httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>
Subject RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT with WARNING_WIN_95_98.txt
Date Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:54:01 GMT
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Then if this is what we all want to say, lets say it (I'm still looking
> forward to Mr. NT-MPM's thoughts!  Are you out there Bill?)
> 
> WARNING:  Although the Win32 release of Apache 2.0 is engineered to the
> same standard as the Unix release, we do not recommend using it on the
> Windows 95 or 98 operating systems in a production environment.  These 
> consumer systems were not designed as server platforms, and do not 
> support some of the features required for a flexible, secure server.
> These platforms are well suited for testing the server and developing 
> web sites.
> 
> Please refer to the Apache 2.0 manual pages for more specific details.
> 
> 
> > From: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net [mailto:rbb@shell.ntrnet.net]On Behalf Of
> > What I read in your readme, is basically a rehash of what has 
> > already been said in the README
> > file, plus the part about not supporting Win9X fully.  Unless we are
> > adding something that I have missed to this file, I don't see it as
> > necessary.
> > 
> > Ryan
> > 
> 
> Q to you Ryan and James - is the originally proposed win32-read-me 
> better dispatched off to the html documentation, then?  I don't want 
> to clutter the root with too much drivel - but I think there were 
> some valid details in the 0.13 draft.

I would certainly agree with moving win32-readme into the HTML docs; IMO,
the text stuff in the root should be limited to installation information,
and warnings that Apache doesn't work with Foo 1.2.3.

A nice Win32 HTML page wouldn't hurt, with the short caveat about Win95/98
in the root containing a pointer to that. Having it visible on the WWW
site might also encourage a few more Win32 users to have a go, which can't
hurt!


James.


Mime
View raw message