I am also building a new server. I am going with RedHat 8, but only installing the Classic server from the CDs. Then installing/configuring Apache/PHP/MySQL/SSL manually. I like the rpm install programs but I like to be able to add modules in the future and I find it easier the configure it all by hand.
I also use the up2date, but only for the basic server part, not the webserver part. I will reconfigure my web server is a new version or patch comes out. I am doing to use Apache 1.3.27, because I too have read all the warnings about 2.X and PHP, it does not look stable. Maybe with PHP 5 it will be stable. I went with Redhat 8 over 9 because I have also read about a lot of bugs with redhat 9. I usually don't like to use the new of anything until it have been out for sometime and I don't see any see bug reports. Just my two cent. Mark. "Joseph Szobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
