httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Purl Gurl <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Re: Bug Versions 1.3.28/29 Fixed In 1.3.31 Or Not?
Date Tue, 18 May 2004 13:28:32 GMT
Robert Andersson wrote:
> Purl Gurl wrote:


> > You are sending a message to Windows users,

> > "We couldn't be bothered with you."
> Apache 1.3 is more-or-less "retro-fitted" for Windows. Windows users should
> use Apache 2.0; it performs much better on Windows than Apache 1.3.
Yes and no. Of the two, Apache 1.3.x is the more stable, more dependable
version, and in my estimation, is the version which should be used
for high traffic commercial servers.

Apache 2.x is very nice, is a good start on being more compatible with
NT5 type machines. However, being a fairly new release, Apache 2.x is
still buggy and still has stability problems.

I have exhaustively tested both versions and elected to stay
with Apache 1.3.x for stability and a greater number of options.

> Windows/IIS is a comercial product. Microsoft will implement features if the
> customers are willing to pay for them; regardless if the features are useful
> or not. This is not how Apache works. Apache developers will implement
> features they believe to be useful; no more, no less. That is also why
> Apache is a better product and suffer less serious bugs.

An overall viewpoint, yes, Apache is significantly better than
Windows based IIS servers. However, a reader should keep in mind
each system, IIS and Apache, each have strong points and each
have weak points. Which to use is often judged upon needs.

My previous point is Apache simply must appeal to Windows users
if Apache is to grab a larger share of the server market. Apache
is doing a very good job already at holding a large market share,
but more recently, has slipped and is beginning to fall behind.

You commented Apache is less buggy. This is true. Windows IIS is
more buggy, as you allude in your comment about adding a lot of
features to attract customers. Most know, more features lead to
more bugs. This is inherent. Apache 2.x is more buggy than earlier
Apache 1.3.x for the same reason and is the most buggy release
of Apache to date simply because it is in development and these
efforts at adding more features, also add more bugs.

Somewhat off topic, Apache developers, like Perl, Unix, Linux,
BSD and other developers, have little experience with Windows.
My experience is, especially with Apache and Perl, developers
write in bugs which are a direct result of their lack of
experience with Windows systems. This lack of experience is
directly contributable to technological bigotry which is
very frequently observed through operating system wars.

Apache and Perl, both need to attract more Windows specialists
if their respective futures are to be viable. Both also need
to retain and add features which are Windows specific.

Indigo Perl and ActiveState Perl, both have accomplished this,
attracting Windows specialists and users, evidenced by their
wonderful Windows based packages. Linux got off to a good start
on Windows based packages but failed to follow through. Redhat
dropping their Personal edition is a result. Redhat is now a
subscription based software which I believe will eventually
prove to not be a viable market. Chances are good Redhat
will eventually become true vaporware.

Apache has yet to achieve the status of those two companies,
Indigo Perl and Activestate.

Apache developers would be wise to apply as much effort
upon Windows based Apache as they do Unix based Apache.

Stock markets open in a few minutes. I am off to my usual
day trading and making or losing bucks. Money is what it
is all about. Apache should give that some thought.


The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message