httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Puzzling News
Date Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:22:46 GMT
At 05:48 AM 3/14/2005, Ben Laurie wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>Fascinating reading (see the bottom two tables of these pages:
>>http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/srvch.html?server=Apache&revision=Apache%2F1.3.33
>>http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/srvch.html?server=Apache&revision=Apache%2F2.0.52
>>What is notable is that the number of users adopting 1.3.33 in place of 2.0 far outweighs
the number moving from 1.3 to 2.0.

>FWIW, I have yet to run 2.x in anger. Not sure why you find this puzzling.

In that particular window (of a month) more folks took Apache 2.0.x
servers down in favor of 1.3.x servers, than those who upgraded to
2.0.x from 1.3.x.

I'm not suggesting everyone has a need for 2.0 (clearly some cases
call for it, and just as clearly, it's impractical for others.)
And I'm not suggesting some specific growth rate is 'good' or 'bad'.

I am concerned that 

* what we deliver in 2.0.x is just as usable and stable as 1.3.33.
  This report suggests, to some degree or in some cases, it isn't so.

* when we 'announce' a new 1.3.x release, we are careful to note
  that it isn't an improvement over 2.0.x, and if 2.0.x didn't have
  the bugs that 1.3 release addresses, we note same, so users aren't
  compelled that "2.0.foo is four months old, and they just announced
  this new 1.3.bar.  I better upgrade so I get the bug/security fixes."





Mime
View raw message