httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Tacy <ch...@enginered.com>
Subject Re: InternetWorld article
Date Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:15:18 GMT
letters@iw.com

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Chris Tacy wrote:
> 
> > http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-3types.html
> >
> > "...plus the overwhelmingly popular freeware package Apache HTTP Server
> > 1.25 and 1.3..."
> 
> If they can't even get the version number right, they obviously don't give
> a damn about actually looking at software.
> 
> Lovely claim to "sidestep the OS issue" by picking an OS that there isn't
> any released version of Apache for and by demanding OS-specific features.
> 
> I have no idea what sort of drugs they are smoking when they talk about
> higher hardware costs for Unix systems; yes, to get a better Unix system
> with specialized hardware with better performance at the high end and more
> fault tolerance it will cost more.  But FreeBSD and Linux, etc. need less
> hardware than NT to do the same job.  They even mention FreeBSD and Linux
> in their features chart!
> 
> Hey everyone, better stop doing ad banners.  It can't be done on Apache.
> 
> The biggest problem with their "types of sites" reviews is that they are
> approaching it from the view of a clueless journalist trying to setup a
> complex site.  If there is a pretty little tool to click on then they will
> use it and think that if it works for their five minute test of a
> "complex" site, it will work in reality.  They ignore the fact that _any_
> development of a complex site will take real time.
> 
> >
> > i know there is no point in trying to explain the "freeware" thing to
> > people -- but perhaps the verbiage from ABOUT_APACHE.html could be
> > copied to the homepage or something? it might help to just stick that
> > one line about "freely-available source code" there - maybe with
> > something saying "not freeware." some day i guess it might be nice to
> > have the "Why Apache is Free" section expanded and again mention "not
> > freeware."
> >
> > i know this sort of whining is pointless, and we should all be glad that
> > apache was even considered - but...
> >
> >  - they didn't test 1.25 (contrary to the above statement) as they
> > tested on NT only.
> >  - "However, these factors are counterbalanced by the affordability of
> > hardware for running Windows NT, given the declining prices of PCs."
> >       (cost of PC + cost of NT) > (cost of PC + cost of FreeBSD)
> >  - "In the end, with the exception of the issue of user authentication
> > under Windows NT, our evaluation criteria depended very little on
> > operating system features."
> >       but somehow the one server developed specifically for NT, by the
> > manufacturer of NT came out on top.
> >
> >
> > http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-table.html
> >
> >  - Browser-based administration = no
> >       i got email from them saying they were only testing "released non third
> > party software." i guess that means they DID test 1.25 on NT (Grin).
> >  - Development Languages
> >       this is too weird. under MS Site Server only Perl is listed.
> >  - Database connectivity = ODBC
> >       ouch
> >  - APIs = N/A
> >       double ouch
> >  - LDAP = N/A
> >
> > oh, and does anyone want to write mod_adrotate? heh
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > --
> > ###################################
> > chris tacy    chris@enginered.com
> > co-founder    fire engine red
> >

-- 
###################################
chris tacy	chris@enginered.com
co-founder	fire engine red

Mime
View raw message