Microsoft Releases IIS FastCGI Module 269
Marcy writes "Microsoft has just announced the final release of the IIS FastCGI module for IIS 5.1 (XP), 6 (2003), and 7 (2008). This FastCGI module was built with collaboration from Zend, the creators of PHP, and is intended to solve the CGI on Windows problem." It's free as in beer.
On a similar note, Python + PHP via FastCGI (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I've been keeping an eye on is WPHP [pythonpaste.org]. It's only alpha-quality at the moment, but it's basically a WSGI application (WSGI is the standard Python web application interface) with a FastCGI backend that runs PHP. With something like this, you can mix and match PHP and Python — for example, you could write an authentication handler in Python and link it to a legacy PHP application.
Rasmus Lerdorf must be pissed today (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's one thing I like about it - I can edit the text file OR use the GUI.
The caveat is the text-file is XML, the pro is that it's structure in such a way that it's not as painful to edit by hand as normal XML. Also, there's a log file in the same directory that produces really helpful error messages if you screw up editing it by hand.
Having used both, I find neither significantly better/easier to administrate. They are just different
Re:free as in beer? (Score:4, Interesting)
They already have IIS, and it takes 5 minutes to set it up. The cost of time alone on setting up a new box to run something else almost immediately negates the benefit in most IT manager's eyes when all they are seeing is consulting time to setup, manage, and maintain a linux box they know almost nothing about.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not useful. I don't want to have to "drill down", I want to search for a keyword. Say I've got several hosts, and I want to see everything specifically relating to an IP address. I search for the text of the IP address. For beginners looking to change one option, complex GUIs are a mass of buttons and tabs, rather than something they can search for.
Turn off the options you don't want - same way you would in a command line.
I don't want to turn them off, I want to remove all reference to them.
If the GUI attaches to the registry, export the hive and attach it.
That's not useful. I want to mail the config so someone can read it, eg. paste my config to a newsgroup to ask a question when I'm stuck. The usual equivalent in windows-land is you spend days searching for stuff and getting dumb meaningless error messages ("please check that the domain controller is both locatable and contactable" - hey I know, Mr Paperclip, why don't YOU tell ME whether it was either unlocatable or uncontactable or both..), then eventually you find the answer on someone smug bloke's blog with a mugshot of him in the corner and 1000s of thankyou messages, rather than anywhere on MSDN. (incidentally, that error was nothing to do with the server being unlocatable or contactable, but being windows, I couldn't do a trace on it to find out where it was breaking, I just had to click "OK" and try something else).
Yep, text-y configs you can't change things they don't give you options for either!
Text-y configs usually have some level of scriptability, eg. "IfDefined" in apache. Syntax that might apply to one feature will usually apply to all features, making things a lot more versatile.
Another advantage of text configuration is that you can arrange the order of the file according to what's important. You can also add comments.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the keyword(s) you think up aren't in there? If the author of the document hasn't provided enough notes. I've found cases like that in text files. In those situations, I would have vastly preferred a GUI.
Remember: You aren't everyone - Just because you can't find a use for something doesn't mean someone else can.
I don't want to turn them off, I want to remove all reference to them.
And if they are off in either case, who cares?
And what if the default is on - removing something could then turn it on. I have seen that in config files. For control purposes, it's better to have it there and set to precisely what you want than to ignore it and hope it goes away.
That's not useful. I want to mail the config so someone can read it, eg. paste my config to a newsgroup to ask a question when I'm stuck. The usual equivalent in windows-land is you spend days searching for stuff and getting dumb meaningless error messages ("please check that the domain controller is both locatable and contactable" - hey I know, Mr Paperclip, why don't YOU tell ME whether it was either unlocatable or uncontactable or both..), then eventually you find the answer on someone smug bloke's blog with a mugshot of him in the corner and 1000s of thankyou messages, rather than anywhere on MSDN. (incidentally, that error was nothing to do with the server being unlocatable or contactable, but being windows, I couldn't do a trace on it to find out where it was breaking, I just had to click "OK" and try something else).
So you have to use a hive-querying tool (command line or GUI), as opposed to a text editor (command line or GUI). If you are asking the questions, the people will either be on Windows, or have WINE. So, text or hive, you need a tool to open it, and the people helping you will probably have the appropriate tools around.
Oh, and trust me, I've had similar obscure errors in Linux with text-configured files, where I had to find some smug RTFM bloke who finally realized what I wanted wasn't documented before helping and making me feel a moron for not be a mind reader.
Text-y configs usually have some level of scriptability, eg. "IfDefined" in apache. Syntax that might apply to one feature will usually apply to all features, making things a lot more versatile.
s/usually/somtimes/. I've seen way to many "option=value" style configs where there was no scriptability.
Oh, and, believe it or not, GUI can too. It's usually provided with a text box, and help box with how the scripting can be done. Admittedly it is more rare though.
Another advantage of text configuration is that you can arrange the order of the file according to what's important. You can also add comments.
And you can have files for commets with GUI configs.
The advantages you find in most GUIs:
(a) You don't have to run extra commands to find out if you screwed something up in the config - it'll tell you immediately
(b) It's a lot less likely to make a typographic error in the file it saves to, than you are hand editing.
(c) If you don't know the name of an option you are searching for, or the text the developer decided to associate with them, you can find it easier by exploring the GUI, since GUIs are typically organized in a theme-based hierarchy.
Each has their advantages. Some advantages are more important to some people than others. Because of this, neither is universally better, and both are quite useful.
I know in my case, when I administrate IIS, I use both the GUI and the text file. When I administrate apache, I use the text file, because that's all there is, but I wish there were a gui available many times, because I could get the job of changing a few options done a lot faster using that than searching up and down the text file.
Re:free as in beer? (Score:3, Interesting)
As a PHP developer I care. I can convince someone to install a free official plugin by MS on his host, than convince him to buy something.
If it was paid, I'm sure, as any pointy haired management guy, he'd decide it's not important and run as CGI.
Then it's my fault it performs like crap.
Hence, it's a good thing it's there, and free.
--
So, that's about step 1 in the "Make PHP devs become Windows devs".
Now step 2: driving the PHP crowd to
You know this is what they want right. While cooperating with Zend they kept bad mouthing PHP on MSDN and offering tutorials to switch to the superior
WAMP + .NET - How? (Score:2, Interesting)
So how can I run all my lovely
I use LAMP/WAMP plenty and often, but
If Apache under Windows could offer
Before anyone tells me to write my web services using some lame Java technology - JUST DON'T!!!!
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't hurt my feelings; even probably implies that you have good reason to believe something. Good reason, not "well this is how I view things." I'm just sick of
If such follies as UAC in Vista is any indication (and that's just the tip of one very bloated iceberg), it's a pretty solid bet that MSFT simply tacked on more cycle-eating code to prevent break-ins.
And this has exactly what to do with Win2003 server? I can see you haven't actually used the product, so perhaps you should not comment on it with speculation. The OP posted some benchmarks at least. I at least work with Server 2003 everyday. Did you even check out the Server 2008 beta to see if this "safe bet" is as safe as you think?
In either case, don't complain to me - complain to Microsoft's marketing department, who went well out of their way to push that perception back when Windows Server 2003 launched (well, it came in second - right after the bazillion demonstrations showing how easy they made it to migrate for all the holdouts still using Windows NT 4.0).
Don't blame you for throwing out some statement for which you really have no basis in fact? I requested fact, you came back with your bias perceptions. Ya, I think I can blame you for that.