Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I would like to know which one of them is more expensive?

share|improve this question

closed as too localized by Ben Pilbrow, EEAA, Zoredache, Mark Henderson Mar 11 '11 at 0:18

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2 Answers 2

Not all Shared Hosting providers will support Java, while essentially every one will support either ASP.NET or PHP

share|improve this answer

Cost of hosting / servers isn't usually determined by what application stack you put on top of it. A million other variables will have a more important effect on total cost. Similarly, cost of hosting isn't necessarily the best reason to choose one application stack over another.

There's an argument to made that deploying .NET on Windows incurs the Windows licensing cost whereas a Java EE server can be deployed on entirely open-source. That said, it's perfectly possible to run an ASP.NET server on linux under mono, just as it's easy to run a Java EE stack on top of operating systems costing a lot more than Windows.

share|improve this answer
    
With the recent Oracle/Sun acquisition, a lot of things are changing wrt "open-source" of Sun's technologies. OpenSolaris, for example, is no more. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the cost of using the Java stack is likely to increase. –  Joe Internet Mar 11 '11 at 2:16
1  
Whilst this is true, I'd point out that while both .NET and Java have open source implementations, it seems to me that the Java side follows the official releases much more closely than with .NET. My understanding is that implementations like OpenJDK, JBoss, Tomcat are kept fairly up to date with the Java releases from Oracle, whereas Mono is still a way behind giving full .NET 4 compatability. –  growse Mar 11 '11 at 8:10
    
From a technical standpoint, that's true. From a business standpoint, at this time, it's tough to say what Oracle will do to monetize their new acquisitions. With that, there's the potential for Java-based hosting to become less of a deal than it is/was. Like with OpenSolaris, you could use it for free to run your business. Now, SolarisExpress is $1000/yr. licensing. Oracle is already putting pressure/retrictions/limitations on OSS Java implementations. –  Joe Internet Mar 11 '11 at 18:19
    
then you would be mistaken. Because of the all the preview releases and beta's for .Net 4, mono actually had their final stable version with .Net 4 support out before microsoft's went RTM. –  Joel Coel Apr 17 '11 at 2:41
    
I was merely working off Mono's roadmap (mono-project.com/Roadmap) where their listing for Mono 3.0 containing "Complete .NET 4.0 Core Support" has a release date of 'TBD'. While an existing release of Mono might have some .NET 4 compatibility, it appears to full short of full compatibility. –  growse Apr 17 '11 at 20:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.