Austad, Jay writes: > Specifically, I'm looking for reports which tout apache as being a > better solution than IIS, both for security and performance reasons. This is precisely why I asked for more information. Both IIS and Apache are both insecure. However, as I recall, there haven't been any non-SSL related vulnerabilities in Apache 1.3 for a long time. By the same token, properly secured (according to Microsoft's guidelines) IIS servers were not vulnerable to the recent worms. Performance is a nebulous and doesn't mean anything details. Are you serving static content? Relatively static content (SSI, header/footers)? Dynamic content using CGI? FastCGI? ISAPI? Modules? You can't make a blanket statement such as ``IIS is faster than Apache'' or the opposite and expect it to be meaningful. -- David Phillips <david at acz.org> http://david.acz.org/ _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list