i am using the codes that i was using before. they work. i am sure because i
downloaded from my working server.
also one of the code is php nuke...
Quoting David Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Post the several codes you tried, perhaps someone can see a bug in them?
> Perhaps explain how you did the
Post the several codes you tried, perhaps someone can see a bug in them?
Perhaps explain how you did the apache/php install (RPM or source?)
What options did you compile/install with?
/B
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003
> This one I think I can do with a regular like any
> others, but I have a feeling there may be a better way?
That will do it.
<>
-- Original Message ---
From: "Daevid Vincent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:44:48 -0700
Subject: Apache 1.3
At 03:48 AM 3/16/98 GMT, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>not so with me. NT was halfway stable before 4.0, but not anymore.
Yes I would have to agree there. I had a mail server with 2000 users that
ran on NT 3.51 and Post.Office. That thing ran solid for 2 years and 2
months before we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I realize this is a Linux list server, but I prefer to play fair.
>I've been running NT ever since version 3.1 and it has NEVER crashed
>on me without a good reason, and a solution readily available. All in
>all my NT has been stable as a rock. I believe people badmout
MSCE...
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Paul Fontenot wrote:
> >
> > How old are you, kid?
> >
> Is this really necessary? If it is please take it off the list.
>
> As far as NT goes, I am an MCSE (cuz everybody has to eat...) and i agree
> NT is fairly powerful but, not as flexible as UNIX.
>
> -Paul
>
> How old are you, kid?
>
Is this really necessary? If it is please take it off the list.
As far as NT goes, I am an MCSE (cuz everybody has to eat...) and i agree
NT is fairly powerful but, not as flexible as UNIX.
-Paul
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIS
-Original Message-
From: Dave Wreski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Apache 1.3
>
>> I realize this is a Linux list server, but I prefer to play fair.
>> I've been running
> I realize this is a Linux list server, but I prefer to play fair.
> I've been running NT ever since version 3.1 and it has NEVER crashed
> on me without a good reason, and a solution readily available. All in
> all my NT has been stable as a rock. I believe people badmouth NT
> because they e
TECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Apache 1.3
>Good morning
>
>I switched from NT-4.0 to Redhat 4.2 about 1 1/2 years ago...
>and (other than minor delays caused by my personal learning curve)
>I have had w
I am trying to get name based virtual hosts to work. I want all to have the
same IP address. Do I have to upgrade to httpd (apache) 1.3? I am confused
because one reply said yes and one said no - just leave NameVirtualHost
directive out of http.conf and leave rest of virtual server stuff there.
Th
I forgot to ask
When you speak of Name Based Virtual Domains...
you are referring to 'non-IP number' virtual domains...
do I understand you correctly?
I need to make this move to non-IP# domains as well.
I'm still using the version of Apache that came with RH 4.2
Hank
On Sun, 15 Mar
Good morning
I switched from NT-4.0 to Redhat 4.2 about 1 1/2 years ago...
and (other than minor delays caused by my personal learning curve)
I have had wonderful results with Redhat 4.2.
My server has never gone down unless I took it down for
maintenance or upgradingor upline isp pro
Rita Meng wrote:
> Is anyone using Apache 1.3 for Linux? I have Httpd 1.2.5 on Redhat. I want
> to do virtual hosts but when I put the NameVirtualHost directive in
> httpd.conf, it is invalid. The Apache doc says that it is only valid for
> Apache 1.3. But the Apache site also says that 1.3 is
14 matches
Mail list logo
