OT: Apache Version Used

[Cyber Source]

This sounds like another good meeting topic Brad. Maybe if we can come 
up with a meeting place now, you could give another presentation?

Brad Bartram wrote:

>Pretty much.
>
>There isn't a major difference between 2 and 1, it's mostly in the "under the 
>hood" stuff.  If you're just getting your feet wet with apache and not doing 
>anything mission critical, then use what you have.  If you start dealing with 
>more important web-based apps, then worry about the stability factor that I 
>talked about before.
>
>brad
>
>On Monday 20 December 2004 11:30 pm, Timothy Domst wrote:
>  
>
>>So since I am planning on a rudimentary server and I have that manual I
>>should just use 1.3 until I have a reason to do otherwise.
>>
>>On Dec 20, 2004, at 10:03 PM, Brad Bartram wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Ahh - the old 1 vs 2 debate.  ;-)
>>>
>>>What you use should depend largely on what you are using the server
>>>for.  If
>>>you are using the server for php or pretty much most of the interpreted
>>>langauages like php, the answer is a resounding 1.3.  Apache 2 and php
>>>should
>>>not be used in a production or live environment due to the security and
>>>stability issues that are raised.
>>>
>>>If you are using Apache with an external interpreter such as Tomcat or
>>>the
>>>like, then using Apache 2 is the hands down winner.
>>>
>>>The reason for the difference is really the same - threads.  Apache 2
>>>can use
>>>a threaded operation that makes it perfect for a multithreaded
>>>application
>>>like tomcat but inherently unsafe for php.
>>>
>>>Just my $.02
>>>
>>>And to stay on topic - I use apache as I outlined above.  In the rare
>>>instance
>>>I need both Tomcat and php support, I either divide the load using
>>>redirection and forwarding or if I need it all on one server I
>>>sacrifice
>>>Tomcat / apache performance and use 1.3 series.
>>>
>>>brad
>>>
>>>On Monday 20 December 2004 9:22 pm, Timothy Domst wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Have you ever used 2?  Does 1 give you any problems?
>>>>
>>>>On Dec 20, 2004, at 6:01 PM, Joshua Ronne Altemoos wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I use 1.3 becuase that is the default for slack10 which is on my
>>>>>server
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:35:24 -0500, Timothy Domst
>>>>>
>>>>><timothy.domst at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have SuSE 9.1 installed and it has Apache 2 on it, but I messed up
>>>>>>the settings or something.  I have a book about Apache 1, and I had
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>working well before when I had 9.0.  Should I just install Apache 1
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>forget about 2?  I would like to know what people with home servers
>>>>>>use.
>>>>>>i
>>>>>>Someone posted a link to Novell a while ago that got people on a
>>>>>>list
>>>>>>for their Linux Technical Resource Kit.  I'd like to thank them
>>>>>>because
>>>>>>I got one and it's conveniently got a bootable SuSE 9.1 DVD on it.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>other stuff is on .iso files, though, and I tried to make bootable
>>>>>>CDs
>>>>>>out of them but I couldn't.  How do I install these files?
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Have A Good Day,
>>>>>Joshua Ronne Altemoos
>>>>>joshua.altemoos at gmail.com
>>>>>          
>>>>>