Apache GUIs:

http://gui.apache.org/

Two more points:

  • If I had to use .Net, I'd likely go with IIS (as opposed to Mono).

  • Apache 2: Most of the module support is still considered experimental. The main reason is that the plethora of modules all haven't been tested for thread safety, on all platforms.

    Hmmm... clicking around a few places to set something up (IIS) vs. single line of code in Apache? I vote for Apache.

    Set IIS so only certain IPs can use it? Certainly longer road than a single line of code (Allow From) with Apache! Winner: Apache

    Simplicity? Apache BY FAR.

    I may vote for GUI related to apps you use many hours a day. After some time typing and searching text strings can be tiresome. But for a web server that you shouldn't have to spend much time with (if at all if configured properly), GUI is just too much.

    Reinstall IIS and restore saved settings via ASR (XP) which first yu should perform vs. copying archived httpd.conf and pasting over a newly installed one? Apache wins again!

      IIS.

      AAMOF, I love spending lots of money, locking up and rebooting weekly, wake-up calls in the midnight hours, scores of phreaks and lamerz who trade hackz to get cmd.exe on my box, code Red, Nimda, paying for vendor support, upgrading weekly... etc. etc.

      I'm gonna go right now and move all my domains to it.

      Yah, right, when pigs code PHP ... Apache all the way... and none of this Penguin stuff either, BSD, heh

        Is it just me, or was this thread answered before it was even started.

          Guys just to clarify here ... 1. I am not saying that IIS is better then apache ... actually I think the opposite ... 2. the reason I brought this question up is because there are certain open source scripts that in there requirements state they need IIS and some that state they Need apache .... I wanted to know what the functional differences were between the two so that I could understand why these scripts required such ....

          Thanks

            I think IIS is far easier to set up.

            Also, if you buy XP Pro (which doesn't cost much if you get it with a PC), this comes with IIS.

            Fair enough if you're running a webserver on your own computer, then apache would be better since it takes up less RAM/disc space/processing power, but if you have IIS on a nice dual pentium machine with ample memory (256M😎 (not that I'm bragging or anything😃 ) and its pretty much the only thing you are running then it runs very sweetly.

            I've had my w2k machine (the one with the specs quoted above and with IIS on it, natch) running for about 4 weeks non-stop and I've had no probs whatsoever.

              I like IIS myself, having used it for years and seen it evolve from pretty bad (IIS3) to good (IIS4) to very good (IIS5). I understand there have been a number of improvements in IIS6 in Windows 2003.

              I have a question for Apache guru's, is it easy to set up Apache so each website on the server runs in a different user context?

                I believe IIS is easier to setup, but to manage is another thing.

                Would you rather have a quick install and the hell of a time maintaining the dumb thing (that needs patches all the time), or a little bit harder to install, and much easier to maintain, with minimal patches

                and nowadays, apache isn't really that hard to install...

                and if you are running PHP with it, PHP is much more stable on Apache than IIS, and much faster/efficient

                  If I was gonna run a native threaded web server on Windows I'd pick Xitami over both Apache or IIS for ease of use, small footprint, speed, everything. I had to switch to apache because it was too fast for the router I was testing it on back in the day. Seriously.

                    Write a Reply...