On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Rob Tanner wrote:
> RedHat is as good or bad as any of the distributions. Redhat is not my
> personal preference -- and note, I said preference. I don't back my
> opinion with lots of objective data because that's a subjective
> valuation. I've been using Caldera, but I've started playing with SuSE
> and I think I like it better. Also, I would stay away from
> distributions like Macmillan Linux for Windows or Phat Linux. The
> reason is that these are loopback distributions really designed for
> folks who need Linux and Windows but don't want to or don't have the
> facilities for dual-boot. The distribution is actually a file in a DOS
> partition.
True. The advise is to go with mainstream distros (RH, Mandrake, SuSe,
Debian, Other) otherwise you will be locked into yet another proprietary
system with outdated sw. At least the mainstream distros get updated very
soon. I prefer Mandrake since it's a little bit better than RH, and
completely back compatible with RH (important when some sw pieces are
released for RH only)... but this goes offtopic here, so I'd stop.
> The thing to be concerned about no matter what distribution you use is
> that the Perl, mod-perl, and Apache installed on the distribution is
> probably not at all current -- afterall, the CD was probably burned 6
> months ago. Download current source and build your own. Also, don't
> install mod-perl as a DSO. It'll work kinda' sometimes maybe. It's
> considered experimental and that means NOT production. Build mod-perl
> static.
True.
> Also, another piece of advice for what it's worth. If your going to
> add SSL, build and test apache with mod-perl first, and then go back
> and add SSL. There may well be a work-around that I'm not aware of,
> but basically the problem is that mod-ssl is looking for an encryption
> key on startup, and mod-perl doesn't know anything about that. The
> result is that the server won't start and the mod-perl tests won't run.
Heh, obviously you have to supply the password on the server startup,
unless you use one of the workarounds described in the ssl docs (secured
utility that feeds the passwd is the best IMHO). Apparently this is not a
reason to first build mod_perl without ssl. The real reason is a level of
complexity and a number of things that can go wrong -- this is true for
any complex Apache modules, like mod_perl, mod_ssl and others.
For those exprerienced, all these are the piece of cake and obviously
they install all at once. If you are new to mod_perl exercise first the
installation of mod_perl over plain Apache, get your feet wet. Then add
other things on top when you are confident about the things you do.
And of course like many have mentioned already, it's better to install
mod_ssl and alike in the front end server. See an extensive discussion in
the mail archives and somewhere in the guide.
>
>
> -- Rob
>
>
> --On 08/26/00 23:22:03 +1000 Rod Butcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am looking to migrate a small modperl-based webhosting and ISP
> > service from NT to some flavour of Linux. Are any particularly
> > modperl-friendly or unfriendly or are they all much the same ? I'm
> > fairly comfortable with Redhat, but I hear stories of packages being
> > broken.
> > Any feedback or pointers to discussions, articles etc would be much
> > appreciated.
> > Thanks
> > Rod
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> /\_\_\_\_\ /\_\ /\_\_\_\_\_\
> /\/_/_/_/_/ /\/_/ \/_/_/_/_/_/ QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT,
> /\/_/__\/_/ __ /\/_/ /\/_/ PROFUNDUM VIDITUR
> /\/_/_/_/_/ /\_\ /\/_/ /\/_/
> /\/_/ \/_/ /\/_/_/\/_/ /\/_/ (Whatever is said in Latin
> \/_/ \/_/ \/_/_/_/_/ \/_/ appears profound)
>
> Rob Tanner
> McMinnville, Oregon
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://jazzvalley.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perlmonth.com perl.org apache.org
