www-apache-bugdb mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Laskey@hyperreal.org, Hank <CAMResea...@aol.com>
Subject os-windows/5449: Binary install to Win98 fails to run, briefly flashes console.
Date Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:36:12 GMT

>Number:         5449
>Category:       os-windows
>Synopsis:       Binary install to Win98 fails to run, briefly flashes console.
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    apache
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   apache
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Dec  9 17:40:00 PST 1999
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     CAMResearch@aol.com
>Organization:
apache
>Release:        1.3.9
>Environment:
Windows98, 500mz Pentium III, 512meg RAM
>Description:
First, let me say that I have read every correspondence in the bug reporting file from its
inception.  My problem seems identical to bug report 2471.  Unfortunately, that poor guy was
treated poorly and left abruptly.  We all know you do this gratis.  We do too.  It also seems
that my problem is the same as bug report 3258.  Also unfortunately, that guy seems to have
had some sort of weird situation with an Acrobat download/re-boot and claimed everything straightened
out later but didn't tell us how.  I have been trying to install and run Apache on my Windows98
machine for three days.  The problem is identical to bug report 2471, with the program saying
it can't find the local host name.  I have literally put two dozen or more different entries
into the ServerName Directive, including 127.0.0.1, my own machine name, and everything else
I could think of.  Today, I talked at length with three computer science professors at a local
university and they each said they knew of no one who has ever gotten Apache to run on either
Windows95 or Windows98.  They suggested either WindowsNT or, better yet a UNIX based system
like LINUX.  This seems bizarre to me.  The Apache group is very open and forthright about
Windows installations being tentative, but is such a statement misleading, at best?  I started
programming with cards in the 1970s and I think I know a fair bit about what I'm doing.  I'm
going to try the Remove Programs option suggested by the previous author, but I've downloaded
three times now, having cleared all trace of Apache from my machine each time before proceeding
with another download/install.  If this attempt fails, I'm going to try downloading 1.3.6
for no particular reason other than desperation.  If you really do want us all to throw away
our copies of Windows and the thousands of dollars of software we have accumulated each year
for the last 15 years, just say so; otherwise tell us how to run Apache on Windows98 and/or
95 in a way that is unambiguous, friendly, and clearly demonstrative of your superior knowledge.
>How-To-Repeat:
I believe it was repeated by the reporters of 2471 and 3258, and probably untold others for
the last two years!  Just download the binary install program to a Windows98 machine anytime
from December 5, 1999 onward.
>Fix:
Change from Windows98 to LINUX???
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
[In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, you need]
[to include <apbugs@Apache.Org> in the Cc line and make sure the]
[subject line starts with the report component and number, with ]
[or without any 'Re:' prefixes (such as "general/1098:" or      ]
["Re: general/1098:").  If the subject doesn't match this       ]
[pattern, your message will be misfiled and ignored.  The       ]
["apbugs" address is not added to the Cc line of messages from  ]
[the database automatically because of the potential for mail   ]
[loops.  If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig-   ]
[nored unless you are responding to an explicit request from a  ]
[developer.  Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS!     ]




Mime
View raw message