Re: Why the IBM i *might* not be a good web server

John e

If you're going to quote people you could at least address them by name and
separate out comments so that other people can see who said what. The quotes
at the bottom are a mixture of my words and Aarons words and it is not very
clear (nor fair to Aaron) who said which? (I'll own up to the beans on toast
bit, I think Aarons is the Vinegar bit :-). And for info I didn't start this
thread either.

I didn't say that the i wasn't fit to be a web server, all I recall saying
is that I didn't see it being a market leader for web apps, and if one is to
base that purely on number of foot prints (machines running a web server) it
seems a pretty fair opinion.

Anyhow the web server (software) in use is only a small part of the equation
and not a critically important one either IMHO. Most web servers do their
jobs very well (I am not aware of any that don't?).

Maurice O'Prey

You shouldn't make statements that IBM i isn't fit to be a web server in>

a forum where many have had great success with it if you want to eat your>
toast and beans in peace.Why Not?? And define success??Or is "success"
something like "it works!"...Did you compare AS/400 webserving to the same
setting with apache on linux or IIS??Probably not as this is a lot of work.
And the TCO of an AS/400 is better , yes , thats very old news.The TCO with
a mainframe is even better (if you have that kind of business).But it's
comparing apples to oranges.The TCO is better if you compare running SAP
running on windows or AS/400, e.g.But thats a completely different thing.The
AS/400, e.g., has EBCDIC.This alone is enough to let the webserver run on a
different machine, without all the peculiar hassles the as/400 gives you for
free.

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:26:08 -0600
From: aaronbartell@xxxxxxxxx
To: web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Why the IBM i *might* not be a good web server

This is a new vein you started, not me. You shouldn't make statements

that

IBM i isn't fit to be a web server in a forum where many have had great
success with it if you want to eat your toast and beans in peace.

Currently I am eating my dinner ( beans on toast ). After I've eaten and

slept I may come back to you, although I do not see much point?

The point is that I don't think your reasons will be valid, though I

usually

learn about the worst parts of IBM i the most from those that dislike
certain aspects of it.

I don't know why I am so full of piss and vinegar today, but backing down

at

this point would be assimilation. So yes, please eat and rest so we can
have some good and fruitful discussion on the upsides and downsides of
Apache on IBM i vs. IIS on WindowsServer. I already know that Apache on

IBM

i isn't without it's faults, but it is VERY capable of being a great web
server in my experiences. Maybe we just need to share experiences and

that

will be enough?

Aaron Bartell
www.MowYourLawn.com/blog
www.OpenRPGUI.com
www.SoftwareSavesLives.com



On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Maurice O'Prey

<Maurice.Oprey@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

Hi Aaron

I had hoped we had put this to bed ( or at least agreed to respect each
other's views ). Currently I am eating my dinner ( beans on toast ).

After

I've eaten and slept I may come back to you, although I do not see much
point?

- Maurice

--
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.