On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, $Bill Luebkert wrote: > Sisyphus wrote: > > Hi, > > Is Apache now considered to be secure in a production environment on Windows > > ? > > > > 12 months ago it wasn't. > > > > Sorry .... it's an OT thread .... it's already long enough .... I haven't > > been following it .... the answer to my question has probably already been > > given ..... and I'm too lazy to go check .... > > > > Looks like I'm doomed to live again. > > (Still wouldn't mind a quick 'yea' or 'nay' to the question.) > > The only warning I see now is a performance one: > > Warning: Apache on NT has not yet been optimized for performance. Apache > still performs best, and is most reliable on Unix platforms. Over time NT > performance has improved, and great progress is being made in the upcoming > version 2.0 of Apache for the Windows platforms. Folks doing comparative > reviews of webserver performance are still asked to compare against Apache > on a Unix platform such as Solaris, FreeBSD, or Linux. >
That's because on NT and more recent vintage OSes, MS is beginning to implement some of the features and capabilities that Unix has had for two or three decades. How much discussion do you see on Unix-oriented perl lists vs. Windows-oriented list regarding the fork() function or IPC in general? The Unix people are doing it and the Windows people are taking about the problems they are having trying to do it. **** [EMAIL PROTECTED] <Carl Jolley> **** All opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer **** _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
