FP2003 and DWT requirements?

J

Jim Cheshire

Gerry said:
Hi Jim,

1) Live editing can be safer than off-line editing, because you only
have one version to worry about, it also allows proof reading by
simply hitting the refresh button. We have a world-wide operation,
and users need to see right-away (and collaborate) with what's
happening. They are not inside our firewall and don't have NetBIOS
access, so everything has to work over HTTP. There are also problems
with ASP and DATA driven pages not working properly unless they're
being served from a web server. I find this outweighs the worry of
someone making a typo and hitting "save". In two years of running
live we've never regretted an authoring action.
Click to expand...

No serious Web applications consist of only one copy. I work with
enterprise level customers frequently and none of them would ever even
consider such a thing. If you're doing any ASP development, surely you
develop, test, stage, and then move to production, don't you?

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Hi Jim,

Yes, we've been working live for over two years and the company before
was the same. Imagine you are the backward-thinking type person who has
to press "publish" every time they change a few sentences. Thousands of
files (plus _vti_bin), both locally and remotely have to be
enumerated, and date/time stamps have to be compared, the user then gets
"file XYZ has been changed by user ABC, are you sure you want to
overwrite" on some dynamic files or collaborative files, this is insane.

Here's a conversation to consider:

Boss:- I told the secretary to update our link page at 10:00am and our
assistant director has just phoned from China saying it's NOT updated.

Web_Guy:- Ah, well that's because it's not been "published" yet. Before
we had Frontpage extensions we used to have to work off-line with silly
"disk based webs" and then publish to the target server.

Boss:- But I thought you said we HAD Frontpage extensions??

Web_Guy:- We do.

Boss:- So what the hell is going on, maybe you don't want this job?

Web_Guy:- I'll get it published now.

Boss:- We are losing competitive advantage, our Chinese friends say they
can update INSTANTLY day or night, so why are we lagging behind?

Web_Guy:- Oh dear.

This Web_Guy is an idiot with no sense of how to stay on top in big
business. It's no wonder China is gaining competitive advantage.

Luckily, I'm not that Web_Guy, and that's why I get the big contracts.

Everything is "live" now, and even Microsoft are pushing the "real time"
concept in recent SDKs.
 
J

Jim Cheshire

Gerry said:
Hi Jim,

Yes, we've been working live for over two years and the company before
was the same. Imagine you are the backward-thinking type person who
has to press "publish" every time they change a few sentences.
Click to expand...

I am talking about Web applications. A competent application developer
would never think of changing anything and deploying it without testing, and
that same applciation developer would never, ever consider having only one
copy of the application; the live app.

I suspect that your confusion surrounding my point is that your concept of
Web development revolves around static HTML applications while mine revolves
around something a bit more complex.

Your scenario, but the way, is just not realistic. That's not the way
things work in enterprise environments. Trust me.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Hi Jim,
I am talking about Web applications.
Click to expand...

Well that's strange, because I thought this newsgroup was related to
using Frontpage and it's extensions? In other words web "authoring", not
web "development".
I suspect that your confusion surrounding my point is that your concept of
Web development revolves around static HTML applications while mine revolves
around something a bit more complex.
Click to expand...

As I clearly explained in my earlier posts, we are moving from ASP.NET
to Frontpage with static pages.
Your scenario, but the way, is just not realistic. That's not the way
things work in enterprise environments. Trust me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't trust you on this. We have users all over the world
who have to collaborate on a live website. I've already explained why
having a disk based web for each user would be slow and unrealistic. Not
to mention the file-locking and firewalls getting in the way. HTTP was
designed to allow single PUT operations. Microsoft's extensions were the
first to fully exploit this on both Windows and UNIX. I was there back
in the days of Frontpage 1.1 and promoted this to corporates. If you
want the competitive edge, you run live - it's that simple. The other
side of this is related to the growth of so-called "home working". Many
corporates won't pay for proper kit to be installed at the remote
location, so there needs to be a way for the remote-virus-infested user
to be able to safely upload pages via something like XP-SP2's firewall.
Try that with a "disk based web" and see how far you get.
 
J

Jim Cheshire

Gerry said:
Hi Jim,


Well that's strange, because I thought this newsgroup was related to
using Frontpage and it's extensions? In other words web "authoring",
not web "development".
Click to expand...

It's funny because I was, just this afternoon, talking to the guy who
manages the busiest Web site in the world. I can assure you that if I had
said any of the things you've said here, he would have laughed me out of the
room. :)

I think we're going to have to just stop here. We're not speaking the same
language.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Hi Jim,
It's funny because I was, just this afternoon, talking to the guy who
manages the busiest Web site in the world. I can assure you that if I had
said any of the things you've said here, he would have laughed me out of the
room. :)
Click to expand...

Can you clarify? Are you saying there's difficulty understanding the
difference between web "authroing" and a web "application"? I made it
clear from the start I was referring to web authoring.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

It's funny because I was, just this afternoon, talking to the guy who
manages the busiest Web site in the world. I can assure you that if I had
said any of the things you've said here, he would have laughed me out of the
room. :)
Click to expand...

The "busiest" site in the world? I wonder which site that is, and
whether they use Windows Server 2003 and Frontpage? My guess is that
they don't!
 
T

Tom Pepper Willett

"My guess is that they don't!"
What do you base your guess on, other than trolling this newsgroup?


| Jim Cheshire wrote:
|
| >>Well that's strange, because I thought this newsgroup was related to
| >>using Frontpage and it's extensions? In other words web "authoring",
| >>not web "development".
|
| > It's funny because I was, just this afternoon, talking to the guy who
| > manages the busiest Web site in the world. I can assure you that if I
had
| > said any of the things you've said here, he would have laughed me out of
the
| > room. :)
|
| The "busiest" site in the world? I wonder which site that is, and
| whether they use Windows Server 2003 and Frontpage? My guess is that
| they don't!
|
| --
| Gerry Hickman (London UK)
 
J

Jim Cheshire

Tom said:
"My guess is that they don't!"
What do you base your guess on, other than trolling this newsgroup?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Tom. You can probably guess which site I'm talking about. My buddy
was recently in town, and yesterday I took him fishing. As we were plugging
a bank, I told him a bit about this conversation. He almost laughed himself
out of the boat.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Tom said:
"My guess is that they don't!"
What do you base your guess on, other than trolling this newsgroup?
Click to expand...

Well instead of speculating, the sensible thing to do is to clarify
which internet site we are talking about? It's then very easy to
establish which server (and client) technology they are using.

Let's assume it's Google for a minute; if so, they certainly do not use
Windows Server 2003, it would be absurd, and the site would fall over
within minutes. The bigger sites tend to use UNIX or Linux.

Microsoft's own Hotmail service had to be moved from Windows to Unix a
few years back because Windows wasn't up to the job.

For corporate sites, Windows and IIS are very good, and can be
integrated with Acrive Directory enabling Kerberos authentication, but
if we're talking the "busiest" site, there's no way it's using Frontpage
or Windows.
 
S

Stefan B Rusynko

Nonsense
- why don't you check your facts before you make claims
Hotmail.com is running on Windows 2003
And I guess Microsoft.com is not a "busy site" because it is also running on Windows 2003

As for Google, yes it is on Linux but that decision in many cases is a commercial one, not a technical one

And last search I did listed the busiest Web sites as belonging to AOL Time Warner, Microsoft and Yahoo




| Tom Pepper Willett wrote:
| > "My guess is that they don't!"
| > What do you base your guess on, other than trolling this newsgroup?
|
| Well instead of speculating, the sensible thing to do is to clarify
| which internet site we are talking about? It's then very easy to
| establish which server (and client) technology they are using.
|
| Let's assume it's Google for a minute; if so, they certainly do not use
| Windows Server 2003, it would be absurd, and the site would fall over
| within minutes. The bigger sites tend to use UNIX or Linux.
|
| Microsoft's own Hotmail service had to be moved from Windows to Unix a
| few years back because Windows wasn't up to the job.
|
| For corporate sites, Windows and IIS are very good, and can be
| integrated with Acrive Directory enabling Kerberos authentication, but
| if we're talking the "busiest" site, there's no way it's using Frontpage
| or Windows.
|
| --
| Gerry Hickman (London UK)
 
J

Jim Cheshire

Stefan said:
Nonsense
- why don't you check your facts before you make claims
Hotmail.com is running on Windows 2003
And I guess Microsoft.com is not a "busy site" because it is also
running on Windows 2003
Click to expand...

The busiest Web application in the world is Windows Update. As far as the
busiest traditional .com sites, AOL ranks highest because of the sheer
number of subscribers. MSN ranks below it and Microsoft.com is third.
(Last I checked.) Windows Update dwarfs them all in sheer number of
requests and throughput, and yes, it does run on Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server.

As for the "they don't use FrontPage" comment, this is yet another example
of ignorance. FrontPage has nothing to do with the scalability of a Web
site.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
J

Jim Cheshire

I should add that both Windows Update and Microsoft.com have a higher
percentage of uptime than anyone else in the industry. Gerry's comments
about "they sure don't run on Windows" is just laughable and shows that his
criticism is based upon an anti-Microsoft bias.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Hi Stefan,
- why don't you check your facts before you make claims
Hotmail.com is running on Windows 2003
Click to expand...

If you read my post, it does say "a few years back".
As for Google, yes it is on Linux but that decision in many cases is a commercial one, not a technical one

And last search I did listed the busiest Web sites as belonging to AOL Time Warner, Microsoft and Yahoo
Click to expand...

Do you know anywhere to check latest stats?
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Hi Jim,
The busiest Web application in the world is Windows Update. As far as the
busiest traditional .com sites, AOL ranks highest because of the sheer
number of subscribers.
Click to expand...

That's interesting about Windows update being the busiest. I hadn't
really thought about it (as you say it's not a traditional .com site).
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Hi Jim,
I should add that both Windows Update and Microsoft.com have a higher
percentage of uptime than anyone else in the industry. Gerry's comments
about "they sure don't run on Windows" is just laughable and shows that his
criticism is based upon an anti-Microsoft bias.
Click to expand...

I don't know about uptime, but Microsoft's choice to run Server 2003
(combined with not knowing how to optimize graphics) certainly does
explain why all their sites are so SLOW. Looking at the overall picture
of world-wide web hosting in the context of "IIS on Windows" vs "Apache
on Unix and Linux". This page on netcraft shows the stats over the last
10 years:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

Scroll down to the second graph which shows Apache way ahead of Microsoft.

Back in 2002 (just before Nimda), Microsoft were kicking some serious
ass, but the bungling security, vendor tie-in and lack of open-source
caused some serious damage to their market penetration.

It would not surprise me if we see a change in this trend, but I don't
think it will be soon.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Gerry said:
That's interesting about Windows update being the busiest. I hadn't
really thought about it (as you say it's not a traditional .com site).
Click to expand...

After further consideration, I'm not convinced Windows Update is the
"busiest" site (what ever that's supposed to mean). If we're talking
serviced HTTP requests, then my guess is that Google would be busier,
otherwise it means nearly every person in every office in the world is
checking Windows Update every 20 minutes or so!

If we're talking "bytes transferred", then Windows Update would probably
transfer more than Google, that's because

a) Windows is so full of holes it needs patching all the time
b) Google is very efficient, whereas Microsoft is bloatsville

However, most of these transfers are done by BITS as opposed to HTTP,
and probably from a separate server, so it's hardly a good example of a
busy web server.

Microsoft's web site _is_ a good example of a big big site running on
pure Windows, and it's slowness shows that Windows is not a very good
platform for the web. Google services far more requests than Microsoft,
and yet their pages appear INSTANTLY with no lag at all.

Microsoft's search facility is also inferior to Google's even when
searching the Microsoft site itself, and that's CRAZY!

The things that's confusing me though, is why Google are running Linux
as opposed to FreeBSD or Solaris?
 
J

Jim Cheshire

Gerry said:
After further consideration, I'm not convinced Windows Update is the
"busiest" site (what ever that's supposed to mean). If we're talking
serviced HTTP requests, then my guess is that Google would be busier,
otherwise it means nearly every person in every office in the world is
checking Windows Update every 20 minutes or so!
Click to expand...

Gerry,

Your problem is that you base everything off of "guessing" at things. My
comment was based on real data. I assure you that Microsoft keeps very
close tabs of this kind of thing.

Real statistics (as opposed to guesses) show that Microsoft's sites are more
reliable than Google (though not by much) and that they push more bandwidth
faster than Google.

So much for your guess.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.
 
G

Gerry Hickman

Jim said:
Your problem is that you base everything off of "guessing" at things. My
comment was based on real data.
Click to expand...

You have not backed up your claim with ANYTHING. Where is this "real
data". I suggest it's a fabrication, and anyone who works on big web
sites will see your claim does not make any sense.
 
Top