phpgroupware-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Phpgroupware-users] Is no one using this under NT/IIS?


From: Alex Borges (lex)
Subject: Re: [Phpgroupware-users] Is no one using this under NT/IIS?
Date: 11 Dec 2002 17:00:00 -0600

El mié, 11-12-2002 a las 16:00, Seibar Ghoti escribió:
> You asked, so I'm answering, I'm not trying to start a flame war, and will 
Its okay, i wasnt trying to either, just thouught it would save you
time.
> ignore anyone who tries to start one... Simply, on a Windows platform, I 
> personally prefer IIS.  There are some things that can be done much easier 
> on IIS than Apache.  Yes, there are security holes in IIS, there are 
> security holes in Apache.  However, any admin worth their salt can prevent 
> almost all of the security issues in IIS by simply following the "Securing 
> IIS" whitepaper (and some common sense) that's been around since the first 
> version of IIS.  Redcode?  Never affected me: a) I don't install stuff I 

I have to agree that IIS runs better than apache 1.3 in windows and
apache 2.0 is too new. Doesnt mean its going to make it any easyer to
get this thing to run in IIS, or that youll have more ppl to give you
support than if you ran it in apache.
<snip>

I also  run in a commercial environment. I thought running apache would
make it easyer for you to setup phpgw. Ive been told this is not
necesarily the case. Id try it anyways though, if you encounter the same
trouble, them ditch it. Im just saying that for any OSS community it
will be easyer to support setups where more components are OSS. Im not
shure IIS/W2k introduces more problems than apache/w2k. I do think some
form of running under windows should be actively supported.

Now, when was the last time anyone touched the oracle db layer?, or the
mssql db stuff? HEll i dont know if anyone is still using phpgw under
those. And if they came and asked a question, most ppl in phpgw would
tell them to fix it themselves cause not many can cash up 15k for an
oracle box.

Im talking about mantainability and what makes the most sense to you in
the middle/long term. I know youve said this is a part of moving all to
linux. I agree, ive migrated large datacenters and i started as well
with the internal collaboration infrastructure. It worked, now im booked
for the first three months of 2003 to move PDC's and all fileservers to
linux. Its a good idea. BUT, if apache/windows wouldve made easyer than
iis/windows, id have put in apache without thinking twice.
> Your idea of putting Apache on another port is great: how do you get the 
> users to it?  They can't, generally, even get to a website, how are they 
> going to do it when you tell them "add :81" to the end.  You'll blow their 
> minds.  

No need to tell them anything. Just tell them to go to your IIS/mail (or
mail.yourclient.internal.domain) and put up a Default.htm with a js
redirect (document.location) or a header call to redirect to the other
port. DEAD EASY.


But as ive said, it might not make it any easyer to run it under apache
(acording to Chriss), i just thought it would. And i still think it
could help in some parts (this whole redirect thing perhaps), but not in
the path parts (apache would still need c:// and all to come
correctly).....give it a shot.

In any case, there is a SEP constant declared in functions.inc.php in
the api. All apps should be using that to refer to paths (as in
$predir.SEP.blah. Help out and change the ones you are using to that.



> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-users
-- 
Alex Borges (lex) <address@hidden>
Step One Group




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]