|
|
Posted by Jonathan Villa on 06/27/05 02:09
Take a look at these, they are just some of the articles I've bookmarked
over the past
Oracle is now behind (well in support of) PHP
http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/php/index.html
IBM is also behind PHP (well in support of)
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/techjournal/0505_krook/0505_krook.html
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/info/zendcore/pr.html
Microsoft looks to extenguish LAMP
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+looks+to+extinguish
+LAMP/2100-1012_3-5746549.html
Misc:
http://www.robertpeake.com/archives/66-Why-PHP.html
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-5663085.html
To be fair:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39193420,00.htm
If you're org decides to go PHP... there are all kinds of OpenSource
tools they can choose use which they can enhance for their
organization's specific needs
GForge
Mambo CMS
SugarCRM
and more...
GForge and SugarCRM also have paid support options as well.
-Jonathan Villa
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 00:14 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Rick Emery wrote:
> > My employer has (finally) decided to take full advantage of our
> > intranet, and wants to move from client-server applications to web-based
> > applications. To that end, we're trying to determine the best platform
> > for our applications. We're a Microsoft shop, with Microsoft SQL Server
> > 2000 for all of our databases (that won't change any time soon, if
>
> what is special about the MSSQL2K servers? do you have a lot of stored
> procedures in it? stuff like that?
>
> > ever). Due to past experience that I won't get into, we (the Development
> > group) have all agreed that ASP.Net is out (at least for the short term).
> >
>
> if the MSSQL servers are so important/complex/big/etc then maybe ASP.not
> is the right way to go? given that moving 'everything' from
> client-server to web-baseed interfaces isn't really a short-term
> operation. (assuming some level of complexity in the existing software.)
>
> > We had the opportunity to visit a local enterprise that has deployed
> > ColdFusion, and they couldn't stop singing its praises. I'm partial to
> > PHP, even after sampling Coldfusion, so what I would like is some
> > "ammunition" that I can take into a meeting to "sell" management on PHP
> > instead of ColdFusion. I've already been harping on the difference in
> > cost, so I'm looking for other points to go with. Besides, we'll
> > probably invest in Zend products if we choose PHP, and Macromedia has
>
> like marcromedia tools are required to run CF, they 'tie you in' to
> the technology. buying Zend products is optional, if the Zend IDE is judge to
> be a moneysaving tool for working with PHP then you buy it. But you
> don't have to. the essential tools are with out cost and open to inspection
> and modification. Purchasing Zend Accelerator/Encoder maybe a good move
> for you company but again its not a requirement.
>
> from a strategic point of view it might also not be wise to make a
> substanstial investment in technology from a company thats just been
> bought out by the competion (adobe)?
>
> > government rates available; I don't have any numbers (yet), but the cost
> > difference may not be that great in the end.
> >
> > Any input would be greatly appreciated. Opinions are welcome (especially
> > from programmers with experience in both), but I have to "sell" it to
> > management (I'm already on the PHP side), so links to data or articles
> > comparing the two are best.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Rick
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|