httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: February 1997 Netcraft Web Server Survey (fwd)
Date Thu, 06 Feb 1997 23:32:13 GMT
My patch for better name-vhost support would need a tweak under SSL since
it included a "http://" constant (just cloning code around it though :). 

Dean

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:

> > On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > 
> > > Can we get a timeline for 1.2b7 then?  A lot has gone into it already. 
> > > I'd like to say roll it sunday feb 9, but there's a lot of outstanding
> > > patches still needing voting.  I'd really like to see my performance
> > > patches in 1.2b7 because they need wide enough testing before release.
> > > 
> > > Do we want 1.2b7 to be a release candidate?
> > 
> > I think so, but I really don't think we are ready for it yet.  You have
> > looked at the list of problems.  If nothing comes up before I get to it, I
> > hope to have something to help the hanging on HUP problem on the weekend.
> 
> I agree that we aren't ready. I have not been much help this round
> but hope to get a shot at some things over the weekend. 
> 
> I also would like to move Dean's patches to my live server, but
> unfortunately (after applying the patches and porting changes to
> support SSL) I have a case where the writes are to stderr.... ??
> I hope to get a chance to figure this out over the weekend....
> 
> > There are lots of other things that should be fixed too.  The bug-fixing
> > has been going very well over the past few betas, so I think it is worth
> > following up on it.  
> 
> Agreed, but I would personally like to see us put this thing behind
> us in the next week if possible.
> 
> > > At any rate we are fighting a losing battle here, every "review" in a
> > > magazine shows MS or NS "light years" ahead of us in all categories.  We
> > > also don't have an NT port... and more and more sites coming online are
> > > going to be run off NT gateways running Microsoft's internet tools...
> > > because they're a "no-brainer".  They are the borg. 
> > 
> > Guess why they are "light years" ahead?  They have a pretty clicky
> > interface and fun toys that aren't "the web server" itself.  Apache never
> > has been for morons.   A pretty config interface wouldn't hurt though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message