OT: Apache Version Used

[Brad Bartram]

That sounds like something we could do.

brad

On Tuesday 21 December 2004 8:51 am, Cyber Source wrote:
> 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