Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
From: "Peter J. Cranstone" <cranstone1@msn.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:12:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcOsd1aR+vZTs4bMS1CgP9fKj67qrQAA6T2g
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311161105390.2620@thinkpad.lerdorf.com>
Message-ID: <BAY4-DAV8334PuQirKz000063d4@hotmail.com>

You know Rasmus you just hit the nail on the head...

>> It will be years before I can even consider Apache2,
>> given the architecture and API differences between the two

Everybody on this list should take a moment and re-read those two sentences.
It's why 2.x isn't moving. Not only is it complicated to move, the net
result is "not much different than they have now".

N tier architecture problems have been solved. Apache 1.x is "good enough"
and managers don't have the budgets to move to an untested buggy version
which still requires significant resources to make it work.

Here's something else to consider... I went to the Covalent web site the
other day for the first time in a year. You know what surprised me most? I
don't think they are in the web server business any more. I think they are
in the application management business with a focus on integration and
security. You know what this means don't you.

Covalent has had over $40 million dollars pumped into it by VC's and Apache
2.x the commercial version never did what Zeus managed to do, sell over
200,000 copies. I've talked to VC's and the general feeling is that the N
tier architecture problems have been solved and there's no money to be made
in a web server which is free, running on cheap PC's. 

I've spoken to people at Zeus and while they still sell a web server the
move now is to load balancing running either on AMD64 or Itanium. It's
cheaper than an F5 switch and the margins are better.

The choice everyone on this lists faces becomes clearer everyday. If the
premier Web server funded company in the US has shifted it's focus from
Apache 2.x to application management then whose going to build a better web
server that anyone cares to use.

If you want some traction the smart step is re-open 1.3 get it to 1.4 and
then provide migration steps and documentation to 2.x

With 2.x you have to show a clear differentiator as to why people like
Rasmus whose been there and written that should move thousands of 1.x boxes
to 2.x

In today's environment it's all about 2 words - price/performance. Show me
that Apache 2.x can outperform 1.x by a factor 10 on the same box. If you
can do that and the box is cheap then Rasmus has a reason to do some porting
work - why? Because he can cut his equipment management costs by probably a
factor 8 and that's something a manager will buy into.

There's probably 12 million or so 1.x users - that's a big, big addressable
market place. Give them something they want and make it easy. 

Regards,


Peter Cranstone


-----Original Message-----
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 12:24 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; trawick@attglobal.net
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > *** We need to get back many of the disenfranchised Apache 1.3
developers
> 
> Who are these people?

/me raises a hand

People have suggested that we have fewer developers today because Apache 2 
is too complex.  That the crappy economy has reduced the time people have 
to work on it.  Or that Apache-1.3 is simply good enough for most people.

I don't think it is any of that.  Hackers love to hack, but hackers are 
also practical creatures.  They hack on things that they need and use.  
They need and use Apache1 but we have taken our ball away and gone off to 
play another game.

Just compare the list of contributors today to 4 years ago if you want a 
list.

> I don't expect any of the current Apache developers would be interested in

> this.  But plenty of people join the development community over time (see 
> previous comments) and theoretically the opinions could change.

I think the key word there is "current"

I also work for a large company with plenty of talented developers and
thousands of production Apache-1.3 servers along with hundreds of custom
Apache-1.3 modules.  It will be years before I can even consider Apache2,
given the architecture and API differences between the two.  If something
could be done in an Apache-1.4 and 2.1/2.2 to help bridge the gap perhaps
one day Apache2 will be an option, but today it is simply too big a gap to
jump and I am pretty sure the bulk of the Apache community is in the same
boat.

-Rasmus