Why should use LAMP ?

I need a comparison of LAMP (Linux+Apache+Mysql+Php)and other options like (Windows +IIS+asp.net )

Have to convice the clinet why lamp is better then others option and how can this save its cost a lot .

Linux vs Windows: Most readers of this forum already know the tradeoffs here. Rather than start a flame war I will stay mute on this subject.

Apache vs IIS: Apache has about 69% of the world market for webservers. IIS has about 21%. IIS has historically had problems with security against virus type attacks, requiring frequent patching. The Gartner Group at one time recommended against using IIS for mission critical applications, although they later admitted that many of its problems had been resolved. I personally prefer Apache, and would use it even if I ever decided to use Microsoft servers.

Mysql vs MS Sql Server: For simple applications, Mysql is probably faster. For advanced applications there is no comparison. SQL Server 2000 is an industrial strength database, with many features that were deliberately left out of Mysql. Your choice here depends on what you need out of a database. You have several options here, including but not limited to: 1) Accept the limitations of Mysql. 2) Put SQL Server on a separate machine in the network. 3) Use another database like Oracle (ouch$) or PostgreSQL (0$). In any case, whichever database you choose, if the application has high activity, it should be on a separate machine.

PHP vs ASP.Net: PHP is a scripting language optimized for manipulating html and creating web pages on the fly. ASP.Net is similar but it is part of the much larger .Net framework which includes the ability to do the server side programming using a fullblown compiler language, such as VB.Net, C#.Net, or C++.Net. The separation of server code with presentation code usually makes an application much easier to read, modify, and maintain. Unfortunately, .Net is Microsoft centric which limits some of your other choices. A good portable alternative is to use the suite of Java technologies. They may have a steeper learning curve than PHP, but they are capable of doing about anything you might want to do on both client and server, plus points between.

Comparing the costs:

Hardware costs for LAMP vs MS will usually be very similar and should not usually be a deciding factor. Acquiring the software is only a small part of the overall cost of a project. You might be tempted to jump on the Linux bandwagon because you can get it free, but that is only part of the story. Program development, security, maintenance, upgrades, and general administration are costs that continue for the lifetime of the application.

If you anticipate being a part-time administrator of a small installation, and if you are not already well grounded in Linux, the learning curve for learning the Linux based technologies may be more than you should tackle. However, if the application will have the support of a full-time staff, variations of LAMP will provide lots of benefits that will easily overcome the cost of the learning curve.

Hope this helps.

lampp is a great home user and newbie solution that i use at home. but for work i custom build httpd, ftp mysql and such for our servers.


lampp is super secure when it is hit hard by attacks and can eat some extra CPU cycles cause it is a tad beefy, but for a small server or a quick and easy create-it-yourself server it rocks......


as for IIS, will there be ANY asp scripts???

if no then go apache....not only do to its speed, customization and community, but its cost, free. fedora core 5 and httpd and your done. now thats free....

I must admit that I do agree with most of dickgregory analysis except for this point:

Originally Posted by dickgregory SQL Server 2000 is an industrial strength database, with many features that were deliberately left out of Mysql.

I will disagree on that one, at least in regard to time scope. This was totally true in... 2000 when mysql was back at version 3.xx. But it is not anymore in 2006 with version 5.0 of mysql. Mysql now has support for replication, clustering, relational integrity, triggers, stored procedures, views, query cache... and more of these features that were once 'deliberately left out'.

lets not get into a fan boy thing, windows and mickeysoft do have there palce and and so does linux.

realiistically linux is still for hardcore people who want to get under the hood like a nascar pit crew, windows is for people who want quick and useable OS`s with little setup times.

think pure XP pro with IIS, you can have that running and popping out pages within 30 mins, linux would take more time but can be more secured and screwed with.....its about need not religion hahaha

Originally Posted by zeitounator I must admit that I do agree with most of dickgregory analysis except for this point: I will disagree on that one, at least in regard to time scope. This was totally true in... 2000 when mysql was back at version 3.xx. But it is not anymore in 2006 with version 5.0 of mysql. Mysql now has support for replication, clustering, relational integrity, triggers, stored procedures, views, query cache... and more of these features that were once 'deliberately left out'.

OK, maybe my information is dated, and I am willing to stand corrected. You didn't mention transaction processing. Can I assume that Mysql still does not support it? One feature that MS Sql Server has is the ability to commit transactions across multiple databases, even on different servers. Performance sucks, but it can be done. In an enterprise situation it could be necessary. If it isn't, I still am inclined to use PostgreSQL. There may be times when I don't need it over Mysql, but I would rather use one db than optimize for the lowest common denominator.

My preferences only. YMMV.

Originally Posted by dickgregory OK, maybe my information is dated, and I am willing to stand corrected. You didn't mention transaction processing. Can I assume that Mysql still does not support it? One feature that MS Sql Server has is the ability to commit transactions across multiple databases, even on different servers. Performance sucks, but it can be done. In an enterprise situation it could be necessary. If it isn't, I still am inclined to use PostgreSQL. There may be times when I don't need it over Mysql, but I would rather use one db than optimize for the lowest common denominator. My preferences only. YMMV.

My intent was not to start a "which database is better" war and I see it is not your's as well, so we can talk Now about your question: yes, mysql has support for transaction (using the innodb or bdb engines), even on different databases. It is not possible at the moment if the databases are on different servers, but i did not come in front of that situation very often.

Meanwhile, there might be some hope on this last point... in version 5.0.3, mysql introduced the FEDERATED storage engine that enables mysql to use locally data stored on a remote server. The engine has lot of limitations at the moment... one of them being it does not support transactions. The documentation states that ' Some of these limitations may be lifted in future versions', so it could be one of them.

Back to the original question. LAMP is an excellent alternative to WISN (Windows, IIS, SQL Server, .Net). It is all open source, which can save a lot of money IF you have the administration expertise, or are willing to invest the time to learn it.

I still recommend that you examine other alternatives to PHP. It is a great tool and fills a major niche in server side processing. But there are other great tools that you might find to fit your requirements just as well or better. A web developer can do a better job if he has a wide range of tools in his arsenal.

The tools I would avoid using are those that commit you to a certain platform, even if you are using that platform for your original development or deployment. For example, if you are developing on a Windows platform, using .Net will restrict you to that architecture. If you use LAMP, you can later migrate your application to WAMP (for Windows) or MAMP (for Mac). The bottom line is that LAMP can go anywhere, kind of like Java.

this is true and done......cause who wants another FOSS versus mickeysoft bitch fest.


lampp rocks and i use it loving, www.augnet.ca (((what a plug)))) and i gota be honest on suse, fedora, knoppix (dont laugh) and ubuntu it ran great and i even got allot of hits. with its built in apache, sql and php perl it rocked out of the box and was stbale an up-to-date.

what more cna i say