Yes, you guys are right. I do understand the difference between the
development environment and licensing model; I worded my question poorly.
The project I'll be working on is for research. Most of my content will
be contributed in the form of web parts (or something that can be
quickly converted to such) or mashed (is that a verb?) from the web
through publically available APIs.
Initially, I envisioned my site being built upon SharePoint because it
is a nice foundation for managing web parts and incorporating workflow.
A new idea came up today about creating our app as a portal to a set of
mashed-up public sites and doing as little development as possible.
That seemed like a good idea.
Upon later consideration, I had to ask myself, if we go this route, why
not go all the way and use linux, apache, mysql, javascript,
php/python/ruby/script-lang-dujour. One clear benefit is having free
reserach replicability (SharePoint is nice but it ain't free).
So, if my end users are all going to access my site via a web browser,
construct a web page from a web part gallery, which in turn use services
on the web then is there any advantage to purchasing Windows IIS,
SharePoint, Visual Studio, and the intractable number of CALs.
I hope this question is more clear to what I'm looking for.
Thanks for your replies.
bob
Bob Weiner wrote:
I am gettiner ready to start a project to create (yet another) social
networking site which will contain a mashup of local content, web
services, and open APIs. I want the ability to easily update, or let
others update components as they become available.
I am struggling now between choosing between asp.net and a fully open
source approach to the project.
What do I need to consider? Will I hit any limits (other than having to
host on IIS) by choosing asp.net? Insight's will be much appreicated.
Thanks, bob
