I'm current;y in the process of setting up a new web server myself. The obvious choice for me was to use Red Hat 7.3 for the install. On a clean install all the nice options are already present, (ssl, php, mysql, gd lib) which is much better thatn what we used to run, Red Hat 5.2! Been running that for the past 4 years on that dinosaur.
Ed On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Joseph Szobody wrote: > Folks, > > I'm just getting ready to built a webserver this weekend and was planning on using > RH9, so this thread especially caught my eye. The website that the server will be > hosting is pretty simple, some basic DB queries, no special Apache modules. Is > Apache 2.0 still not a good choice for something simple? > > If I really should use Apache 1.3, then which route would be easier... > > 1. Install RH9, remove Apache 2.0 and manually install Apache 1.3 (from tarball). > The only problem with this is that I will no longer be able to use the Red Hat > Network's "up2date" tool to download and apply patches (from what I understand). > Up2date is a huge time saver for me. > > 2. Install RH7.3, and manually install the latest version of PHP (I simply can't use > the version that comes with RH7.3). Of course then I still have the older version of > MySQL, and everything else. > > Comments? > > Joseph > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
