Do you still need Apache 1.3 or Apache 2.0?

[cpanelkenneth]

I don't think cPanel should rely on this small sample response to make this decision.

Don't worry, we didn't.

[skyknight]

we still can run php 4 on apache 2.2

[Silent Ninja]

I'm allways using Apache 2.2, if it's for me, your plan to disable all the others is a good idea.

[offtopic]
- Also PHP 4 is from the past, PHP 5.2 can easily replace PHP 4, not sure if you already removed it.

[Kent Brockman]

[offtopic]
- Also PHP 4 is from the past, PHP 5.2 can easily replace PHP 4, not sure if you already removed it.

[offtopic]
The problem between PHP 4 and 5.2 is the main change in the security measures, being register_globals=off by default, which break a big number of php form processors which are badly coded. So, abandon PHP 4 would result in a great amount of broken old websites which may not afford for a programmer to update their code.
[/offtopic]

[Silent Ninja]

[offtopic]
The problem between PHP 4 and 5.2 is the main change in the security measures, being register_globals=off by default, which break a big number of php form processors which are badly coded. So, abandon PHP 4 would result in a great amount of broken old websites which may not afford for a programmer to update their code.
[/offtopic]

Wait, on PHP 5.2 the register_globals are fully functional. You can simply enable them globally by editting the php.ini

On PHP 5.3 that indeed is an issue, but there are some workarounds, check out the example code on the bohwaz comments from this page: PHP: Using Register Globals - Manual

You can add that strip of code to every PHP script who needs it, or edit the "config" script if there's any, or set this up as an auto_prepend_file so it runs with every PHP script the server runs.

[Kent Brockman]

Wait, on PHP 5.2 the register_globals are fully functional. You can simply enable them globally by editting the php.ini

I know, but there are lots of website owners who doesn't. And abandoning PHP4 will break their sites and generate lots of support tickets because they don't know what just happened...

[nibb]

Well I don't see why cPanel should keep investing resources and time supporting a very old release of anything. I do understand some are still using 1.3 but its a very minority and as such they should support that versions themselves.

Why should everybody else suffer for them? And I mean suffer because if cPanel has to support this old versions it clearly means they are wasting time and energy that could be invested somewhere else instead.

If thousands of cPanel servers get once hacked because of old versions running do you think the press and media is going to inform it was because of companies running outdated software on their servers? No. Its going to be like "10,000 cPanel servers get hacked" or "cPanel servers are insecure", etc. Even if it was the users fault.

You have to understand that there are very newbie people using cPanel to manage their servers, people that don't know anything about Linux or even what Apache is. This is why cPanel is the preferred choice to drop for any hosting company for a client that needs a linux server or sell hosting. I can assure that 90% of our clients don't even know how to telnet to their servers and they all asked cPanel on their servers. This people can make the mistake of installing old versions if cPanel provides them via their update servers.

There should be something cPanel should always take very care of. Their update servers, a compromised download could aniquile servers worldwide. So why would cPanel on purpose offer software with security flaws on it?

Im on the side of security vs being confortable first. If a company has or needs a server with specific outdated versions they would not need cPanel for this, they could always install that version manually on their own risk. cPanel should not provide update with security risks in it.

[larwilliams]

Haven't used Apache 1.3 or 2.0 in years. FrontPage extensions work fine on 2.2 too.

[nibb]

Frontpage was deprecated in 2006.

Why are people still using it?

[internetfab]

Been using Apache 2.2 for years here as well.

[DomineauX]

Frontpage was deprecated in 2006.

Why are people still using it?

Because an alarming number of small business and personal web site owners still rely on FrontPage for maintaining their ancient web sites and know nothing else.

[UltraMonk]

Just installed CPanel/WHM on our new server a few days ago, needed mod_auth_mysql support for Apache but it would only compile for Apache 2.0 builds and not Apache 2.2

Unless there is another way to get MySQL Authentication support in .htaccess files then I'm stuck with mod_auth_mysql and thus Apache 2.0

[cPanelDavidG]

Just installed CPanel/WHM on our new server a few days ago, needed mod_auth_mysql support for Apache but it would only compile for Apache 2.0 builds and not Apache 2.2

Unless there is another way to get MySQL Authentication support in .htaccess files then I'm stuck with mod_auth_mysql and thus Apache 2.0

Have you considered using mod_authn_dbd (listed in EA as AuthnDBD) with a MySQL database driver (DBDriver)?

[UltraMonk]

Have you considered using mod_authn_dbd (listed in EA as AuthnDBD) with a MySQL database driver (DBDriver)?

Thanks for that, been fiddling with this for over an hour now only to find in the end the following thread:

http://forums.cpanel.net/f354/easyap...bd-169366.html

It is about how I need to find an independent rpm for the mysql DBDriver.

I hope the next version of EasyApache includes the ability to select which DBDriver you wish to be installed and installs it for you.

apr-util-mysql is available under yum, however when installing it has depsolving problems because it needs libmysqlclient.so.15

So if I went ahead with libmysqlclient.so.15, would it break anything to do with the CPanel/WHM installation?

[mykkal]

I don't think I'll ever need 1.3 or 2.0 again. 2.2 is much faster and way more secure. Why would anyone need them?