apache win32 port

[actualfact]

i just found out about this the other day. . it's kinda amusing, kinda lame.  apache on window is too wild of a concept for me. . plus i'm kinda suprised the developers weren't all nazi-like about porting it to anything but unix.  but, yeah, all the lusers start getting bright ideas to install it then have no idea what they're doing.  haha

[ChakanTGM]

Why screw up a perfectly good web server by porting it to Winblowz? It definately would not have the extreme power it has now UNIX.

No Thanks.

[k3it4r0u]

And the binaries aren't even stable. Shows how much time they spent developing it [add]for this system[/add]. Apache for UNIX beats Apache for Windows anyday, and besides, Apache is not a Microsoft product.  

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: k3it4r0u ]

[ssjhook]

windows version also gives unexperienced computer users a chance to open up a web server of their own

and it also gives users a pretty GUI and has that wonderful apache name which makes u feel warm and toasty inside

[k3it4r0u]

and it's still better than IIS.  

[ssjhook]

yeah anything that you can crash with a VB program must be lame

[actualfact]

let's all run windows machines with apache and sendmail.    :rolleyes:

[ssjhook]

ohhh good idea

i'll take pictures of myself with my AOL digicam and send them all around

better yet i'll use Windows Media to make a home video for all of u!!!

[theangelofdeath69]

Apache windows has a GUI?  Really?  I never noticed, even though I run it quite a lot.  And IIS crashes with VB scripts, not programs!

Besides, if you can crash it by doing a search. it obviously sucks.

Somebody said its unstable too!  Apache for windows is perfectly stable.  never crashed on me yet.  and someone mentioned apache and sendmail...

it appears mail.microsoft.at (microsoft austria, i think) runs Sendmail on Linux (telnet to mail.microsoft.at port 25)

Good for a laugh

[voidmain]

I don't know about the Windows version but there are several GUIs for the *NIX version  Comanche, Webmin, Linuxconf, etc... I would *never* run Apache on Windows when I can run it on a real OS.  It's like putting mag wheels on a Yugo.

[kjg]

quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
I don't know about the Windows version but there are several GUIs for the *NIX version  Comanche, Webmin, Linuxconf, etc... I would *never* run Apache on Windows when I can run it on a real OS.  It's like putting mag wheels on a Yugo.

True, but the Apache windows version is a godess-send for those of us stuck on a Windoze system while trying to develop a website for a Unix-flavored machine! I haven't found a GUI for it tho, everything I've got keeps telling me "enter the command" xyz (or whatever) to do stuff. As a code-wimp, it took me two days to figure out WHERE to "enter the command"!

  :rolleyes:  

What can I say, at least I'm trying to learn! And I now know what a MS-DOS prompt is, which made the article about how to clear the really hidden files so much more comprehensible!

[voidmain]

I don't understand. Why not run Apache on a Linux box where it actually is easy to configure (in fact it will likely be configured as you need it on a default install).  You don't have to do your development on the Linux box if you don't want to (although I am happier doing web development on Linux).  Especially if your ultimate taget platform is a *NIX/Apache box.  Linux/Apache is an *awesome* staging/development platform as well as a production server.

If you must use Win* for development and don't want to FTP/SCP/FrontPage your site/development to the Linux staging/development server just turn on Samba and map a network drive to your web root on the Linux box.

I was in a similar environment in my last job.  Corporate web servers (well known corporation) were running Sun Solaris, Apache, Tomcat, etc...  I took an old P166 PC with a large hard drive, 128MB RAM, installed Linux/Apache, set up multiple Apache Virtual servers and Samba. The developer dudes who were stuck on Windows development platforms internally just mapped drives to the Linux box and did their code development right on the Linux web directories from their Win machines and they were *extremely* pleased with this setup.

I also set up "webmin" and gave them access to the Apache module so they could configure the web server however they wanted (graphically) from their browser.  The entire process from sticking the CD in the drive to finish (including adding the DNS entries in our DNS servers for the virtual hosts) took me about an hour.

And this machine was tucked away in the computer room with no monitor or keyboard attached.  Just sat there and ran.  It had over a year of uptime when I left.  It cost very little (just a discarded PC) and I had it hooked up to the corporate network backup system so if the machine died I could easily grab another and restore everything from backup.

It was funny because they constantly showed the staging web site to the big wigs for approval before updating the main corporate web site.  If they only new it was Linux under the hood and didn't cost the company a penny.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[kjg]

quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
I don't understand. Why not run Apache on a Linux box where it actually is easy to configure (in fact it will likely be configured as you need it on a default install). [snip]

Well, I'm a new convert... Just about everything I've got at the moment depends on windows - to change everything over AND get the website done is just too much to do right now. I'm still figuring out some real basic stuff, having been assimilated by the Redmondian Borg at an early age. It will be a real achievement (for me) just to be able to actually make MySQL and PHP do what I want it to do, and upload it to the server. Like in my message above... I wanted to scream when I kept encountering the instructions to "enter this or that command" written by people who assumed I knew more than I did.

 

quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
If you must use Win* for development and don't want to FTP/SCP/FrontPage your site/development to the Linux staging/development server just turn on Samba and map a network drive to your web root on the Linux box.

I'll probably be doing most of my work on php interfaces with the server (it's a freeBSD box though) - but I've got to learn how to DO them first! That's why I'm trying to create a close replica of that environment on my own machine. Maybe someday I'll take the plunge and convert to Linux, but not today. I'm just glad I have the *option* to create a reasonable facsimile of the sever environment without jumping in to Linux head first - because I'm quite certain I'd drown at this particular stage in the learning process.

[voidmain]

I'm sorry to say that now I *really* don't understand.  Why not just install FreeBSD on a second box to use as your staging server?

Even with Linux I'm telling you it ain't as hard as you think.  Even you could have had Linux up with Apache/PHP/MySQL/PostgreSQL etc in a matter of an hour or two.  Why spend days trying to shoehorn Apache/PHP onto a box that nobody on the development team cares about?  All the stuff you want is on the installation CD and you just pick the packages at installation time.  I would also suggest installing the webmin RPM so if you do want to change any of the defaults and set up your MySQL/PostgreSQL/Apache/Samba graphically from a web browser from your Windows machine.  It'll just be a net appliance at that point.  

Apache will be up and running the first time you start the machine.  Again, you don't have to wipe out your existing machine that you are using for developing.  Grab another old PC from somewhere.  It surely can't hurt to at least do it on the side of what you are already doing and if it doesn't work out then it doesn't work out, but I think you will find it ain't rocket science.

If I'm wrong I'll tell you I'm sorry (or feel sorry for you). What would you be out? Maybe a couple of hours?  And once you realize Linux isn't so difficult install FreeBSD, it's very similar (you might scratch your head a little on a first time install but it's not "hard" either).

[lu666s]

VoidMan, I agree with you, but I can understand Karen's point of view. It took me 2 years to pussyfoot around linux to finally plunge last summer. All my three boxen now humm linux...
I did all my dev before on w2k with OmniHttpd, which is an excellent small footprint web server, with perl/php/ssi/cf support. Far more secure than the famous Micro$uck Intended for Idiots Server (IIS). It has a GUI too, but that is not to its detriment. Apache works well on windoze too, at least as the dev is concerned, I would not dare to use the combination for live sites. My remote hosting server has been always linux.
It may be a good idea for her to set up a linux box, aside, to play with it, just to get her feet wet and when she gets comfy with it, switch then. Once she is at that stage, she would never look back, but at the moment, her mind would probably lock up, staring blankly at the monitor, not knowing what to do next. How do I know? One of my acquaintances got into the same situation Karen is in and reacted exactly that way. Had to provide a crash course for a week and then the spark of light dispelled the darkness.

Note: I use Micro$uck instead of more appropriate Macro$uck, because only time it bothers me nowadays is when NT boxes are trying to inject their viral diseases unsuccessfully into my remote server. What a waste of bandwidth! Sometimes I think I should write a vaccine, that would eradicate the offending carriers once and for all.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: lu666s ]

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: lu666s ]