[Xitami] WWW Xitami

[Paul Reid]

> > I'd probably use something more substantial than Xitami, wouldn't I?

Matter of taste. IIS has some MS-specific frills, and Apache has
some features good for very high traffic. But a majority of
servers running IIS or Apache could just as well run Xitami. It
is mighty "substantial", mainly by being lean and clean and doing
what it does very well. 

> one of my Web servers (running on Win2k professional) hasn't been touched for 6 weeks now.  That's a big deal to me.

My Xitami 2.49 on WinNT4 has been up since 20 Sept 2001, and was
down then only for a major hardware replacement. If not for some
small bug in FTP upload, that locks it once or twice a year when
one of my helpers tries to upload a mess of files, it would
probably run forever. Especially on Win2000, which has a better
TCP stack than NT4. 

 -PRR