httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <>
Subject The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2016 05:35:50 GMT
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

> As I have also stated, my personal belief is that
> 2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we
> "turn off" development/enhancement of 2.4, we will
> stop the uptake of 2.4 in its track.

This is where I think we have a disconnect.

Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions
from vendors, not from people picking up our sources.
Yes - some integrate directly from source, and others
use a non-OS distribution.

But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS
users are all running what they were handed from their
OS distribution. This is why an amazing number of people
run 2.4.3-2.4.10 and soon, 2.4.18, even though these are
all already out of date. Once RHEL, Ubuntu LTS, SUSE
or others pick up a specific rev, that's where the typical
user is going to land for the next several years.

The raw stats show a couple of interesting things, IMO;
While we have slipped somewhat, the old adage that
httpd or another "Web Server" must sit in front of the
cobbled-together app servers doesn't apply anymore.
Code like Tomcat, etc, is now far more robust and
capable of sitting on the outward facing edge of the DMZ.

The two runners up in web server space have essentially
switched places, nginx now has the market penetration
that IIS once enjoyed. IIS now amounts to a fraction of
what it once did, essentially the 'everything else' share
that used to be held by webservers we don't think about
any more, such as Sun's, lighttpd, etc. And of course
custom server agents of the top 10 data providers skew
the results significantly.

Other surveys paint the data a little differently;

Next up, we will see broad distribution of 2.4.23 - why?
Because that shipped in Fedora 25 which will very likely
become RHEL 8. E.g. we missed the boat, Generally
the Fedora release a year out from RHEL GA become
the shipping packages, and the pattern suggests this
early winter release becomes an early winter '17 RHEL.

If we don't ship improvements, we wither and fall into
oblivion. It does not matter that these are called 2.4.26
because *no vendor will ship it*. Not until they start
gathering the components of their next major release.
Which means, they are shipping are least interesting
sources over and over because we aren't shipping new
major releases.

So I'd respectively suggest that adding a feature to
2.4 vs releasing the feature in 3.0 makes not one
iota of difference in goodwill/adoption. The next major
releases who code freeze after 3.0 has shipped will
be in position to pick up and distribute 3.0. All the
rest will be stuck in the past.

But as a bottom line, all those users stuck in the past
until their OS catches up will have little opinion about
a feature in a 2.4.x release they will never see, since
their vendor keeps shipping the same 2.4.n that their
OS revision had initially shipped.

View raw message