Can anyone advise whether apache 2.0 (as provided in Redhat 9) is stable?
Edwin Humphries,
Ironstone Technology Pty Ltd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ironstone.com.au
Phone: 02 4233 2285
Fax: 02 4233 2299
Mobile: 0419 233 051
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29-08-2003 04:03:29 PM:
> Can anyone advise whether apache 2.0 (as provided in Redhat 9) is
stable?
>
OK I just gotta ask
Is Redhat 9 even stable? I have found all (Well since I had been using it,
from 6.0 - 8.0) major releases to be unstable, unreliable and buggy
I've not had a problem since I've been using it - 6.0 thru 9.0 although
I don't use it for gui desktop stuff much.
Scott Ragen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29-08-2003 04:03:29 PM:
Can anyone advise whether apache 2.0 (as provided in Redhat 9) is
stable?
OK I just gotta ask
Scott Ragen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29-08-2003 04:03:29 PM:
Can anyone advise whether apache 2.0 (as provided in Redhat 9) is
stable?
OK I just gotta ask
Is Redhat 9 even stable? I have found all (Well since I had been using it,
from 6.0 - 8.0) major releases to be unstable, unre
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:26:48PM +1000, Scott Ragen wrote:
> Is Redhat 9 even stable? I have found all (Well since I had been using it,
> from 6.0 - 8.0) major releases to be unstable, unreliable and buggy.
That's not my experience. I've had a RH9.0 server running for the last
few months with
Have had RH8, with Apache 2.X running 500 virtual domains quite happily
with SSL for nominated damains as well. The system handled on average
over 2000 transactions per hr. Had to do a little tuning to RH8 though.
Not thrilled with RH but Client wanted a "Market" recognised Distro.
cheers
Micha
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:26, Scott Ragen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29-08-2003 04:03:29 PM:
>
> > Can anyone advise whether apache 2.0 (as provided in Redhat 9) is
> stable?
> >
> OK I just gotta ask
> Is Redhat 9 even stable? I have found all (Well since I had been using it,
> fro
Hi,
Trying to use the UserDir option in apache 2.0
I have added this into /etc/httpd/conf/httpd2.conf:
UserDir /share/html
And I go to the browser and type http://localhost/~adamw
And I get a 403 forbidden. And this in the error log:
[Wed Apr 07 17:27:16 2004] [error] [client 192.168.1.101]
Adam W wrote:
What could be causing this?
i dunno about apache 1 vs 2, but don't you need a UserDir enabled
username directive?
and maybe UserDir ~/share/html would be a bit more sensible...
dave
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs:
Dave,
> Adam W wrote:
>
> > What could be causing this?
> >
> >
>
> i dunno about apache 1 vs 2, but don't you need a UserDir enabled
> username directive?
> and maybe UserDir ~/share/html would be a bit more sensible...
>
Sorry, missed out those details.
Apache 2. Mandrake 9.2 default conf
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 06:55:53PM +1000, Adam W ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dave,
>
> > Adam W wrote:
> >
> > > What could be causing this?
> > >
[snip]
>
> After creating my public_html file in /home/adamw,
>
> Still getting:
>
> [Wed Apr 07 19:16:46 2004] [error] [client 192.168.1.101]
Jobst,
> >
> > After creating my public_html file in /home/adamw,
> >
> > Still getting:
> >
> > [Wed Apr 07 19:16:46 2004] [error] [client 192.168.1.101]
> > (13)Permission
> > denied: access to /~adamw denied
>
>
> The Apache Server must have access to that DIR!
>
> However you can do som
I didn't realise apache needs execute permissions!
Thanks all,
Adam.
> Jobst,
>
> > >
> > > After creating my public_html file in /home/adamw,
> > >
> > > Still getting:
> > >
> > > [Wed Apr 07 19:16:46 2004] [error] [client 192.168.1.101]
> > > (13)Permission
> > > denied: access to /~adamw
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:09:26 +1000, Adam W uttered
> I didn't realise apache needs execute permissions!
>
Apache itself doesn't need execute permission, but if a directory
doesn't have execute permission, you can't cd into it.
--
Steve
In the beginning was
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Adam W wrote:
> Jobst,
>
> > >
> > > After creating my public_html file in /home/adamw,
> > >
> > > Still getting:
> > >
> > > [Wed Apr 07 19:16:46 2004] [error] [client 192.168.1.101]
> > > (13)Permission
> > > denied: access to /~adamw denied
> >
> >
> > The Apache Ser
I generally find people complaining about RH being unstable see an app
failing under RH that works well with another distro and wonder what's
wrong.
RH do have a habit of adopting technology that exposes other people's
bugs before other distros. Eg, apps that use non standards complaint C
code, wh
Mike MacCana wrote:
I generally find people complaining about RH being unstable see an app
failing under RH that works well with another distro and wonder what's
wrong.
These are bugs in those apps, that need to be, and are, fixed in those
apps. It is a good thing they are exposed (it certainly hel
17 matches
Mail list logo
