Re: converting my local site to be https only access
On Tuesday 02 May 2017 17:13:44 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> 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.
I've been looking at nginx myself, and wondering if it was any easier to
setup. Apache2 can be a mutant bear with 6 sore paws.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: