httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <>
Subject RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Date Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:14:12 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> > > I would like the 2.0 NT warning text to read something more 
> > like this:
> > > 
> > > The Apache Software Foundation works to ensure that the 
> > Win32 port works on
> > > all 32 bit flavors of Windows, that is, Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000.
> > > However, ASF does not endorse deploying the Apache web 
> > server on Windows 95
> > > or 98.  Inherent weaknesses in the cooperative multitasking 
> > architecture of
> > > the consumer Windows platforms (Windows 95, 98 and 
> > Millenium) expose certain
> > > vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed by any single 
> > application.  Windows
> > > NT and 2000, being preemptively multitasking platforms 
> > (programs grab the
> > > CPU in turn, they don't simply request it), are more 
> > reliable and secure in
> > > their exposure to the internet.
> > 
> > Hrmm... Windows 95/98 are also preemptively multitasked. Do 
> > you mean the
> > problems with The Problem Formerly Known as Win16Lock?
> That's why I threw it up here... however how preemptive are
> the 'consumer' products?  Of course the 16 bit subsystem is
> not preemptive, but if the entire platform is preemptive and
> sufficiently stable for the Win32 amoung us - we can drop it.
> There is no question, however, that MS did far more to keep
> NT secure in the public arena - the same security is more of
> an afterthought to 95/98.  Care to rewrite?

How about:

The Apache Software Foundation has developed the Apache WWW server to be
portable, including support for use on Win32 platforms (both Windows 95/98
and Windows NT/2000). However, since Windows 95/98 is only designed for
use as a client operating system, and in particular lacks the security
features found in server platforms, we do not recommend the use of Windows
95/98 as a server except for small-scale, protected environments (an
isolated LAN, for example, or for testing a prototype WWW site.)

We also actively encourage contributions of reports of any problems you
may encounter using Apache on any platform, as well as reports of
deploying Apache successfully on newly released platforms, or previously
unsupported platforms. Once we have a sufficient number of success
reports, we will declare the platform to be compatible with it.

Before submitting any reports, please check the bug database and the
newsgroup - you may well find
that the problem has already been discovered, and perhaps resolved.

If you cannot find a reference to your problem in the bug database, and
the newsgroup members cannot help, please report the issue at (***).
Similarly, if you are successful in running Apache on a particular
platform, please post a "bug" report to that effect, titled "Apache/Win32
tested on Windows __" (2000 etc.), mentioning any problems you may have

Apache originated on the Unix platform, with the Win32 port only being
added relatively recently, and as such, the other platforms have been more
thoroughly tested. However, Win32 IS a supported platform, and as such,
any problems encountered will be treated in the same way as on any other
platform. Apache 2.0 (now approaching alpha release) is being developed
in parallel on all supported platforms, with a greater proportion of the
code being shared between platforms than is presently the case; as such,
the Win32 port will be close to parity with the better established

The trouble is, we need to encourage people to use Apache on Win32 without
lulling them into a false sense of security about it - have I struck the
right balance here?


View raw message