Am Mo, den 17.05.2004 schrieb John Nichel um 16:56:
> Not to reopen the "old school vs. new school" debate again, but I feel
> that if one is going to take on an endouver such as running their own
> web server, they will be better informed on how to
> configure/troubleshoot the application if they install from source vs.
> something like an RPM which is supposed to do it for you. Not to say
> that RPM's don't work, but in many instances they don't provide what the
> user thinks he/she is getting. Granted, this is a user issue, and not a
> RPM issue, but we wouldn't see as many, "why doesn't this work..."
> questions.
> John C. Nichel
I disagree. If people would spend the same amount of efforts they would
need to get things like Apache(2) and PHP compiled from source and
running like they want into discovering how the software is that comes
with RPMs, they easily would get the same results, even quicker I
believe. It is often some kind of lazyness to use the packaged software
and then to expect reading the shipped docs is not necessary. I do not
intend to blame the OP of this thread! I just fight against your
argument. See i.e.
/usr/share/doc/httpd-2.0.48/
/usr/share/doc/php-4.3.4/
for documentation coming with the Apache2 and PHP RPMs for FC1. And
reading the configuration and other files in /etc/httpd/ is highly
suggested too. Of course last but not least the documentation you would
have to read when using the sources.
Alexander
--
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG key 1024D/ED695653 1999-07-13
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 1 (Yarrow) on Athlon CPU kernel 2.4.22-1.2188.nptl
Sirendipity 17:29:30 up 4 days, 15:14, load average: 0.08, 0.13, 0.10
[ ÎÎÏÎÎ Ï'ÎÏÏÎÎ - gnothi seauton ]
my life is a planetarium - and you are the stars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
