httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <br...@brentdax.com>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache HTTP Server 1.3.31 Released
Date Wed, 12 May 2004 01:34:51 GMT
Purl Gurl wrote:
> Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. wrote:
>>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.
> 
> Apache 2.x is very nice, feature rich but is 
> extremely buggy, is not stable and severely
> limits usage of third party software.

I'd have to disagree with "extremely buggy" and "not stable".  I've been 
using Apache 2 for several months on a combined web/e-mail/SSH server. 
In that time, the machine has had exactly two problems:

1. A bug in mod_perl 2 (which is still in beta) filled up my log files
    and made Apache refuse to start.  Once I found the problem, fifteen
    minutes of Googling turned up a patch that solved it.  Applied the
    patch, rebuilt mod_perl, deleted the log, and all was right with the
    world.

2. A problem with SpamAssassin getting caught in a loop, forcing me to
    hard-reboot the machine.  I've not been able to track it down to
    anything more specific in over a month, despite repeated attempts to
    troubleshoot it.

The Apache problem was with a third-party module, a known beta, and had 
a quick and easy solution.  The SpamAssassin problem is in a production 
version of the program, and I have yet to find a fix.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?  Apache 2 is rock-solid in 
comparison to many "production" programs.

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

ZoneAlarm is intended for personal computers, not servers.  And I won't 
even comment on PHP--you don't want to hear me rant about it.

You also don't want to hear me rant about using Windows as a server, but 
suffice it to say that in general I consider it a Very Bad Idea.

Are the Perl zombies still a problem?  I can't find anything about them 
in Bugzilla.

> 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.

Despite all of my above arguments, I don't agree with the poster you're 
replying to.  Dropping support for a viable but old version of a program 
is a tactic reminiscent of commercial software, where they have a vested 
interest in getting you to upgrade.  Open source software is all about 
giving each person the best solution, and if the best solution for 
someone is Apache 1.3, then so be it.

-- 
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <brent@brentdax.com>
Perl and Parrot hacker

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message