PROTECTED]; Shena Delian O'Brien
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Red Hat 9, Apache 2, and PHP
Apache 2.x.x IS a production quality server, just not with PHP. Works great
with Tomcat, mod_jk2, Struts, etc.
- Original Message -
From: Shena Delian O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
DID : 03-7870 5168
-Original Message-
From: Mark Charette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Shena Delian O'Brien
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Red Hat 9, Apache 2, and PHP
Apache 2.x.x IS a production quality server, just not with PHP
M'sia
DID : 03-7870 5168
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:48 PM
To: Ow Mun Heng
Cc: Mark Charette; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Shena Delian O'Brien
Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: Red Hat 9, Apache 2, and PHP
Apache2 has a number of different
,
Joseph Blythe
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 4:18 PM
To: Ow Mun Heng
Cc: Mark Charette; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Shena Delian O'Brien
Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: Red Hat 9, Apache 2, and PHP
Apache2 has a number of different modes
I know that no software is without bugs, it is the first thing you learn in
Computer Engineering.
What I really meant was I don't update the date after a new version comes
out. I wait until I don't see any more major bug reports. Until I feel the
new version is stable enough. Thus that is why I
Brad Pauly wrote:
Todd
Cary wrote:
Linux is quite new for me, so please forgive
me if my questions are rather basic.
I have RH 9 installed and I want to add the Interbase extensions to PHP
and then recompile Apache. Conceptually I understand what has to be
done, but I do not know
OK, so Apache 2 is out. Is there any reason not to go with RH 9.0? Any known problems?
Jeff
-
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Jeff Schwartz wrote:
OK, so Apache 2 is out. Is there any reason not to go with RH 9.0? Any known
problems?
It should be fine. Linux is pretty much Linux. The biggest differences
between distros and distro versions are at the GUI level and in the set of
applications they
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
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
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
Does anyone remember the warning concerning MySQL and glibc. I distinctly
remember some conflict between the two and up2date installing a bad
mismatch lib making MySQL act funny. It's one of the reasons I'll stick
with Red Hat 7.3 but I my conclusions about the situation may be clouded
because
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.
And just when would this rare event occur, if ever?
Every version of Apache, PHP, or Linux distro ever released has had bugs or
exploits of some form. If you're waiting
Mark McCulligh wrote:
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
Todd Cary wrote:
Linux is quite new for me, so please forgive me if my questions are
rather basic.
I have RH 9 installed and I want to add the Interbase extensions to PHP
and then recompile Apache. Conceptually I understand what has to be
done, but I do not know the steps or syntax. Is there
Does anyone know why Red Hat would switch to Apache 2.x.x when it is
well known that 2.x.x is NOT a production version?
Brad Pauly wrote:
Just thought I would share my experience with RH9. I have been running
Apache 1.3.27 and PHP 4.3.2 on RH9 for a couple weeks (since 4.3.2 came
out anyway,
Apache 2.x.x IS a production quality server, just not with PHP. Works great
with Tomcat, mod_jk2, Struts, etc.
- Original Message -
From: Shena Delian O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Red Hat 9, Apache 2, and PHP
Does anyone know why Red Hat would switch to Apache 2.x.x when it is
well known that 2.x.x is NOT a production version?
This question seems more appropriate for [EMAIL PROTECTED] or such since PHP
has nothing to do with RedHat version control.
But to answer your question, RedHat has always
18 matches
Mail list logo
