I find people are most passionate about what there most familiar with.
Sounds like you give good advice and are a valuable asset for this list.
Hopefully, you can help with some issues I may have from time to time.
Currently I have a situation where I acquired a new web site that was
currently on an IIS server using *.asp for forms, etc. An now it sits on
our RH8 box with Apache 2. I have seen talk about asp2php but think I
would be better to just redo the forms for php, what do you think? Do
you know about getting Apache 2 on a Linux box to work with *.asp pages?
Is it a simple config of httpd.conf?
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
Cyber Source wrote:
GRUB is way more flexible than LILO, can even have spaces in the
titles of your stanza's! WOW, lol, Don't need to reinstall it to
change it, etc., unlike LILO, Doesnt have near the trouble that I
used to have with SCSI on LILO. Anyway, didn't want to start a flame
but I started using GRUB because RH and now Fedora seemed to prefer
it, much like GNOME and I thought they must see something good in
there choices and since he is using Fedora, I gave what seemed like
logical advise, IMHO.
Sure, each to his own.
There are things Grub is better than LILO, and things LILO is better
than Grub. Given that LILO is not default choice, OP probably choosen
it for a reason. I usually give advice for the boot loader people ask
(be it Grub or LILO), and suggest different one only when there's an
advantage of using it (for example LILO handles mirrored boot
partitions in simpler way than Grub does). I prefer LILO, but you can
find many posts of mine where I helped out people with Grub problems
(suggesting LILO as alternative only where it made sense, but only
suggesting, not as the only way to go). My comment was more along the
lines that I don't uderstand why people are so religious about choice
of boot loader ;-)
--
cybersource.us
115 Richfield Road
Williamsville, New York 14221
716-553-8525
