se are my personal findings... feel free to comment back. I'm always
open to trying new methods of deployment.
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Carr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 June 2002 8:50 PM
> To: Matt Babineau
> Cc: PHP Windows
> Subject: RE: [PHP-
ndings... feel free to comment back. I'm always open to trying
new methods of deployment.
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Carr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 June 2002 8:50 PM
> To: Matt Babineau
> Cc: PHP Windows
> Subject: RE: [PHP-WIN] Re: Apache 2.0.36
237
> w: http://www.criticalcode.com
> PO BOX 601
> Manchester, NH 03105
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Hurring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PHP-WIN] Re: Apache 2.0.36 + PHP + Win
ver I'd be dubious as
to how stable apache2 would be just now, and would personally stick with 1.3
My 2cents
Ross
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Hurring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 June 2002 20:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: Apache
ECTED]
> p: 603.943.4237
> w: http://www.criticalcode.com
> PO BOX 601
> Manchester, NH 03105
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hurring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PHP-WIN] Re: Apach
HP-WIN] Re: Apache 2.0.36 + PHP + Win2000 Server
PHP support for Apache2 is still experimental, so i'd go with Apache
1.3.x for now.
Most people i hear from say that PHP/apache is much faster
than PHP/IIS.
"Matt Babineau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
003101c21097$698
PHP support for Apache2 is still experimental, so i'd go with
Apache 1.3.x for now.
Most people i hear from say that PHP/apache is much faster
than PHP/IIS.
"Matt Babineau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
003101c21097$69822c40$6501a8c0@developerx">news:003101c21097$69822c40$6501a8c0@develop
