httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Win 95 and 98.
Date Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:20:08 GMT

There are some real technical deficiences on 95 and 98.  We can't do named
pipes, which means we can't do non-blocking reads/writes over 95/98.
Which mean,s cgi's can't be timed out.  Buffereing cgi's on 95/98 is also
not possible do to this limitation.

There are real technical reasons that MS doesn't consider these OS/s
server-capable.  Namely, they aren't capable of operating as servers in
any real capacity.

These two platforms should really be used as test systems for production
servers, which is why I suggest we always try to make them work, but not
garauntee they have all the function of a REAL Apache server.

I'm not overly concerned with limiting ourselves to NT.  Apache is a MUCH
better server than IIS, and with the new mpm structure, we can really
prove that now.

Ryan

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Iain Brown wrote:

> RB> I would like to consider no longer supporting 95 and 98 on Apache 2.0.  Of
> RB> course, we will do anything possible to make these platforms work, but MS
> RB> doesn't consider these to be server platforms.  Why do we continue totell
> RB> people Apache works on them.
> 
> Should it really matter what MS claims? 95 and 98 don't have a
> restrictive connection license as NT workstation, so you'd be limiting
> yourself to NT server only. Which of course, comes bundled with IIS...
> I don't know the technical issues, of course, but I'd really like to
> see support for a MS platform which isn't already dominated by MS.
> 
>  - Iain                           mailto:iain@iain.com
> 
> 

_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom		rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.	


Mime
View raw message