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is this just another attempt to grab server market share from Apache and the Linux community?
This is MS trying to show everyone they can play in the "cloud" with the cool kids. It's the Zune for SAS.
Back in the day MS came out with Explorer and hosed Netscape. Seems like ever since they wait for the trend to establish itself and then come in with a competing product trying to recreate that market capture moment from years ago. Only they show up late with products that are usually tied to their OS platform and maybe a little dorky.
Microsoft trying to be hip and trendy sometimes reminds me of a middle-aged guy hitting on his daughters college-age friends.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only they show up late with products that are usually tied to their OS platform and maybe a little dorky.
Doesn't that describe IE?
Re: (Score:2)
Explorer never hosed Netscape, it doesn't compete in any way with any Netscape product that ever existed. Internet Explorer on the other hand drove Navigator into the ground and they are still recovering from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not "free" as in beer, "free" as in cheese in a mousetrap...
Parent
Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (Score:4, Insightful)
PHPNuke and other CMS'es or weblog thingies like Wordpress made it simple to create websites for the masses of people that just wanted something simple to host their website. Of course, they never kept up with any of the updates or didn't even give a hoot about security. Next thing you know you have a bunch of websites that are cracked and now serve ads and malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know you have a bunch of websites that are cracked and freelance developers can charge big bucks to fix.
FTFY
Danger and opportunity are often the same!
Re:Great, another PHPNuke and Wordpress (Score:4, Insightful)
...and I think the others are usually a lot easier to install. Microsoft's takes at least 5 steps (with steps like 1. "Download, Configure, Install MySQL").
Meanwhile, on many other systems, it is a lot less work:
Ubuntu:
1. In the Programs menu, click "Add/Remove"
2. Select the CMS (or whatever) that you want, and click "Install"
3. Enjoy.
Other debian systems:
1. apt-get install my-favourite-cms
Freebsd: /usr/ports/www/my-favourite-cms; make install
1. cd
And finally, a quick comparison between this new Microsoft way and the usual ways with GNU Linux/BSD:
Installing is easier with GNU Linux/BSD
Configuration is easier with GNU Linux/BSD
Support is generally more available with GNU Linux/BSD
Writing plugins is generally a whole lot easier with GNU Linux/BSD because the code is available
Especially with the new tools available, I believe IIS deserves to die.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't apache (the webserver) that provides the comfort you describe. The package managing system is. So why should IIS (the webserver) die?
Someone should provide a package managing system to enable the comfort for IIS. Oh, look at that, the summary says Microsoft is doing that.
Microsoft web Platform installer or... (Score:2)
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
Spider invites flies into web. Film at 11.
Big deal. (Score:5, Funny)
[1] I think submitter mis-spelled "feeling threatened".
[2] Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?
Re:Big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Big deal. Two open source tools? How many closed-source tools are in the "ecosystem"?
Open Source != Good. Closed Source != Bad. Just as open source and bad are not mutually exclusive, closed source and good are not mutually exclusive, regardless of what Stallman thinks. I have used quite a few closed source programs that I like quite a bit, and quite a few open source programs that were plain awful. And vice versa. The idea that in order to be a Good Thing (tm) it has to be Open Source (tm) is a Weird Thing (tm).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly, a bad joke.
But, as someone's sig once said:
Re: (Score:2)
Ha. I've actually considered buying the shirt; I just forgot what the summary said... :)
Re:Big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the business side guys, the ones who talk about "open source" who advance the argument that the development model produces better, as opposed to freer or more ethical, software
You don't have to agree with him; but you should, in that case, at least disagree with him rather than somebody else entirely.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I choose Microsoft they will strive to trap me, perhaps not today but someday and for the rest of my life.
The fact that Microsoft is a greedy little spider is not something that should ever be ignored.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you misspelled "misspelled." ;-)
Not needed for server apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Servers are maintained by people who are not computer newbies and need a GUI. Normally they know how to handle a shell.
Extremely ease install routines for server applications suggest that maintaining a server and keeping it secure is a trivial task, just like clicking those shiny "install" buttons. This is not the case, and you better know how to keep your server save if you run it on the web, especially if you make the somewhat disturbing choice to run it under Windows.
Re:Not needed for server apps (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of people with servers out there that don't know what they're doing and couldn't restart a service if their control panel software got hosed.
Parent
Re:Not needed for server apps (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not needed for server apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Real administrators don't use package managers, either. Real administrators know how to handle compiling from source for anything they want to install and spending two hours configuring it for their system.
Real Linux users don't use silly things like synaptic and apt-get and other such command line tools. Real Linux users use wget to get a tarball and compile from source, editing menus in gnome or kde by themselves (if they ever use gnome or kde, most of the time Real Linux Users just use lynx).
The point
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus. Server administrators should be happy about this. Let Joe Developer hack away at his Wordpress install on his local machine, rather than bugging you right away to install it on the server.
you are wrong (Score:2)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=asp+under+apache [lmgtfy.com]
http://weblogs.asp.net/israelio/archive/2005/09/11/424852.aspx [asp.net]
"How to make Apache run ASP.NET / ASP.NET 2.0
Don't ask me why... but i've been asked to make Apache run ASP.NET.
IT Worked !
Even worked with ASP.NET 2.0 Site !
Following are the instruction to make Asp.Net work under apache:"
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I've seen a .NET product forced to run on a Linux server too. Yes, it worked (by and large). Was the amount of time wasted on both sides of the project far, far more than the cost of buying a copy of Windows Server? You bet.
Right tools for the right job. Yes, I could use a clawhead hammer to screw in a screw if I absolutely had to, but like hell am I going to waste my time trying when I could just go out and spend $3 on a screwdriver.
Re:Not needed for server apps (Score:4, Interesting)
The overworked IT guy should know how to run a server using the command line if one of his principle duties is running a server. A command line is no slower than a GUI (its faster in most cases) to someone who knows how to use it. If you hire someone to run a server, they better know what they are doing.
Parent
Re:Not needed for server apps (Score:4, Insightful)
No, "elitist nerds" just realize that if you screw this up you could end up being responsible for hosting kiddie porn.
Being "easy to setup" and "easy to setup correctly" are worlds apart.
Even the shiny happiness of Windows doesn't alter this. (despite all the propaganda to the contrary)
Parent
Can you avoid lock in? (Score:2, Funny)
Open source used to undermine Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason why Microsoft is giving support to open source applications is not because it wishes to support open source.
It is because it fears the open source operating system more than anything else. It imagines that if they welcome open source application developers onto the Microsoft platform they will be able to undermine support for the rival operating system (Linux).
If and when the rival operating system fades into disuse, those open source application developers will find that the Microsoft embrace ca
Yeah, The App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Cuz nobody's every thought about a package manager before. Especially not one with a nice, GUI front end.
Hey, maybe Microsoft will adopt something similar for the Xbox 360. You know, to make it easier to download add-ons, small games, videos, and so on. They could call it, I don't know, Xbox Live Marketplace or something. Too bad it's too late for them to have done it for the Xbox. Real shame that.
Playing Catch up to OSX and Linux (Score:2)
Seriously, I do some web dev volunteer stuff. On OSX setting up AMP is so easy. The machine comes with apache and php to start with. Most apps (PHPAdmin/ joomla/ smarty) install easily.
My friend who helps out runs Ubuntu and its again a straight forward installs to get his LAMP going.
Re: (Score:2)
this is mostly to get third party stuff and the dev tools. If the goal is just to get a web dev environment setup period, then it IS pretty much that simple in Windows too, as its preinstalled, its just not activated. You go in the Add/Remove programs, click IIS and ASP.NET, and thats pretty much it. You're missing the database (but for something simplistic, Jet is built in...otherwise you just get SQL Server Express with a next next next finish wizard).
This just makes that all even -easier-, and setup stuf
Web Software Eco-System (Score:3, Funny)
If it is an entire Eco-System it must include the viruses too I assume?
A platform question (Score:2)
OK ... I've only read up on it a little so far, but I have to ask:
Most of those apps use mysql on the backend (at least WP and Drupal do ... and those are two of the main apps touted). BUT! The platform only mentions SQL Server as far as I've read so far. Is MySQL quietly installed or is this some port of those apps that uses SQL Server? Some DB Abstraction Layer (find that hard to believe)?
Mod me down for not reading enough or being lazy if you want, but I an still trying to figure out how they include
Linux was there first (Score:2)
sudo apt-get install wordpress
Oooooh yeah, that *was* difficult!
Also, this isn't Microsoft copying Apple as much as it's copying Fantastico [netenberg.com]. Fantastico (when combined with cPanel) has had the "point and click to install your web app" thing down for year. Proprietary, yes. Buggy, yes. But it works and is a standard feature on any decent commercial Linux webhosting account.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: wrong site for "digging"