Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4404455" data-attributes="member: 2732">ASP.NET as a platform runs fine and is well supported.&nbsp; So does SQL Server.&nbsp; (SQL Server is loads better than MySQL).I really doubt ASP.NET is the cause of Gleemax's failures.&nbsp; (Sharepoint is somewhat of a beast though and I wouldn't recommend it for public high-traffic sites.)It doesn't really matter is its LAMP or Windows based.&nbsp; What matters is not just the strength of the technology, but the strength of the coders and design process.&nbsp; It is very possible to create a bad site with any tool.&nbsp; It could be the methodology of how they built the site--it could be time based, budget based, lack of captial (for instance they only have X servers when they need Y, they didn't implement Caching, etc.)&nbsp; Maybe they were too rushed and weren't allowed to optimize things.&nbsp; Or some bugs were considered &quot;acceptable failures&quot;.Anyway, Plane Sailing is correct.&nbsp; Do not fall for the trap of &quot;Microsoft Sucks, Open Source Rules&quot;.&nbsp; Anybody who is prejudiced against Microsoft should take a look at the problems companies like Twitter and other Web 2.0 companies are having using a Framework like Ruby on Rails, or the problems MySQL has with certain tasks.&nbsp; There is no perfect platform.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 4404455, member: 2732"] ASP.NET as a platform runs fine and is well supported. So does SQL Server. (SQL Server is loads better than MySQL). I really doubt ASP.NET is the cause of Gleemax's failures. (Sharepoint is somewhat of a beast though and I wouldn't recommend it for public high-traffic sites.) It doesn't really matter is its LAMP or Windows based. What matters is not just the strength of the technology, but the strength of the coders and design process. It is very possible to create a bad site with any tool. It could be the methodology of how they built the site--it could be time based, budget based, lack of captial (for instance they only have X servers when they need Y, they didn't implement Caching, etc.) Maybe they were too rushed and weren't allowed to optimize things. Or some bugs were considered "acceptable failures". Anyway, Plane Sailing is correct. Do not fall for the trap of "Microsoft Sucks, Open Source Rules". Anybody who is prejudiced against Microsoft should take a look at the problems companies like Twitter and other Web 2.0 companies are having using a Framework like Ruby on Rails, or the problems MySQL has with certain tasks. There is no perfect platform. [/QUOTE]

Verification