W+A+M+P or WAMP/XAMP?

[CJones]

Going to be installing Apache, MySQL, PHP on a WinXP box for use as a production intranet web server for web reports that I create in PHP.

We have another box running on-site that is running on an XAMP install. I also have XAMP on my laptop that I use for development, although recently I've been developing straight onto the server box.

Question: Are there any pros/cons for using a full-blown Apache + MySQL + PHP manual install vs. XAMP and/or WAMP? Ideally, this box won't be tinkered with much once it is up and running, as it will be a production server.

 

[rpadula]

WTF?

 

[murphey]

Have you taken a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_WAMPs

With the comparison between X & W, if you're not rehosting to a different flavor of Windows and only using as a server (not development system), I'd go with the WAMP version, it'll be built for the version of Windows you need. If you do decide to go with XAMP, make sure the security options are properly set. Many of the XAMP versions tend to be "flimsy" on the security side defaults.

But then, it's really much like the high-wing/low-wing debate - personal preference.

 

[jesse]

I'd be cautious about using any sort of "instant apache/mysql/blah/blah" for a production server. You really need to look through all the security settings and options.

I don't think it'd be that much work to just manually install PHP/Apache/MySQL on Windows?

For a simple instant-production box it'd be a lot easier to just use Ubuntu or CentOS and the distribution provided packages. That way you get security updates and all that without much of any effort.

 

[Areeda]

For a simple instant-production box it'd be a lot easier to just use Ubuntu or CentOS and the distribution provided packages. That way you get security updates and all that without much of any effort.

I'll second that.

I was going to say that but figured Chris had reasons to select Windows.

I'd add that the Linux boxes a) seem much easier to remote manage and b) seem to have much less overhead and are more responsive.

Joe

 

[CJones]

For a simple instant-production box it'd be a lot easier to just use Ubuntu or CentOS and the distribution provided packages. That way you get security updates and all that without much of any effort.

I'll second that.

I was going to say that but figured Chris had reasons to select Windows.

I'd add that the Linux boxes a) seem much easier to remote manage and b) seem to have much less overhead and are more responsive.

Joe

That would definitely be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, I'm limited to having to use a computer that is already on our network, which would be an unused WinXP desktop box.

We're doing some 'skunk works' kind of stuff around here.