| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Get Apache 2 and PHP 4 working together in Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 04:17 EST/09:17 GMT | News Source: ZDNet Australia | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Installing Apache and PHP on Windows isn't easy, but it doesn't have to be a process of trial and error. Learn the tricks you'll need to get started with our guide. Apache 2 and PHP are popular (and cheap!) choices for creating interactive Web sites. Installing Apache 2 by itself under Windows is easy, but installing PHP 4 so it runs without restrictions with Apache 2 is tricky. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:26:27 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2003 8:47:28 AM |
|
And it's just this easy:
- Download 40MB source - Make sure you have VC++ 5.0 or later. - Follow the complicated and confusing 50-step build process - ( 2 hours later ) - Install Apache - Create test HTML document <html> <head>title=default server page</head> (NOTE: Is this valid HTML? What about <title>? <body>Default Server Page</body> </html> - Fix configuration errors (because there will be some) - Check c:\InstallDir\Apache2\Logs\Error.log - Check Windows Event Log - Edit C:\Apache\Apache2\Conf\Http.Conf - Edit: DirectoryIndex index.html index.html.var # index.php - To be: DirectoryIndex index.html index.html.var index.php - Do a search in .htaccess for AllowOverride and change from None to All - Leave text editor open, because you'll need to edit it again after PHP's installed - Download 20MB source of PHP - Compile 20MB source with MVC++ - (2 hours later) - Edit Httpd.conf again, add: AddType application/x-httpd-php .php - Copy C:\Php\Php.ini-recommended to your Windows directory (WHAT?!?!) - Rename it to Php.ini - Open in text editor, edit the lines that set doc_rot, extension_dir, and session.save_path so they look like the following: doc_rot = c:\apache\apache2\htdocs extension_dir = c:\php\extensions session.save_path = c:/temp (WHY THE FORWARD SLASH?) - Replace InstallDir with c:\apache\apache2 - Copy c:\Php\Php4ts.dll to the Windows system folder (OMG! Security risk!!!!!) - Edit Httpd.conf for the THIRD TIME - Add: LoadModule php4_module "c:/php/php4apache.dll" - If you need CGI mode PHP, edit Http.conf for the FOURTH time ScriptAlias /php/ "c:/php/" Action application/x-httpd-php "/php/php.exe" - Save your changes and all that - Start apache apache -k start - Or restart it if it's already running apache -k restart - Create a test .php file with the following contents <? phpinfo(); ?> - That's it! How easy! |
| #2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2003 8:49:38 AM |
|
How to install IIS and ASP.NET:
Install IIS: - Find your Windows CD, insert it - Go to Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs - Click Add Windows Components - Add Internet Information Services - Follow any prompts for the CD and such Install ASP.NET: - Download the .NET Framework Runtime (12MB), or the SDK (80-100MB)(preferably the SDK) - Run installer |
| #3 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 4/29/2003 10:15:02 AM |
|
I wouldn't use Apache/PHP/MySQL if you begged me.
Let me get this straight: You have Windows Server (assuming that you do have IIS installed) and you still want to use a different web server and scripting language other than IIS/ASP? WHY? The only possible answer is that MySQL is free and SQL Server isn’t. But to that I would say use Access cause I am sure that you got a copy of office from Kazaa all ready. |
| #4 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2003 10:23:57 AM |
|
#4: The joke's on you because I copied those instructions straight from the linked article.
Did you read the article? Read it and follow along with my list. It's nearly verbatim. In fact, I even left out a few things that are in the article to keep the list shorter! |
| #5 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2003 10:26:20 AM |
|
Also concerning is the recommendation of putting various web-accessible DLLs in the System32 directory.
This is interesting since: a.) The *nix community constantly chides Windows people for having horrible security practices, and then here they go recommending us to do horrible security practices b.) Your System32 dir should be locked down tight in the first place, so that PHP DLL won't be available in that dir, which means you'll have to grant access to various users to allow it access and that's a bad idea to have specific files in System32 having different access then others |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/29/2003 10:37:33 AM |
|
There is certainly validity to the point that one doesn't need a 12 page HOWTO to install IIS and ASP.NET. It is, literally only about two sentences.
|
| #7 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2003 7:00:27 PM |
|
#11: Notice how I didn't include the 17 billion steps involved with "compiling"?
Ok, so download the binaries and remove the 2 steps "(2 hours later)" and you're down to 28 steps instead of 30. And yes, installing IIS and ASP.NET really is about 2 sentences. Well, maybe 3, but that's verbose :) |
| #8 By 135 (24.163.232.125) at 4/29/2003 8:12:35 PM |
|
"A lot of people find Apache to be much faster, more stable and a *LOT* less prone to the virus-of-the-day... "
I've never argued that there are not less informed people in this world than myself. Speaking of which... http://www.netconcepts.com/news/php_vs_asp.php This article is almost entire unadulterated crap. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 at 21:19. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/29/2003 9:18:08 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - Case in point.
|
| #10 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/29/2003 11:12:36 PM |
|
Even ardent Microsoft fans, myself included, must admit that IIS 5 has had way too many security problems. Granted, the majority of these problems weren't actually with IIS, but with various ISAPI extensions and filters, but that's not really an excuse.
That said, IIS 6 is different. It's a whole new world. Mark my words, it will be a long while before the first IIS 6 hole is found that is exploitable like the ones we've all seen on IIS 5. IIS 6 rocks. |
| #11 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 4/29/2003 11:15:46 PM |
|
ahh... another day... another 8 million hits on my IIS site. Yes, the last update (2 months ago) was 6M hits. We are growing.
And in those 2 months... total downtime... none/zero/zilch/nada. And this is with IIS5. I cant wait to begin our tests on IIS6. Apache? Why would I? hey cba... no arrogance in my post. just a real-world example. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 at 23:16. |
| #12 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/30/2003 12:11:15 AM |
|
PHP and ASP both suck.
ASP.NET on IIS kick both their asses. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/30/2003 10:57:13 AM |
|
cba-3.14 - "Do you think personal arrogance will convince me or anyone that Microsoft product is always The Best?
It looks too fanboy to me. " Oh come now, admit it. You've already made up your mind. I know that, which is why I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply working to counteract your FUD. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/30/2003 10:59:10 AM |
|
RMD - Yes, and similarly speaking there have been numerous flaws found in PHP and other modules on top of Apache. I've not had problems with IIS5 because I locked it down, removing all the ISAPI filters and extensions that were not needed. It's good that in IIS6 this is more the default configuration.
ArkiMage - But he is correct. ASP.NET is much better than PHP. Notice how the comparison article you linked to was about ASP only? Not to mention it didn't even get the ASP comparison correct... |
| #15 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/30/2003 11:43:11 AM |
|
#24: ArkiMage: Do you dispute it?
PHP and ASP are both cobbled messes of tag-based web development and procedural programming. What's worse is, not only are they procedural, but the code is spread out and mixed among HTML making it damn near impossible for any IDE to do proper syntax highlight, not to mention making it a maintenance nightmare for anyone who has to touch the code in the future. I've been doing ASP development for several years and I've had to extend/add features to other people's code, and I hate it. I'm so done with ASP. PHP is very much like ASP in this regard. PHP is a very good, if not better ASP, but it's still essentially the same beast.... inline code. I welcome the change to elegant, object-oriented compiled code in ASP.NET. And no, I don't use ASPX pages which are just the same type of hack that ASP was. I do everything in code-behind. My ASPX's are just one-line which points it to the code-behind and everything uses Server Controls (which is all ASPXs do behind the scenes anyhow, I just cut out the middle-man). Tag-based, procedural, in-line web develpment has had its days numbered. Many in the Java world never touched or are backing away now from JSP to code-only web development using frameworks like Apache Struts and such. Hail the end of tag-based web development! |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/30/2003 5:20:00 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - "From where I sit it looks like it's you who "has already made up your mind"."
On certain things yes. The development environment offered by ASP.NET in conjunction with IIS and Windows 2003 is very compelling. I'm also now leaning more towards SQL 2000 and away from Oracle. You fail to appreciate that I only speak out on areas where I feel Microsoft is clearly superior. You want to attack Great Plains, go ahead... don't know much about it, don't really care much about it. Hell, attack Content Management or that Commerce Server thing. I'm not even sure I like Biztalk even though I've used it. "It's better than the old nestcape server junk (and by extension the IPlanet stuff) but that's not saying much! " It's also considerably better than Apache, not because it's a web server but because of all the infrastructure available for development behind the web server... i.e. ASP.NET and so forth. I'm also willing to back up that claim, any time. "I choose products from all vendors. If you have examples of things where you wouldn't automatically choose the Microsoft solution, I'd love to know what they are." I don't choose from all vendors because many of them suck. But I do prefer Ultraedit over Notepad. Does that count? Most of my work revolves around deploying web applications, so I'm immediately partial to VS.NET and IIS. |
| #17 By 931 (67.35.52.222) at 5/1/2003 2:57:35 AM |
|
omg are we actually attempting to debate this again?
php -> if you stuck doing crossplatform work then it's probably you choice for the next year and is about on par with asp. asp -> is just dandy and hell of a lot easier to setup and get down to work with then php asp.net\codebehind -> 0wns all, if you've got a win32\64 environment there is nothing out there that will allow you to bag out your complicated multitier web app faster and provide you with about the best performance around. combine this with IIS6 and it does not get any better. I've built significant apps with all 3 and asp.net\c# on iis6 (beta3) takes the cake to date, that's not even taking into account vs.net2003 which I've not played with yet. (it should be noted that in all cases I had to connect with oracle and sqlserver2000 db's so it's obvious that this was 3000times easier and about 10times better performance under asp\ .net environment) ..ahh whatever nobody is ever going to change there minds about this crap anyway... till they actually have tried it all anyway. Though I must say getting apache and php up and running on a win2k install was NOT rocket science.. but it was certainly was a pain in the a$$ in compairison to iis\asp and iis\.net This post was edited by KnightHawk on Thursday, May 01, 2003 at 02:59. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:26:27 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
