December 6th, 2001, 06:26 AM
Home Development Environment - should I use Apache/Linux?
I am planning to do some development using PHP/MySQL. I assume that the best hosting environment for my site will be Apache/Linux - though I am pretty new to this stuff, so any comments will be gratefully received.
If my site is to be hosted using Apache/Linux does it make sense to use this as a development environment at home?
I assume my options are:
PHP/MySQL/PWS/Windows (I have Windows ME), or
What are the pro's and con's? I am looking for as simple a life as possible, both in terms of setting up the environment, developing, then making it all work in the hosts environment.
Thanks for your help.
December 6th, 2001, 07:31 AM
As you say, you will be ultimately using an environment with PHP/MySQL/S***Apache/Linux, then it would be best to use that for your development platform also. Although it does not hurt to develop in many different environments, centering on the environment that you will be using should be your first chose.
As for developing on a windows platform, many will tell you S***Apache is the way to go, and in many cases it will probably be the best way, but I don't believe that....
There are far better servers out there that perform better, than Apache, IIS and few other of the better know one's....
You could also take the time to look at other servers for your development, I say this because you said.......
I am looking for as simple a life as possible, both in terms of setting up the environment, developing, then making it all work in the hosts environment.
There are a few other servers out there that would be great for what you want.....
If you do look.....
Keep in mind things you should look for.......
Find a server that closely has the inner workings of a UNIX setup.........
that can support CRON, has onboard support for PERL, PHP, JSP right out of the box....
The most important thing, read peoples opinions, but don't follow what they tell you, because most of the time their opinions are base on their knowledge, and most of the time most peoples knowledge is very limited. Always read opinions, but then really research what you want to do!
December 6th, 2001, 07:32 AM
For home development I would suggest a dual boot workstation, with windows and php/apache/mysql/linux.
So you will be able to develop with tools like Dreamweaver, Homesite, Photoshop ... and even do some testing with PhpEd (if you install php) and then use linux as a test environment.
This in usual 3 stage environment (Development, Test and Production).
December 6th, 2001, 11:20 AM
>>There are far better servers out there that perform better, than
>>Apache, IIS and few other of the better know one's
cough-cough... mind telling me who they are? Apperantly I have been living somewhere in the stone age and haven't heard of them, because if they are sooo good why aren't they the ones on the top charts?
What do you mean by 'S***Apache'
>>For home development I would suggest a dual boot workstation,
>>with windows and php/apache/mysql/linux.
how is local web site developing going to be better with dual boot? Or do you recommend to develop on linux only? And if so, as far as I understood, dboy does not have experience with linux so do you recommend him first to learn it?
And you know I mean that.
December 6th, 2001, 11:23 AM
December 6th, 2001, 11:34 AM
Ok, there are my 2 cents.
I would go with win2k / Apache / PHP
Apache installs like a breeze.
I use Perl so I don't know about php, but with my setup I go at http://localhost/cgi-bin/script.pl and tadam, everything works exactly as when I upload that same script on my webserver and hit http://www.mydomain.com/cgi-bin/script.pl.
For development it's great, you still have dreamweaver, photoshop, etc.
If you have time and patience, you can install windows and linux dual boot, which would be the best, but then you have to learn linux..
December 6th, 2001, 12:15 PM
here goes the all-little "Al" again, you know what your problem is, you don't know what designing a network is all about. You and many others believe Apache is the S***, it because you have limited your mind to believe that!
Just because "SERVER WATCH" tell's you something does not mean it is the best, real life instances will show you that what you believe is the best can be shown to be the worse!
People like ("you"), I do not have no time for, you spend your time posting non-sense, so you can sound important, because you could never get a real job designing a global virtual network!
Next time reply to just the post, so you don't waste the person time who asked a honest (can I have your opinion) question!
December 6th, 2001, 01:59 PM
if you use a development environment made of Development, Test and Production you Develop on windows (wysiwyg editors ...) and you can also run some basic tests, then you Test on linux, in an environment much similar to the Production or deployment environment.
Not counting that a newbie will have better to keep the old Windows just in case.
December 6th, 2001, 02:08 PM
If you are going to be doing any work in *nix environment, it would be bad to have that at home, but *nix types can be a shock to those who are only use to windoze environments. I would at least recomend you downloading cygwin so that you can have access to some of the *nix style of commands and environment to help break you in.
One other thing I would recommend is that when you test something, test it in both IE and Netscape, if not another browser to make sure they are compatible. Most often, IE will let you get by with things the Netscape will not.
December 6th, 2001, 03:03 PM
Heh...you really got me there....'limited your mind'...hehe...gosh you gotta stop watching sci-fi you know. What do you have against apache? Any hard numbers or is it just a figment of your imagination?
Nope, dope, I couldn't care less what some 'server watch' says, and the link was meant for dboy to see what servers he can choose from. And would you define 'real lise instances'?
Dude, that is just cold Although I am happy for ya, you have learnt a new expression - 'global virtual network!'. Keep on learning and you might be somebody some day (don't quote me on that though ). If you dont have time for 'people like me', why bother writing a reply?
Could you be kind enough to point me something that is offtopic in my post? I didn't think so.
But the thing is, you still haven't answered my question: which server are "far better" then apache and iis? And what makes them so great? O, wait, I know!! Could it be because they do not exist??? Show us some facts. I guess you won't I guess you can't... can you?
And you know I mean that.
December 6th, 2001, 03:10 PM
I have a question, and this may sound ignorant of me, but how is iis good? It is MS right? Wouldn't that just mean it is just an hidden door waiting for someone to find it? I may be wrong, that is why I asked.
December 6th, 2001, 03:15 PM
Well, it is second most popular server afterall, so I am pretty sure there has to be something good about it Actually it is extremely easy to set up and to control, plus all this point and click thing drives some people nuts and they cannot live without it. 'Some people', in majority of cases, have probably just finished a course in cc about administration and, sure enough, they were learning how to work with iis. So they think they can handle all what there is to it using iis. Who's right, who's wrong? I dont want to get into that, I mean it all boils out to admin - if he is good so is the server, if he doesn't do his job server goes down.
And you know I mean that.
December 6th, 2001, 03:19 PM
Ok, I can live with that answer, but I imagine a lot of the popularity of iis and MS products is that MS owns the majority of the market. Oh well, and the point and click thing drives me nuts also, but what drives me nuts is that everyone is so "dependant" on it. You take away someone's mouse and they think the world is over.
December 7th, 2001, 06:31 PM
At first I had to reread your posts a few times, I wasn't quite sure I was reading straight, but it seems that you're suggesting in this thread that people who believe apache is the '****' as you put it are limited... in some way or another... mmm...
I'm a fan of microsoft when it comes to workstations, don't get me wrong, but when it comes to a solid server environment surely you can't compare a UNIX based networking solution to a M$ based solution?
Are you not aware that the internet was built on the foundation that UNIX provided back in the 60's? You don't seem to be...
And you would rather pay M$ $$$'s for a solution with which you may learn a small amount about networking, but where the goodies are all hidden from you by a slick GUI?
UNIX and in general the OSS software that it breeds (apache included) are inherently 'difficult' to learn and implement; however it is for this very matter that these applications and OS's make you think more about how you're implementing your solution. As a consequence you learn more about networking and are given little choice but to head towards a more secure and stable environment for yourself and your users.
Contrary to what you say about apache user's having let their minds be 'limited', opting for apache (even on a windows platform) is a much more sensible option than IIS/PWS.
To the main point of the thread though! I would highly recommend buying a minimal second hand machine and installing linux or BSD on it. Another benefit of choosing OSS/*nix/apache is that it takes next to no power to run a server equivalent in speed to a faster NT counterpart. Hence you could get by perfectly adequately using a small P166 with 16MB RAM with linux/apache/mysql/php installed.
On your main machine, keep windows by all means - it's so convenient and 'easy' to use - perfect as a workstation, especially when you need to be checking that web graphics look ok displayed in NS4 and IE....
The setup I have is pretty cool - a freeBSD machine with apache/mysql/php on, but also with Samba configured so I can connect to the webdev shares on it from the windows machine - best of both worlds. The monitor on the BSD machine is never on, any maintenance work I do on it is done from a telnet/ssh terminal from the winbox... really does teach you a lot setting it up.
December 7th, 2001, 06:51 PM
Munk, that was just well thought out and oh, so true!
The company I work for has a Linux firewall that is a 233MHz and it never misses a beat. This handles our web services, apache, php and it does not have a monitor, nor is hardly touched by the network admin. On the other hand, we have two M$ servers that have been more trouble than naught, mind you I do agree about windoze as a workstation, but that is about it, and only a limited degree. But back to my point, *nix can bring out the best in cheap boxes as a server, they are just very hard to beat.