First of all, I am not going to begin asking what's better, ASP.Internet MVC or Ruby On Rails. I know that both of them are excellent MVC solutions despite the fact that I'll admit at the moment I have only experience using ASP.Internet MVC 3.
I truly enjoy using Versus 2010 for development work and with a couple of additional plug ins, I am amazed because of it. Searching at NetBeans &lifier RadRails really appears like returning a couple of years? I additionally enjoy Microsoft's undertake MVC and also the new Razor engine, and revel in developing websites by using it.
So, my problem is this, basically may be creating an internet site that 'snow-balled' in dimensions towards something as large as Amazon . com, Ebay, Facebook etc. would I eventually have regrets? Is IIS and Home windows Server really up to it in comparison with linux and say Apache? I understand a couple of years back when large sites first came to exist ASP.Internet MVC wasn't in existance, so in say five years time maybe there is a larger business run by Microsoft or perhaps is Linux &lifier Apache the greater secure and stable workhorse that I am brought to think?
I am also concerned after i discovered this url for sites using ASP.Internet MVC and most of them don't seem to be ready to go?
I am also brought to think this website uses ASP.Internet MVC, however it does not have lots of images etc.
Sorry it's this kind of open ended question, however i would like to hear the opions of anybody that has connection with large websites.
The Stackoverflow website is built using Asp.Internet MVC. So, You won't regret using Asp.Internet MVC
Believe me, everybody really wants to think that their next project would be the next amazon . com or ebay or facebook. Individuals systems have 100s of designers, with increased hardware than imaginable. You cannot design a website today for your type of workload since you will don't have any method to test drive it, or understand how whatever you do will affect scalability before you really possess the hardware and bandwidth to cope with individuals issues.
The very best you should do is design the website to your requirements now, and evolve it with time. You could proceed to different technology throughout redesigns. But at that time, you'll have a large budget and a lot of individuals to focus on the issues.
Do the things that work best now, and be worried about the near future IF it takes place. Certainly, IIS and asp.internet mvc are wonderful technologies, and lots of very busy sites operate on them (microsoft.com is an extremely busy site, out of the box msn.com, etc..)
Stackoverflow is designed in asp.internet mvc, and contains countless site visitors, and is an extremely busy site. No, it's not so image heavy, however in general images are about bandwidth, and then any technology are designed for delivering images. If you want to perform a large amount of image processing, that could be different.. but all it will is change the way you process the pictures.
Your listing of sites is 24 months old, plenty of sites increase and lower in 2 years, so you will find that most of them aren't still running. This is a business problem, not really a technology one.
Regarding Ruby On Rails... I understand of no site how big Amazon . com, Ebay, or Facebook that's designed in RoR (or Asp.internet MVC either). Twitter is most likely the biggest, but let us just say Twitter has pretty limited functionality. Cent Arcade, Github, and Hulu are most likely no slouches either. Certainly Hulu is extremely media intensive, but i'm not sure when they use Ruby for that actual video serving portion (i type of doubt it, only one never knows).
All you should do is develop within the technology you're preferred with. Otherwise, it will not be fun and you'll never finish it.
You are able to build efficient site on any one of existing technologies.
If you opt for linux-based server software, you simply avoid wasting money on licenses.
If license cost is not an problem- take in addition convenient for you personally.