I sympathize with all the posts here. The OP is correct about his complaints. But the other poster's points also stand - the future is GPT but Microsoft has been slow to implement it.

[QUOTE=serfurj;77955][quote=alc6379]you can make binary [Python] executables and distribute them, so people who don't have a Python installation to run a program written in it.[/quote]i didn't know that. are you sure??[/QUOTE] Yes this is absolutely true.

I know of at leaset 2 tools which can accomplish this:

  1. [url]http://www.py2exe.org/[/url]
  2. [url]http://pyinstaller.python-hosting.com/[/url]

There should be a couple more.

If you mean "embedded into web pages" ala PHP or ASP, I could recommend Spyce ( [url]http://www.spyce.sf.net[/url] ).

If you mean "embedded into web pages" ala Javascript or Flash, the answer is generally no.

But be aware that Silverlight, being .NET driven, is scriptable via IronPython, so it is a qualified yes.

I found this very nice tutorial on what Python generators are and how they can be used:

[url]http://www.neotitans.com/resources/python-generators-tutorial.html[/url]

I had a difficult time with the other tutorials out there because, funnily enough, they seem to assume that you already know what generators are before they try to teach you about it (???).

They key concept this tutorial taught me was that a function with the "yield" keyword in it is NOT the generator per se, but rather that it RETURNS one. Other tutorials seem to miss emphasizing this very important point.

[QUOTE=Tekmaven™]Eariler, I said IIS performed better than linux-based web servers, and [URL=http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/analyses/webbench.mspx]here[/URL] is the independant research to prove it.[/quote]With the caveat that most of these 'independent' studies are funded by Microsoft.

[quote]Why does IIS6 perform so well? Well, in Windows Server 2003 the http serving is moved to kernel level, removing all the overhead usually found in a server application running in the userspace.[/quote]A kernel-based http implementation has existed for the Linux kernel for some time now - first as a patch then lately, as part of the stock kernel. It only supports serving static pages though.

A kernel-based http server potentially increases the number of security holes (and they can be severe) as well as potentially lowering robustness, so it's very hard to get right.

If IIS executes ASP.NET scripts in kernel space along with the server itself, this could lead to the same or worse kinds of security horrors that we saw with ActiveX and BHOs (Browser Helper Objects). We all know how Microsoft 'fixed' those swiss cheese aspects of its browser architecture: block all sites by default and ask the surfer to enable them on a case-to-case basis. :cheesy:

For people who know what they're doing, a Linux-based server is a superior solution because it is infinitely more customizable than any Windows server you can set up.

For instance, a friend of mine who owns a network gaming center has asked me to configure a Slackware Linux-based Neverwinter Nights server for him. The Linux server can take 2-3 times as much load as a Win 2K/2003 server on the exact same hardware, and the OS is free to boot.

One of the reasons going for Slackware is that it functions nicely even without GUI tools which tend to get in the way of experienced sysadmins and are total memory hogs. The server I set up is running pure text mode, and I can very quickly configure just about every single aspect of it over the Internet, even over a dialup line, and it still remains incredibly secure as I can easily set which few essential daemons to run (basically just sshd and the neverwinter nights server). This is very much unlike windows where you end up being forced to run a lot of useless (or marginally useful) services in the background.

The one downside is a fairly steep learning curve since CLI (command-line interface) tools tend to require more study to master, but aside from that, most everything else is a plus.

[QUOTE=cscgal]Javascript isn't really a scripting language. It's just a few extra bells and whistles you can add to standard HTML code - it's clientside unlike the other serverside options.[/QUOTE]Javascript is a scripting language. The fact that it's client-side instead of server-side does not make it less of one.

ASP.NET isn't even a language it's a platform which supports multiple languages - one of which, C#, isn't a scripting language but the other of which, VB.NET, has most of the characteristics of one.

Python is my absolute favorite language - the holy grail language I've been looking for all these years.

I'm a 'language collector' who's tried dozens of languages from Basic to assembly to C to C++ to Perl to PHP to Java to Scheme, and whenever I need to get something done, I end up doing it in Python because it's just so damn easy and fast to do it there.

It particularly excels at the tasks where you would use Perl for - not as succint but far far more readable and maintainable as well as offering at least as much power as Perl if not moreso.

Vis-a-vis PHP, there are Python HTML-embedded solutions (I found Spyce - [url]http://spyce.sf.net[/url] the best and most PHP-like) which by dint of the languages's superior syntax would be much preferable over PHP except for the fact that few third-party hosting solutions offer it.

Python's DB-API has excellent support for RDBMS backends and definitely on par with PHP and Perl in this aspect.

One Python weakness is that it's not that good yet for doing GUI and graphics apps. I'm still not satisfied with the wxPython, PyGtk, Tkinter GUI frameworks. Pygame ([url]www.pygame.org[/url]) absolutely rocks for 2d game development but OpenGL support is still at 1.2 - perfect for learning OpenGL but not for taking advantage of the latest features.

Python just makes everything so easy that once you try out a very high level language like it, you will just find it ridiculous to go ...

[QUOTE=carolblake1973]I used to think Windows servers would be more vulnerable to attack because hackers often hate MicroSoft. Then I found out the hard way that hackers use Linux boxes to learn how to hack.[/QUOTE]Hackers use Linux boxes to learn how to hack, but what they learn on Linux they use to attack Microsoft boxes because [i]administrators of the latter[/i] invariably have a shallower understanding of technologies and thus are unable to properly secure their systems beyond installing service packs and patches if and when they do come out.

Most serious *nix administrators understand the inner workings of their servers to a greater degree and have far far greater control of how their servers operate (it has to do with the design philosophy of the OS) and are thus more proactively in control of their machines - they are able to deal with security problems effectively even if a patch has not yet arrived.

[QUOTE=alc6379]Also, I full well realize "Secure by default" is a marketing ploy. As far as OBSD is concerned, the base OS is all that's audited, right? Out of the box, sure it's secure by default-- isn't it true that the only thing it runs after a default install is OpenSSH? Sure, it's secure, but all you're going to be able to use it for is an SSH server. Using that logic, NetBSD, which has no ports open after an initial install, would be even more secure by default.[/QUOTE]Absolutely , OpenBSD always gets justifiably ragged on for this 'secure by default' claim.

[QUOTE=Tekmaven™]Exactly. This is why Windows Server 2003 will usually be more secure than linux will ever be. N00bish administrators only know how to point and click; and they arent going to know how to play with some obscure text setting file. So there you go; you just told us all that Windows Server 2003 is really better :cool: [/quote]N00bish administrators [i]only know how to point and click[/i]? Gee... my 7-year old sister also knows how to point and click, so I guess a 'N00bish administrator' (whatever that is) is no better than her.

Regarding security, when NT first came out, it had so many holes it was worse than swiss cheese. Windows security has gotten somewhat better over the years, but that isn't really saying much and one look at the news and it is all but obvious how bad MS server technology security still is compared to nix. We have yet to see how much of an impact MS' publicized security initiatives will really have. It is extremely hard to both secure an OS and make it easy to use at the same time and MS has traditionally chosen the latter over the former whereas nix takes the opposite approach.

[quote]Not to mention, on the same piece of hardware, Windows Server 2003 outperforms any linux serving task; usually exponentially. On an 8-Way Xeon webserver, Windows Server 2003 with IIS6 can serve like 8x the server load that a linux server could.[/quote]Pure, utter bunk. Do you even understand what the ...