Java problem

[Les Mikesell]

David Boles wrote:

>>>> Why not? IIS has been available for Windows 2000/XP Pro for a long time.
>>> Perhaps I said that incorrectly.
>>>
>>> "I would not expect a Windows XP Home/PRO computer to be a server
>>> installation for example." because it is not normally done that way.
>>> Installing ISS on Windows XP Home can be done but it not supported
>>> because ISS is not included on the XP Home install disk. You have to use
>>> the ISS from Windows 2000.
>>>
>>> ISS can be added after a normal install of Windows XP PRO and is
>>> included on the XP PRO install disk. The ISS from Windows XP Pro will
>>> not work with XP Home.
>> What is normally done? Apache, Samba and a whole host of other
>> applications are not installed and/or enabled by default, either.
> 
> 
> I really don't know what is normally done. But since XP PRO is a
> *desktop* install I seriously doubt that "Apache, Samba and a whole host
> of other applications" would be installed at all let alone by default.

2000/XP pro are just deliberately crippled versions that limit the 
number of connections to the internal services like file sharing but 
nothing is actually missing.  If you install your own apps or something 
like apache, I'd expect them to provide equal or better performance 
since less resources are allocated to the windows-specific services.

> Home is a stripped down PRO so I would think, even more, that these
> would not be defaults.

Home actually removes components related to domain services and some 
other things.  I don't quite see the point, other than shipping 
something that you won't like bundled with the machine so they get your 
money twice when you upgrade.

> If I wanted a Windows server I would use Windows 2003 which *is* a server.

Paying extra to uncripple the same code...

> As for Linux? If I wanted a server I would install RHEL or CentOS or one
> of several other Linux server installations. I would *not* try to run a
> Linux server system with Fedora. It changes too quickly and too often to
> bother with in the long run.

But, if you develop your own code to run on the servers, it might make 
sense to do development on the faster-paced fedora, hoping that your 
development cycle and the next RHEL release coincide so the OS support 
and libraries will be similar in production to what you used.  The point 
here is that they both need to include the same things and provide the 
same services.

>> How did XP Home get into this conversation?
> 
> XP Home and XP PRO are related. Home is XP without the office networking
> stuff. Just what the name implies. XP for use by a home user. And you
> mentioned it. Look about at your quoted section.

Home implies where I'm at, not what I want to do, so the name doesn't 
make any sense to me.  I don't have quite as many computers at home as 
at the office but...

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com