John Maxwell wrote in post #1037800:
This seems like a cruel joke to have to constrain RoR, or any modern web
framework to IIS. If your company are concerned about rails
implementations not being "enterprise" enough, then JRuby comes to the
rescue - coupling the ease of rails with the enterprise power of the JVM
- possibly worth a look.
Oh yes, because IIS is a piece of brachiosaurus bond, found by Microsoft
somewhere near Silicon Valley :-) Funny though, ASP.NET and Node.js on
IIS make Rails a sad joke, both being modern-shmodern all right.
Apache + Passenger will be much quicker than IIS for running Rails, as
Passenger was designed to do it, unlike IIS. If you're waiting 30sec+
for first page load though, something else is wrong - if I take a deep
breath go back to windows, it takes around 5sec here with a modern CPU
I’m not sure Apache was designed for Rails either. Passenger does all
the job. But it’s not the fastest solution! We did several performance
tests, comparing IIS (with Helicon Zoo), Apache and Nginx on both
Windows and Ubuntu. The first place took Nginx+Thin on Ubuntu. With
little difference there was IIS+Helicon Zoo. Apache+Passenger took 3rd
place. Other combinations were worse.
Well, 2—3 years ago there was a gap between Ruby developers on Windows
and Linux/Mac. But there isn’t any more. Windows actually gets much more
attention by both MRI and gems developers. I can assure you, IIS is
robust and mature web-server and the platform is ready to host Ruby