Joseph wrote:
> [snip pulling arguments out of your pinky finger]

You forget intranets. Internal company webapps have to serve humongous 
amounts of traffic on not really lavish hardware. Listing the Fortune 20 
of websites which indeed CAN afford to "just throw more servers at it" 
tells us precisely nothing at all about technology scalability.

Windows probably sees more use for company backends than you can imagine 
on accounts of being easy to set up and work with up to a certain scale 
when you really need automation instead of an underpaid student support 
gimp.

Also, your method of research is laughable.

> * Choosing one Framework or language over another seems to be mostly
> irrelevant as long as you stick to the underlying technology:  FreeBSD,
> Linux Based server or Windows 2003 which appear consistently in the top
> web sites again and again.

Oh yes. Only the three most mainstream server OSs appear in that list. 
Surprise.

> * Java and J2EE is by far absent from this list, this should tell us
> all something.

Or not, since the list is worthless data.

> * .Net is very present on the list, MS obviously is doing something
> right. The progress Ruby is doing with Windows is encouraging.

Good marketing, IIS comes with Windows, more straightforward than Java 
to do MVC and deployment with. Makes it an easier first choice nowadays.

> * Choosing the best tools for the job can give you a big payout.
> MySpace is Coldfusion based, this is risky, but gives you the ability
> to write database web applications fast... and it has worked well.  I
> would say the risk was worth it.

Worstofmyspace.com begs to differ. I completely ignore the very 
existence of MySpace except from tidbits on the aforementioned site, but 
if it's remotely to be trusted, it's far from stable and reliable.

David Vallner