Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84112 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 14:31:29 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 14:31:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 44749 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2004 14:31:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 44729 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2004 14:31:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list users@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 44714 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 14:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO GWGATE1.ahm.com) (151.200.214.164) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 14:31:11 -0000 Received: from Domain7-MTA by GWGATE1.ahm.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:31:13 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:30:54 -0500 From: "Ola Ogunneye" To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache Versions... X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I have installed 2.0.47 and I am having problems with some of my images not showing for one reason or the other. So a friend told me to just install 1.3.29 saying that he never had a problem with it.. In that case, does that mean I can install the 1.3.29 without uninstalling the 2.0.47, and secondly, what version of PHP would I be using for the 1.3.29 I would think 4.3.4 is not compatible? Thanks Ola >>> robert@profundis.nu 01/19/04 09:20AM >>> Ola Ogunneye wrote: > Can someone please tell me why if version 2.0.48 is the latest stable > version of Apache, is 1.3.29 available? Apache 1.3 and 2.0 are different branches and live their own lifes, and are not API compatible. Apache 1.3 is more stable (because no new features are added to it) and has more modules available for it, why it is prefered by some. > Is 1.3.29 recommended for certain people or why are they both in > existence. I would only recommend Apache 1.3 for people that needs modules not yet available for 2.0. Some would also argue that PHP doesn't play too well with Apache 2.0, but I am yet to see that for myself. Migrating to 1.3 -> 2.0 is not painless, and in some cases not possible. Since so many still use Apache 1.3 it is still maintained. Regards, Robert Andersson --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org