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. "more portable"
Date Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:30:54 GMT

I guess I wasn't clear enough.  I am not suggesting that we drop 95 and 98
all together.  Apache should always work on these platforms, but right
now, we are tying the Apache for NT and 95/98 together.  For example,
Apache 1.3 is still Beta for all Win32 systems.  This is ridiculous.
There are things we can do to get Apache out of Beta state for NT, but the
95/98 infrastructure doesn't let us do this on those platforms.  The
problems with CGI's mentioned in my last message are prime axamples.
These are simple problems to fix on NT, I did it once.  They are
impossible to fix on 95/98.  They don't have the function needed.  I have
tried writing portable routines to do this, but in reality, it would
require low-level hacking on the NT kernel.  I don't want to get that
dirty.

The argument that young developers don't have access to a Unix machine is
bogus.  Everybody has access to a Linux box, just as easily as they have
access to a 95/98 box.

I am not advocating getting rid of these two platforms, just not
supporting them as SERVER capable platforms.  They can't do it.  They
weren't designed for it.  They are fine for small sites, and they are fine
for test sites, but as real world server machines, they don't cut it.  I
don't want to try to support somebody who says I am trying to serve 500
conn/sec on my Dual Xeon machine running 95/98, and my CGI's refuse to
time out, so my machine is crashing.

As far as it working all ready.  If this is true, why is it considered a
BETA?  It's because it can't do everything an NT box can.

Ryan

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, tser wrote:

> 
> I would consider it verry rare if we drop support for '95 and '98. 
> 
> Here are a few, arguments i did like to put into
> 
> * A lot of new young Developers don't have access to a unix machine at
> Home.
>   - And i love to use visual interdev 6, for developing my homebrewn
> modules, 
>     debugging became a lot more easier then it was under unix
> * A steady, fast growing amount of users have a 24 hours/day cable 
>   connected internet connection, there is a high demand for them to have 
>   a easy webserver, to share things with whatever they wan't
>   - these site's don't get thousends of connections just a few, through
> there friends
>   - these site's are not 24 hours in the air often, so it might be a
> little but unstabler version
> 
> And safety i don't know ? A front end firewall letting only acces
> through port 80, ending up on a win98 or nt 
> or 2000 machine ? equal (un)safe.
> 
> But After all, it's already working, isn't it ?
> 
> We'r not building something called "more portable" and then dropping a
> mayor platform.
> 
> And i don't see any mayor technical issue's neither.
> 
> 	Regards,	
> 		Reinder Kraaij 
> 
> "Ssst.. Don't tell anybody that i'm sneakly reading the mail now from my
> little corner "
> 

_______________________________________________________________________
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