Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 07:57:37 -0400 From: "Mark Radabaugh - Amplex" <mark@amplex.net> To: "Free" <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Frontpage Extensions - security and reliability assessment Message-ID: <GCEEKJFMELAOEDFALPMNAEBMDCAA.mark@amplex.net> In-Reply-To: <DBEIKNMKGOBGNDHAAKGNCEICIAAA.dave@hawk-systems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Any positive solutions or feedback from anyone using > FrontPage extensions on > FreeBSD/Apache? > We have used FP on FreeBSD (not extensively) without much trouble - actually in a lot of ways it worked better than on an IIS box. There are several things that Unix/FP does better than IIS - in particular allowing users to set their own access controls to the site. Under IIS this has to be done by adding users to the NT user list - ugly and unscalable - or using databases. FP under IIS can be a pain as it is fairly easy to break the extensions. The biggest cause of headaches seems to be customers that want both ftp and FP access. FP stores most of it's configuration (and access control) in several special directories in the web site. Customers are forever 'accidentally' blowing these directories away with ftp and then wondering why FP quits working. It's probably easiest to just run a IIS box for customers that want FP (at least that is what we do). 2000's uptime so far is much improved over NT - if you don't count the reboots required by the security patch of the week... Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 833-3635 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?GCEEKJFMELAOEDFALPMNAEBMDCAA.mark>