Re: converting my local site to be https only access
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 01:24:42PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> I don't understand that: do you find Apache's config worse, or
> lighttpd's or nginx's?
Sorry I was unclear: I meant I find Apache's config the worst. It was the first
HTTPD I used, and I spent many years supporting it professionally. I only switched
to lighttpd for personal stuff because it was much easier to get FastCGI working.
But then the scales fell from my eyes; and I wondered why I hadn't considered
alternatives sooner. The logic in professional web hosting circles was that Apache
HTTPD was the only serious HTTPD to use for "real" web pages (at least back then);
but the configuration language was always a nightmare, I just didn't know better.
> At work, Apache (they want it badly and it's not mine anyway). At
> home, lighttpd (it's mine, after all).
I still use lighttpd for my main web server but I've been investigating
nginx for my home NAS web server (which does much more proxying to web
apps inside containers and suchlike, rather than serving content itself).
I found some limitations with lighttpd's reverse-proxying and rewriting
things.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Reply to: