Possibly not the best time to be posting messages like that on website, whilst associating yourselves in some way to Osama Bin Laden.
People like this do make me very jealous, though; it has taken me the best part of two years to work out how to use footnotes on Word, and even now I still have problems. Some people are just destined to be better at computers than others, and some are just destined to er... have lives, I suppose.
Wotsat.com is now back to normal. Although if their webhost doesn't get the server patched, it'll
only happen again! Maybe WotSat should consider changing their webhost to one that uses a
much safer UNIX based server, when there current webhosting contract is due for renenewal.
I always wonder why so many webhosts use Apache 1.3 when the version I have on my XP machine is 2.0.48, are the apache numbers different or have they not bothered to upgrade, I would have thought this of paramount importance.
Plus is a Windows machine with Apache and safer than one with IIS?
I always wonder why so many webhosts use Apache 1.3 when the version I have on my XP machine is 2.0.48, are the apache numbers different or have they not bothered to upgrade, I would have thought this of paramount importance.
Actually, I'm more concerned with Apache 2... Apache 2 gives us a dependency on an
unproven web server
. Given the
ridiculous amounts of importance we have to place on Apache
, we need it
solid
. I'll probably give it about a month after it appears in sid.
A few points:
1. Apache 2 is a major rewrite of much of Apache 1. Many of those nice new shiny features have only been used in a development environment and not in the real world, where they may fail under heavy load/attack. This cannot be realistically simulated in the relatively closed environment of development systems.
2. There is also the problem that the developers have changed the way that the module system works in Apache 2, making many modules break. Popular modules, such as PHP, are still considered
experimental
when used with Apache 2.
3. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - Many webhosts will only upgrade Apache if they find that there is a serious problem.
Hymagumba posted:
Plus is a Windows machine with Apache and safer than one with IIS?
Personally, I would say that Apache 2 on Windows (not version 1, which was slow and clunky on Windows because it was built to run specifically on
Unix-style
systems) is better and safer than IIS on Windows, but not as safe as Apache on GNU/Linux or one of the *BSD systems.
This does not mean that you should use Apache 2 + Windows in a production environment though!
