On Thu, May 06, 1999, Harry Zink wrote:
> > Fine. Although from a performance point of view you'll not see much
> > differences, of course. It's more the functionality you've to compare IMHO.
> > For this an overview chart is useful...
>
> Understood, and I will compare functionality, as well as ease of use, and
> ease of install.
>
> After all, someone pointed out that mod_SSL came into being to accomodate
> those that were intimidated by the alleged complexity of Apache_SSL, so I
> believe a comparison of installation procedures should figure in here as
> well.
Sure, one should be at least compared IMHO the quality of..
1. documentation
2. installation prodecure
3. runtime functionality
4. perhaps also performance
(when possible and can be done in a reasonable way)
> > RPMs? No, please compile from scratch and both packages the same way, of
> > course.
>
> The RPM issue came from the 'ease of installation' standpoint - no problem,
> I'll do the compile then for both.
Ok, for me "ease of installation" is a pure from-the-source issue. Because
when you already have RPMs for both packages, both are equally easy to install
(just "rpm -Uvh <package>" or something when I remember correctly).
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
