Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to Windows, AOLServer, and OACS

Posted by Don Baccus on
Under Unix/Linux, once set up neither AOLserver nor Apache require much in the way of babysitting as long as you're not overloading the box to the point where it starts to melt.  I know's struggling a bit on x86/Linux but it's way up in the high percentile range of traffic.

So a good AOLserver implementation under Windows shouldn't be any more difficult to keep running than Apache 2.0 under Windows.  Win2k when stressed out still seems to be less reliable than Linux when stressed out but it's no longer the kind of order-of-magnitude difference one used to see (I'm basing this on hearsay and third-party statements, not personally having experience trying to keep either NT or 2K servers running).

Of course giving your customer a pre-configured brand-new x86 box with Linux/AOLserver/OACS/PG would still cost less than a Win2K server license but for folks who like to spend money needlessly Win2K/AOLserver makes about as much sense as any other solution involving spending money needlessly ...