httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joseph A. Nagy, Jr." <jnag...@joseph-a-nagy-jr.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31 Released
Date Wed, 12 May 2004 00:42:52 GMT
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:30:19PM -0700, Purl Gurl wrote the following:
> Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. wrote:
> 
> (snipped)
> 
> > If we are wanting people to code modules for Apache 2.x, why are we still
> > supporting 1.3.x? I can understand bug fixes and such but even then I would
> > have figured that there would be a concerted effort to get people to move to
> > Apache 2.x so module developers will have no choice but to port their
> > modules to it.
> 
> 
> Apache 1.3.x series is the most stable and the
> best version of Apache ever released. It would
> be major mistake to drop development of this
> specific series.

I completely disagree.

> 
> Apache 2.x is very nice, feature rich but is 
> extremely buggy, is not stable and severely
> limits usage of third party software.

Buggy? Not stable? I run a production web server using Apache 2, Perl 5.8
and the latest version of PHP with no problem. The only problem I have is
lack of module designers wanting to port their modules.

> 
> Problems with PHP and Zone Alarm are classic
> examples. Perl zombies under Win32, another
> of the numerous problems with the 2.x series.

Zone Alarm is a piece of crap, but that's another issue entirely. Zone Alarm
is not meant for a production server (although I've run Apache 1.3.x on
Win32 with ZoneAlarm, nothing but problems from Zone Alarm). It's meant for
a home, desktop machine. I don't know of any 2.x problems on Win32 because I
refuse to use Win32 as a server for any reason. Win32 is a POOR choice of
server used by PHBs who try to make themselves look good to the CEOs and
only wind up getting fired when their server is cracked or otherwise
compromised.

> 
> Again, dropping development and support of
> the 1.3.x series would certainly be a fatal
> mistake on the part of Apache developers;
> Apache 2.x is not all that marketable.

And it won't be until more effort is put into it instead of 1.3.x

2.x is meant to completely replace 1.3.x

> 
> Certainly, in the future, Apache 2.x will be
> of very high quality. For now, there are
> literally thousands of administrators who
> will not use 2.x series having a need for
> stability and compatibility.

And I bet every one of them use Win32 as the server platform. I know
of literally thousands of people who use Apache 2.x under Linux with little
to no problem.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kira

Oh yeah, my machine is not only a production server but a work station.

Apache 2.x is fast, stable, secure and ready for wide spread deployment.

-- 
AIM: pres CTHULHU	ICQ: 18115568	Yahoo: pagan_prince
Jabber: DarkKnightRadick@(jabber.org|amessage.at)
PGP: 0x642F7BDA

Mime
View raw message