> > good or bad
>
> Longer uptimes, more responsive, better support and ease of
> configuration than
> IIS ? How can you resist :-)
>
But then I find that getting help with apache when there is problem is
extremely poor (usually I get sarcastic script kiddies or no response),
responsiveness is about the same as IIS, I find IIS stays up just as
long as Apache and that configuring Apache is a total pain in the butt,
but I can throw a site in to IIS in seconds.
Why would I swap? ;o)
BTW - I have windows servers with IIS on and RH9 servers with Apache on.
Macs... well.. no... frankly the fortnight I've had with stuff to do
with macs and browsers the only place for them is where the sun don't
shine! <<< personal opinion and responses on how ace the Apple Mac OS
is are not required, cos I don't agree.
To be honest, I don't much care either way with regards apache and IIS.
I had a real hassle getting MX onto an Apache 2.x server, installing MX
and apache was easy enough just couldn't get it to pass the pages to
CFMX, but now that its up and running I haven't done anything to it since.
Difference between IIS and Apache is that with Apache, you have to know
what you're doing before you can use it, with IIS can can get it running
without knowing a single thing about web servers. With IIS, yes you can
just chuck it up and it will work, but not at its best. You have to
know what you are doing with IIS, just as much as you do with apache.
Regards
Stephen
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
