Which version of Apache 1.3 or 2.0 ?

[wjsulliv]

Which version should I install? Is one more stable or have more available plugins (like php, asp, etc) than the other?

I ran into someone this weekend who said that things like php aren't supported yet in apache 2.0, is that true?

I intend to install one or the other on a Red Hat 8 machine.

 

[N11]

I personally prefer 1.3 -- here is a feature list of the benefits of 2.0

http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/new_features_2_0.html

The part about PHP not being supported by 2.0 is not accurate -- with redhat 8 I would recommend installing their packaged version of apache 2.0 released with the distro.

 

[Buddha Bart]

not to be a dick or nothing, but it sounds like you're quite new.
you would definatly want 1.3 simply for the piles and piles of howto's, help articles, walkthroughs, and general documentation that are out there.

to the small-time website apache2 really doesn't offer anything interesting.

n11, have you guys given any serious consideration to it? does the proccesses with multiple threads thing look interesting for the multitude of virtual hosts you serve off each machine? Personally I think its too soon to jump in.

bart

 

[N11]

We haven't given it a great deal of thought -- apache 2.0 is an interesting thought but does not really address any needs of ours-- the Windows 2k users do now finally have a secure/stable production webserver to replace IIS, however, we don't run a single Windows server.

There are also some other interesting things like modules running as filters but nothing breathtaking in my opinion.

All of our shared environments run 1.3.26 over the following specs:

Dell Poweredge 1650 - Dual 1.26ghz
1GB ECC
3 36GB 10,000 - RAID5
Red Hat 7.3

-- 1.3.26 has everything we could ever need in a webserver on these specifications. Particularly for this OS. -- Doubtful we'd even recommend it to clients over a managed dedicated solution particularly for static content -- Tux or various others are more ideal in those situations.