win98 with Apache to win2000 advanced server

Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path? I’ve been
thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t because
of laziness.

I doubt a home user needs an advanced server…


Sean S. <?$s=“moc.seiticoeg@osomynus”;$s=ereg_replace(
“osom”,“noom”,$s);$s=strrev($s);echo"mailto:$s";?> Hex(RGB) ->
http://thedoh.dyndns.org/hexrgb/index.php

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path? I’ve
> been thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but
> haven’t because
of
> laziness.

really apache should be running on a *nix based server, for security
reasons, and the win port of it isnt as good as the nix ver from
what ive read.

so if you have any concerns about security for the data that is on the
server, win2k is good move. ntfs will provide more security than would a
fat32 partition. and, what i find to be one of the most compelling reasons
to upgrade is stability. if you are running some kind of a server, 2k is
much much more stable than the 9x series.

im running pro, its fine for me. i have a friend who runs advanced server
on his box and he says its the only way to go… i dunno, ive read all the
releases are virtually the same thing


Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path? I’ve
> been thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but
> haven’t because
of
> laziness.

Oh, I know I don’t NEED it. I only run my resume / personal site off it
and get just a few hits a day. I’m thinking more of being able to play
with stuff that I don’t feel comfortable with on my work sites.

“Sean S.” <noemail@here.blargh> wrote in message
news:9glfl7$6cm$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> I doubt a home user needs an advanced server…
>
> –
> Sean S. <?$s=“moc.seiticoeg@osomynus”;$s=ereg_replace(
> “osom”,“noom”,$s);$s=strrev($s);echo"mailto:$s";?> Hex(RGB) ->
> http://thedoh.dyndns.org/hexrgb/index.php
>
>
> “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path? I’ve
been
> > thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t
because
> of
> > laziness.
> >
> >
>

Good points. What do you mean by FAT32 being more secure than NTFS? Are
there vulnerabilities on FAT32 that I’m unaware of?

“Tony Ranieri” <woo_boy@puckoff.com> wrote in message
news:9gli2l$78o$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> really apache should be running on a *nix based server, for security
> reasons, and the win port of it isnt as good as the nix ver from what
> ive read.
>
> so if you have any concerns about security for the data that is on the
> server, win2k is good move. ntfs will provide more security than would a
> fat32 partition. and, what i find to be one of the most compelling
reasons
> to upgrade is stability. if you are running some kind of a server, 2k is
> much much more stable than the 9x series.
>
> im running pro, its fine for me. i have a friend who runs advanced
> server on his box and he says its the only way to go… i dunno, ive
> read all
the
> releases are virtually the same thing
>
> –
> Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com
>
>
> “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path? I’ve
been
> > thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t
because
> of
> > laziness.
> >
> >
>

NTFS is more secure than FAT32. With NTFS you can assign security policies
on the file level. Good stuff.


Sean S. <?$s=“moc.seiticoeg@osomynus”;$s=ereg_replace(
“osom”,“noom”,$s);$s=strrev($s);echo"mailto:$s";?> Hex(RGB) ->
http://thedoh.dyndns.org/hexrgb/index.php

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:9glk73$82h$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> Good points. What do you mean by FAT32 being more secure than NTFS? Are
> there vulnerabilities on FAT32 that I’m unaware of?
>
> “Tony Ranieri” <woo_boy@puckoff.com> wrote in message
> news:9gli2l$78o$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > really apache should be running on a *nix based server, for security
> > reasons, and the win port of it isnt as good as the nix ver from what
ive
> > read.
> >
> > so if you have any concerns about security for the data that is on the
> > server, win2k is good move. ntfs will provide more security than would
a
> > fat32 partition. and, what i find to be one of the most compelling
> reasons
> > to upgrade is stability. if you are running some kind of a server, 2k
is
> > much much more stable than the 9x series.
> >
> > im running pro, its fine for me. i have a friend who runs advanced
server
> > on his box and he says its the only way to go… i dunno, ive read all
> the
> > releases are virtually the same thing
> >
> > –
> > Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com
> >
> >
> > “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > > Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path?
> > > I’ve
> been
> > > thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t
> because
> > of
> > > laziness.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

true, true

“Sean S.” <noemail@here.blargh> wrote in message
news:9gll62$8f3$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> NTFS is more secure than FAT32. With NTFS you can assign security
policies
> on the file level. Good stuff.
>
> –
> Sean S. <?$s=“moc.seiticoeg@osomynus”;$s=ereg_replace(
> “osom”,“noom”,$s);$s=strrev($s);echo"mailto:$s";?> Hex(RGB) ->
> http://thedoh.dyndns.org/hexrgb/index.php
>
>
> “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> news:9glk73$82h$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > Good points. What do you mean by FAT32 being more secure than NTFS?
> > Are there vulnerabilities on FAT32 that I’m unaware of?
> >
> > “Tony Ranieri” <woo_boy@puckoff.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gli2l$78o$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > > really apache should be running on a *nix based server, for security
> > > reasons, and the win port of it isnt as good as the nix ver from
> > > what
> ive
> > > read.
> > >
> > > so if you have any concerns about security for the data that is on
> > > the server, win2k is good move. ntfs will provide more security than
would
> a
> > > fat32 partition. and, what i find to be one of the most compelling
> > reasons
> > > to upgrade is stability. if you are running some kind of a
> > > server, 2k
> is
> > > much much more stable than the 9x series.
> > >
> > > im running pro, its fine for me. i have a friend who runs advanced
> server
> > > on his box and he says its the only way to go… i dunno, ive read
all
> > the
> > > releases are virtually the same thing
> > >
> > > –
> > > Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com
> > >
> > >
> > > “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > > > Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path?
I’ve
> > been
> > > > thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t
> > because
> > > of
> > > > laziness.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

nah, i said ntf is more secure than fat32, sean seems to have covered it,
so ill leave it at that…


Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:9glk73$82h$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> Good points. What do you mean by FAT32 being more secure than NTFS? Are
> there vulnerabilities on FAT32 that I’m unaware of?
>
> “Tony Ranieri” <woo_boy@puckoff.com> wrote in message
> news:9gli2l$78o$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > really apache should be running on a *nix based server, for security
> > reasons, and the win port of it isnt as good as the nix ver from what
ive
> > read.
> >
> > so if you have any concerns about security for the data that is on the
> > server, win2k is good move. ntfs will provide more security than would
a
> > fat32 partition. and, what i find to be one of the most compelling
> reasons
> > to upgrade is stability. if you are running some kind of a server, 2k
is
> > much much more stable than the 9x series.
> >
> > im running pro, its fine for me. i have a friend who runs advanced
server
> > on his box and he says its the only way to go… i dunno, ive read all
> the
> > releases are virtually the same thing
> >
> > –
> > Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com
> >
> >
> > “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > > Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path?
> > > I’ve
> been
> > > thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t
> because
> > of
> > > laziness.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Oops, that’s what I meant to ask. My dyslexia must have kicked in again.

“Tony Ranieri” <woo_boy@puckoff.com> wrote in message
news:9glltv$8oj$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> nah, i said ntf is more secure than fat32, sean seems to have
> covered it,
so
> ill leave it at that…
>
> –
> Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com
>
>
> “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> news:9glk73$82h$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > Good points. What do you mean by FAT32 being more secure than NTFS?
> > Are there vulnerabilities on FAT32 that I’m unaware of?
> >
> > “Tony Ranieri” <woo_boy@puckoff.com> wrote in message
> > news:9gli2l$78o$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > > really apache should be running on a *nix based server, for security
> > > reasons, and the win port of it isnt as good as the nix ver from
> > > what
> ive
> > > read.
> > >
> > > so if you have any concerns about security for the data that is on
> > > the server, win2k is good move. ntfs will provide more security than
would
> a
> > > fat32 partition. and, what i find to be one of the most compelling
> > reasons
> > > to upgrade is stability. if you are running some kind of a
> > > server, 2k
> is
> > > much much more stable than the 9x series.
> > >
> > > im running pro, its fine for me. i have a friend who runs advanced
> server
> > > on his box and he says its the only way to go… i dunno, ive read
all
> > the
> > > releases are virtually the same thing
> > >
> > > –
> > > Tony Raineri http://www.woogu.com
> > >
> > >
> > > “Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> > > > Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path?
I’ve
> > been
> > > > thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but haven’t
> > because
> > > of
> > > > laziness.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Advanced Server needs more resources.

Also, by default it is optimized for background work and you need to set
that to applications if you want to be able to get any work done.

Pro is on my main machine, advanced is in my lab.

“Ned Wolfenbarger” <nwolfenbarger@las.yesco.com> wrote in message
news:9gle6g$5li$1@constitution.worldwebserver.com
> Anyone got a good reason to upgrade their home box on this path? I’ve
> been thinking about doing this for a while just for laughs but
> haven’t because
of
> laziness.