Re: Which is better?

Romaine,

Comparing PWS to Apache is very much like comparing apples to oranges.

Apache - WORKS.

Even if you had to pay for it (which you do not) you could not buy a better
(more reliable) better supported (tens of thousands of people willing to
help solve issues that may arise) web server platform.

A downside to Apache? You bet !!!!!!

It is NOT for the "point and click" crowd. You actually ~must~ be computer
literate to get it setup and running. Now, once it is setup, you can forget
about it. An "unstable" installation will possibly need to be rebooted
every few years. If you do it right the first time, your great grand kids
may need to reboot it . . . once.

HTH,
Fuzzy.


At 12:00 PM 11/29/00 -0500, Richardson, Romaine wrote:
>I am still having the problems with the MS personal web server (sometimes IP
>address works and sometimes it doesn't), the problem isn't as bad as it was,
>but this still happens sometimes, I have forms on my site and because I keep
>reloading the FrontPage extensions and the system can't find them, my forms
>don't work.  PWS was only one of two servers suggested by peachnet, the
>other was Apache, doe anyone on the list use it, and is it better than PWS,
>and does anyone know of another "Free" webserver I can use, the library
>can't afford to buy one, came out this year in the red.  Thanks for your
>assistance.
>
>Romaine Richardson
>romaine(at)juno.com
>
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA