Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 23154 invoked by uid 6000); 3 Mar 1998 07:48:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 23148 invoked from network); 3 Mar 1998 07:48:00 -0000 Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (198.161.84.3) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 1998 07:48:00 -0000 Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id AAA29021 for new-httpd@apache.org; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:47:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA07242 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:45:42 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:45:41 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko To: TLOSAP Subject: odd pcworld article Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org http://www.pcworld.com/hardware/networking/articles/jan98/1601p211.html (old, but just put on the web.. I think. Perhaps. Perhaps not. ) includes Apache. They do hands-on testing of two servers, but pick IIS on NT4 for both servers!?? What sort of dope are they smoking? Looking at IIS on NT4 is great and I have no complaints about that. Not looking at each server you review is ok, but means the review has almost no meaning because you can't do anything except BS about other servers. WTF pick two NT4 servers? Shows where their mind is. Not impressed. Interesting quotes; In addition to these two offerings, Cisco Systems markets the Micro WebServer, a version of Twister with a Zip drive as its primary storage. And Data General has announced several Web server models. One is small enough to be embedded in a teddy bear, which the company has publicly demonstrated. (We are not making that up.) They say: At the high end, products such as Apache, Netscape's Enterprise Server, Microsoft's Internet Information Server, and Novell's Web Server can handle high traffic volumes. ...and have an interestingly pointless table about what servers are suitable for what sites. Holy fscking crap. They talk about Apache 1.02!?!? Either they are really on dope or they can't type and don't even do trivial things like read what they wrote. Of course, I don't think they actually used any server other than IIS so what does it matter... Seesh, "Security: none". Erm... whatever. Kewl. They have a "reader service number" for Apache. Hmm, I'll see what they send me. They say: The classic commercial Web server is a UNIX box with a hefty price tag. Such machines run most of the high-volume public sites, but they're under attack in smaller sites by an army of Intel-based servers, usually running Windows NT Advanced Server software. Perhaps they are under attack by this army of Intel-based servers (and I wouldn't argue with that), but I find it hard to comprehend how you can say NT is most of these when Apache is still the fastest growing web server on the Internet according to Netcraft. Some of those copies of Apache will be on NT, but not that many yet simply because it still sucks. This pile of crap is even worse than the normal junk. Normally, the press just doesn't completely understand what is going on and listens too much to marketing. This entire story, however, is made up of obviously clueless people spouting about what the little world they built in their basement looks like without caring about the real world. They don't actually _say_ anything in their entire article. The people at ZD seem pretty damn smart, even in their dumb articles, compared to these folks. also, a bit in: http://www.pcworld.com/software/networking_workgroup/articles/mar97/1503p109f.html mentioning Apache.