httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Turner <>
Subject Re: Web Server Setup on Nt 4.0 PC
Date Sun, 07 Jul 2002 19:25:12 GMT
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 17:38:02 +0200 (CEST), wrote:

(lolo_32 left off my citation, so I've added it)
> Gary Turner wrote:

>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:18:11 -0400, Bryan O'Neill, President, O & R
>> Digitel wrote:
>>>Ladies & Gentlemen,
>>>My goal is to transform a PII 200Mhz PC, WIN NT 4.0, into hosting my
>>>webpage.  This PC is connected to a cable modem.
>> Bryan, are you sure you want to do this?  I took a look at your site,
>> and unless you're planning a massive over-haul, your hosting cost can't
>> be that much.  OTOH, if you host yourself, you are taking on an
>> incredible security and reliability risk for little reward.  This is
>> especially true if you use MS*, since their sense of ownership and
>> permissions is kinda loosey goosey.  Apache can't protect your files
>> any better than the OS does.
>> If you are determined, though, begin here,
>>  Apache isn't that hard to
>> set up.
>> I don't know the details of how or what to do, but a commercial site
>> needs back-up.  When your server goes down, another server needs to
>> pick up the slack.  Maybe your present host can poll your server and
>> redirect through his DNS to his own machines when (not if) yours goes
>> down.  I'm just speculating--I have not a clue how it would be done.
>> Sorry if I sound negative.  It's just that a business server needs to
>> have a lot of TLC.  You could leave your site on the host machine and
>> use your own server to develop and test improvements for your pages.
>> Another use is serving up an internal site for employees (gobs of uses
>> here) on your LAN.
>> Ah, well.  The commentary is free and worth every nickel.
<snip sig stuff, etc.>
>I'm disagree with you, because Apache could works with an account user.
>With these account, you could define NTFS permission to specify the right
>access of it.
>And now, Apache2 is design to work with Windows NT, 2k.
>You can see
>the adress you give is for Apache 1.3

My point did _not_ concern the appropriateness of Apache, whether v1.3
or v2.x.  What is the point, is that a commercial web-site requires
stable, secure, and redundant host machines.

Would you be willing to trust:

	Your LAN with an opening to the world through ports 80 and 443 on a
machine with an OS that has loose permissions?  I saw no mention of
multi-level firewalls, etc..

	Your business to a single server that _will_ crash?

	Your business to the vagaries of the electric co.?  I saw no
reference to UPS(s) or emergency generators.

	Your business to the cable guy?

The concerns are hardware and support.

Everything here could be wrong--Messiah's Handbook--Bach

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message