Yep, there is not a single tool that can solve all problems. LAMP just happens to provide solution for the bigger market (small-medium businesses). Hence it is very popular.

And the popularity brings large community, in return the community enhance the package even more.

Closed source tend to have the components packaged more nicely and have better interoperability because they are more controlled. Closed source usually offer better integration with IDE. But when you need to fine tune the package, Open Source provides the flexibility with its open nature. This is why LAMP is hugely successful, because this makes LAMP very scalable.

For example, with LAMP, you are free to recompile Apache to suit your business needs. You can remove many of its components to bare minimum for speed. There are so many more things you could do. Why? Because it is open source and it gives you the freedom. With IIS, you better have a good lawyer to find out what you’re allowed or not allowed to do.

This fine-tuning is VERY important to any web business. No solution is out of the box ready for large traffic website like Digg. They all need to be fine-tuned.

For hobbyists at home, LAMP is also appealing because it is simple. Just use notepad, PSPad, Netbeans, or Eclipse.

With ASP.NET, unless you use Microsoft’s IDE, it’s too complicated.

This and other reasons makes LAMP the most preferred solution for web and that’s why LAMP is leading the market.

This was the main subject of the article. Therefore, I rest my case.

Ever tried Aptitude? Every tried .deb?

“PHP is not for people/companies that require more out of web technology.”

Sigh … here we go again, rhetorical bull: Facebook, Yahoo, Flickr, Digg, SourceForge, istockphoto, Wikipedia, and many more large popular websites are running LAMP. I guess they don’t require more out of web technology huh?

The strength of LAMP is its scalability. It has solid proven track on that. ASP.NET might be a better programming language, but IIS/ASP.NET just doesn’t scale well. Scalability requires fine tuning, lots of it, sometimes recompiling the web server, something IIS/ASP.NET does not offer.

Zend reported in 2002:

“PHP Overtakes Microsoft’s ASP as Web’s #1 Server-side Scripting Language … Prominent corporations using PHP today include Cisco, Worldcom, NTT DoCoMo, CMG, Vodafone, Motorola, Siemens, Ericsson, CBS, Unilever, Philips, BMC, NTT, Air Canada, JAL, Lufthansa, OnVista, Lycos Europe and Deutsche Bank.”

(Well now in 2010 it is still #1 most popular)

“You will also see IIS/ASP.NET continue it’s advances into web dominance, just as it has been doing for years.”

It might be (or not) dominant in the future, but right now I just don’t see it happening. It’s pure speculation.

Seem like you keep saying it to entertain yourself.

To get back on track, there’s no question about Apache’s popularity, I have used it many times before. It’s what I use when I’m being lazy, cheap, or stuck in *nix. I never said “Apache sucks”. What I do say is that Apache is limited and IIS does it all. The main focus of this conversation is PHP vs ASP.NET, and there is no comparison to what can be accomplished with ASP.NET vs PHP. Does Apache do PHP? Of course. Does IIS do PHP? Of course. Does Apache do ASP.NET? No, not even with Mono – that sound you just heard was the sound of screeching tires and breaking glass.

PHP is a great but limited solution that fully illustrates “you get what you pay for”, including the web server it typically sits on. PHP is not for people/companies that require more out of web technology. As the web gets more and more complex, you will see Apache and PHP fall futher and further behind (as it has been doing for years despite continued development, which recently has been at a snails pace, not including the plug getting pulled on PHP6 for a do-over). You will also see IIS/ASP.NET continue it’s advances into web dominance, just as it has been doing for years.

With increasing relevance, and certainly in my line of work, “good enough” just doesn’t cut it, and that difference is seen on a paycheck.

One factor that contributes to Apache slides is probably because these days more and more production environments use Nginx or lighthttpd.

Then there is security thing about hiding what’s behind the website to prevent automated attack.

I will also say that IIS 7 is going in the right direction from what I read (mostly by doing things the Apache ways like text file for configuration, distributed configuration, and more). Also Microsoft has been working with Zend to improve interopability for PHP in IIS.

I did not choose any platform, I have done and can do both Microsoft way and open source way (and Java way, and soon will learn iPhone app development as well).

Although personally, from my experience, I would say that for small to medium business, that Apache is significantly superior to IIS.

Talking about trend, open source is the new trend since the last few years. So I don’t think you have chosen that wisely You should at least learn open source as well …

“Apache runs 60% of the world’s web servers.”

Actually, it’s now down to only 54%.

I remember back when it was over 85%.

According to market determining relevance, Apache’s tanking while IIS continues to grow at 30% when it used to be virtually zero.

On-going market trend seems to suggest I have chosen my platform wisely, but for the sake of humility, I will simply call it “luck”.

I said it is perfect because it is within the budget and it meets the business requirements (it does what most small to medium businesses need).

I’d say open source solution is superior, not because of it’s price, but because of it’s openness and community collaboration. But I don’t have the time (nor motivation) to elaborate, hence I won’t argue that point here.

“Yes, let’s take a look at those numbers and take price out of the picture:”

You can’t take price and licensing from the picture. Price and licensing are two very important part of business. IF ASP.NET is open source and without string attached (that would be a real big IF!), it could have been more popular, may be, but that’s pure speculation.

“according to Facebook, only the front end servers are powered by LAMP – the whole backend is vastly more complex, and mostly written in C++ and Java.”

I know Facebook don’t use PHP for everything, but they did say they serve 400 Billions PHP page views a month. They certainly are not using IIS, they use open source solution.

Most of your arguments are imagination and speculation, e.g.: if ASP.NET is as free as LAMP, if money doesn’t matter, etc, etc.

For me I’ll accept the facts. That Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and plenty of other popular top websites are successfully running their business with LAMP. Also the fact that most small medium businesses go with LAMP and become successful.

I don’t have problem accepting that ASP.NET and Java are dominant in the corporate world. I’ve worked in the corporate world, I know they have different requirements than most small to medium businesses.