I think Apache's site says it all:
"However, due to the code's legacy, and use of metaphors and systems which
are Unix-specific (such as, having multiple processes all accept()ing
connections to the same port), the road to porting to Windows NT has not
been a pretty one. Several attempts have been made, both by Apache Group
members and outside folks, but due to a lack of stability and a clear
consensus on how to manage a true cross-platform development project, NT is
not yet a standard platform supported by Apache. "
----- Original Message -----
From: "Costas Piliotis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: IIS or Apache? (WAS RE: can anyone help?)
> Actually, I found CF made Apache a bit unstable... After I installed CF
> over Apache, I couldn't start Apache as a service any more - I had to run
> the command line version. Not good if you don't want the server to remain
> logged in.
>
> I would recomment sticking with IIS on an NT box. With CF and Apache,
there
> were (at least for me) a bunch of bugs.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:47 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: IIS or Apache? (WAS RE: can anyone help?)
>
>
> > Well now, since you'all have brought it up, and I never
> > really considered it, (big IIS fan)....which is better on
> > a Win2k (advanced server)?
> >
> > IIS or Apache?
> >
> > Pros - Cons?
> > Good for both Development and Production?
> >
> > Would consider shelving IIS for Apache if there was good
> > reason to....
>
> >From a functional perspective, both will work fine on Win2K, especially
for
> development. I think that IIS will perform better in production than
Apache
> on Windows, based on my experiences. This shouldn't be a surprise, since
> Microsoft has built IIS specifically to run very well on Windows.
>
> >From a security perspective, Apache is easier to secure than IIS,
although
> both can be secured adequately. Apache doesn't come with all kinds of
extra
> stuff like IIS does, so you don't have to remove and disable as much.
There
> are some people who think that IIS can't be secured
> (http://www.securityportal.com/articles/iis20010521.html), but it can be
> with a bit of diligence. The only "fatal flaw" with IIS, in my opinion, is
> that the service must run as SYSTEM so that it can impersonate other
users -
> if I understand correctly, this is required to support the integration of
> IIS authentication with NT authentication. So, if the IIS service gets
> compromised through a buffer overflow, any code executed as a result will
> run as SYSTEM. Actually, in Win2K, you might be able to change the IIS
> services so that they run as individual users. I haven't tried this yet,
> myself.
>
> If you're interested in taking advantage of Windows-specific
functionality,
> IIS will allow you to do that more easily and more often than Apache,
> generally.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
