> I doubt we'll have time to tackle PHP, but if it is possible, I think the same > argument should apply, which leads to PHP 5. However, this one is a little > more iffy... There is definetly more support for PHP 4 right now. Most of my customers want php5 on my server, none have there own scripts more than 3/4ths of the websites on my server have scripts that do _not_ work with php5 but about 4/5ths of the server want php5 instead of php4. Anoying but quite Funny. > At least > Apache has a roughly even split for support (my experience suggest maybe the > balance is more towards the 2.0.x side now, but I have no hard numbers to > back this up). > I have found most web hosting company's that have between 1,000-50,000+ sites use apache 1.3.33 due to the fact it has less bugs (others look at it as more bugs have been fixed) and then I find almost everyone else using apache 2.0.52 especially in house servers because of the amount of people using fedora core and it coming as the version in the end I find more websites to use apache 1.3.33 (when 500 websites are on one server equals to quite a bit more sites) but it seems as more servers use 2.0.52 from my views.
Travis R. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
