httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] 1.3: htdocs/manual/cygwin.html and references to it
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:18:03 GMT
From: "Stipe Tolj" <tolj@wapme-systems.de>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:46 AM


> I have seen src/os/util_win32.c contains some code on that. I suppose it is possible
to use that
> for Cygwin too?!?!

Help 'yrself :-)

> > I'd like to change your comment slightly, to suggest something like
> >
> > "The Win32 port of Apache is built on it's own, custom code within Apache to assure
> > compliance with the Windows operating systems.  While it is considered release quality,
> > it is slower and less thoroughly tested than the Unix ports.  The Cygwin alternative
> > uses the well tested unix code, but may suffer from gaps in security or reliability
> > due to the interaction of the Cygwin compatibility layer to the native Windows API,
> > and is therefore considered beta quality at present.  The Cygwin port is provided
> > particularly to assist developers from Unix, or targeting Unix, by offering a
> > near-identical implementation of the Unix Apache server.  The Win32 port is
> > recommended for all production sites on Windows NT and Windows 2000 servers."
> >
> > Could you live with that summary?
> 
> basiclly yes, but I would like to consider the Cygwin port -- if the security hole is
fixed --
> as an true aternative to Win32 and not simply a Unix-like feature.

We actually waited on the Win32 port until we had a significant userland user base that
was using the code before we made that leap.  Since the vast majority of folks working with

the Apache/Windows code base have focused on the Win32 layer, that port is, at this point,

considerably better vetted today.

Secondly, with the exception of folks with the Unix background, I believe your assertion would

cause some confusion amoung novice users, and I'd be -1 on 'recommending' Cygwin to that class

of users [find build tools... install build tools... etc, etc.]  But this is a seperate and
distinct argument, and I'll shut up and let some other people chime in their thoughts now.

Let me see if this language helps;

"The Win32 port of Apache is built on its own, custom code within Apache to assure
interoperability with the Windows operating systems.  While it is considered release 
quality, it is slower and less thoroughly tested than the Unix ports.  The Cygwin 
alternative uses the well tested unix code by using the Cygwin portability layer for
Unix emulation.  The Cygwin port may suffer from gaps in security or reliability due 
to the interaction of the Cygwin compatibility layer to the native Windows API."

"The Win32 port will be more familiar to most Windows users.  The Cygwin port will be more
familiar to Unix admins and developers, including the Apache/Unix build environment.  Due
to 
these two different code bases, the security and reliability of the two ports are unrelated

to each other.  The Win32 port should be considered the more secure of the two at this time.
The Win32 port is recommended for most Windows users, however the Cygwin port offers an 
extra layer of compatibility for Unix developers."

Bill


Mime
View raw message