You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com> on 2000/03/02 18:06:59 UTC
Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Replacement of WARNING.NT to Apache 2.0 proposed for vote, final revisions
> From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com] wrote:
The Apache Software Foundation developed the Apache WWW server for
portablity between OS (Operating System) platforms. Apache originated on
the Unix platforms as a replacement for httpd. As Apache has been ported to
OS2, Win32 and Novell platforms in the recent past, the original Unix
implementations remains the benchmark for stability.
ASF supports the NT/2000 platform in tandem with our many others, and
handles problems encountered with the Win32 port (both Windows 95/98 and
Windows NT/2000 families) the same way as any other supported platforms.
Apache 2.0 was developed in parallel on all currently supported platforms,
and a greater proportion of the code is shared between all platforms than
the Apache version 1.x family. ASF continues to work to ensure that the
Win32 port gains greater parity with the earliest supported Apache
implementations.
Microsoft desgined the Windows 95/98 family as a consumer or client
operating system. In particular Windows 95 and 98 lack the security
features found in the NT/2000 platforms. ASF does not endorse the use of
Windows 95 or 98 as a server platform except for small-scale, protected
environments (an isolated LAN intranet, for example, or for testing a
prototype WWW site.)
As with all Unix platforms, we advise Windows users to frequently review the
OS vendor's security bulletins, available at
http://www.microsoft.com/security, to assess and avert potential risks in
the unprotected environment of the internet.
Working within the Unix and NT communities, there will always be debates
over which platform is better. Both have proven themselves to be viable
large volume transactional systems for specific applications when configured
by competent engineers. Each offers its own strengths and weaknesses. Many
on the Apache team do not use NT themselves, and there are a few
distinctions between the systems that cannot be eliminated. The Apache team
includes NT advocates who work tirelessly to assure that the platform is
well represented and supported. As the entire Apache team is working to a
common goal, flames about NT vs. Unix do not help argue the case for users'
suggestions, bug reports or patch submissions.
Re: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
Here is my opinion...
Remove the WARNING-NT.TXT file. Create a README_WIN32.TXT file. The
ultimate goal we hope to attain with this file are:
1. Reduce unnecessary activity to the ASF bugdb and news groups.
2. Give the user community a sense that Apache 2.0 for Windows is a serious
http server worthy of consideration for deploying 'real' sites.
3. Point out serious issues that are likely to impact a lot of users (this
is just goal 1, really)
I like the comments about 95/98 not being server platforms. It should
contain pointers to the FAQ, a WIN32 specific FAQ, etc. The attached text is
a reasonably good start, with the exception of the last two paragraphs
("early adopter" and "Unix vs Windows" paragraphs). The readme is not
really the place to bring up/comment on the Unix vs Windows debate, IMHO.
I'll commit this as a starting point.
BTW, I think Apache 1.3.12 is a pretty good Windows NT server. Static page
serving performance is pretty miserable, but if you can live with that, it
is quite stable. I think the CGI loop problem has been fixed, which was the
most vexing problem in the earlier releases. It will take a while (and
volunteers :-) to work out the bugs in Apache 2.0.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@lnd.com>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 2:01 PM
Subject: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
> Replacement 0.13 of WARNING-NT.TXT to Apache 2.0 proposed for vote, final
> revisions
> (Yes James - I blew it on the bug reporting - please review)
>
> > From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com] wrote:
>
> The Apache Software Foundation developed the Apache WWW server for
> portability between OS (Operating System) platforms. Apache originated on
> the Unix platforms as a replacement for the historic NCSA httpd server.
> Although Apache has been ported to the OS/2, Win32 and Novell platforms,
the
> original Unix implementations remain the benchmark for stability.
>
> ASF supports the Windows NT/2000 platforms in tandem with our many others,
> and we handle problems encountered with the Win32 port (both Windows 95/98
> and Windows NT/2000 families) the same way as any other supported
platform.
> Apache 2.0 was developed in parallel on all currently supported platforms,
> and a greater proportion of the code is shared between all platforms than
> any previous Apache version. ASF continues to work to ensure that the
Win32
> port achieves parity with the most widely adopted Apache/Unix
> implementations.
>
> Microsoft designed the Windows 95/98 family as a consumer or client
> operating system. In particular Windows 95 and 98 lack the security
> features found in the Windows NT/2000 platforms. ASF does not advise the
> use of Windows 95 or 98 as a server platform except for small-scale,
> protected environments (an isolated LAN intranet, for example, or for
> testing a prototype WWW site.)
>
> As with all Unix platforms, we advise Windows users to frequently review
the
> OS vendor's security bulletins, available at
> http://www.microsoft.com/security, to assess and avert potential risks in
> the unprotected environment of the internet.
>
> Before submitting any reports, first research your problem by searching
the
> bug database at http://bugs.apache.org/. If your issue isn't there, next
> search news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows. You may well find
that
> the problem has already been discovered, and perhaps resolved, or it is
> really a configuration mistake that another user has tripped over. Once
you
> are sure that you have discovered a new issue that is not addressed,
please
> follow the next two guidelines.
>
> Any SECURITY RISK exposed by the Apache web server needs to be reported by
> following the directions at http://apache.org/security_report.html. It is
> in everyone's interest that the ASF has an opportunity to identify the
risk
> and address it with a fix before it is publicly disseminated. If your
issue
> concerns a security risk, ignore the last guideline.
>
> Once you are sure you discovered a brand new problem, please post it to
> news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows and follow the discussion
over
> the next few days. Please don't expect instant responses, nor personal
> emails, since these defeat the opportunity for others to read and comment
on
> the problem. If you do not get an answer, or there is agreement within
the
> newsgroup that the problem represents a bug (and not a user's
configuration
> error), please proceed and post the bug (with the fix, if available) to
> http://bugs.apache.org/ so the issue can be addressed.
>
> Finally, if you are successful in running Apache as an early adopter of
the
> initial or pre-release of a new Win32 platform, please post a "bug" report
> to that effect, with the subject: "Apache/Win32 tested on Windows 2002"
and
> mention any problems you may have encountered, and the workaround you used
> to solve them.
>
> Working within the Unix and Windows communities, there will always be
> debates over which platform is better. Both have proven themselves to be
> viable large volume transactional systems for specific applications when
> configured by competent engineers. Each offers its own strengths and
> weaknesses. Many on the Apache team do not use Windows themselves, and
> there are a few distinctions between the systems that cannot be
eliminated.
> The Apache team includes NT advocates who work tirelessly to assure that
the
> platform is well represented and supported. As the entire Apache team is
> working to a common goal, flames about NT vs. Unix do not help argue the
> case for users'
> suggestions, bug reports or patch submissions.
>
Re: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Replacement of WARNING.NT to Apache 2.0 proposed for vote, final revisions
>
> > From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com] wrote:
>
> The Apache Software Foundation developed the Apache WWW server for
> portablity between OS (Operating System) platforms. Apache originated on
> the Unix platforms as a replacement for httpd. As Apache has been ported to
> OS2, Win32 and Novell platforms in the recent past, the original Unix
> implementations remains the benchmark for stability.
Clarify "httpd" - after all, Apache is called httpd too! :-)
"As the Apache ports to the OS/2, Novell and Win32 platforms are quite
new, the ..."?
> ASF supports the NT/2000 platform in tandem with our many others, and
"Windows NT/2000" - "NT" is a trademark of Northern Telecom.
> handles problems encountered with the Win32 port (both Windows 95/98 and
> Windows NT/2000 families) the same way as any other supported platforms.
s/as any/as on any/; s/platforms/platform/
> Apache 2.0 was developed in parallel on all currently supported platforms,
> and a greater proportion of the code is shared between all platforms than
> the Apache version 1.x family. ASF continues to work to ensure that the
> Win32 port gains greater parity with the earliest supported Apache
"gains" -> "achieves"; "earliest supported" -> "more established". Your
wording makes it sound as if Apache/Win32 1.3.12 is trying to catch up
with the pre-1.0 builds ;-)
> implementations.
> Microsoft desgined the Windows 95/98 family as a consumer or client
> operating system. In particular Windows 95 and 98 lack the security
> features found in the NT/2000 platforms. ASF does not endorse the use of
+"Windows" as above. s/advise/recommend/
> Windows 95 or 98 as a server platform except for small-scale, protected
> environments (an isolated LAN intranet, for example, or for testing a
> prototype WWW site.)
>
> As with all Unix platforms, we advise Windows users to frequently review the
> OS vendor's security bulletins, available at
> http://www.microsoft.com/security, to assess and avert potential risks in
> the unprotected environment of the internet.
>
> Working within the Unix and NT communities, there will always be debates
> over which platform is better. Both have proven themselves to be viable
> large volume transactional systems for specific applications when configured
> by competent engineers. Each offers its own strengths and weaknesses. Many
> on the Apache team do not use NT themselves, and there are a few
> distinctions between the systems that cannot be eliminated. The Apache team
> includes NT advocates who work tirelessly to assure that the platform is
> well represented and supported. As the entire Apache team is working to a
> common goal, flames about NT vs. Unix do not help argue the case for users'
> suggestions, bug reports or patch submissions.
>
+1 with the changes I suggest - except where did the advice on bug reports
go??
James.
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by David Tulloh <lo...@fazeware.com>.
I agree, I have only been folowing the last few builds on win32 1.3.9
onwards and maybe a little bit before (1.3.9 is the earliest one I remember
that I could get to work - but that was my thickness)
But I think the NT Warning is too extreme and is scaring too many people off
I am unsure of how it copes under huge loads but as the file said (which I
cut) it is perfectly designed to work as a testing platform or to deliver
web pages to a low load lan
-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com]
Sent: Sunday, 5 March 2000 3:14 PM
To: new-httpd@apache.org; new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Pre Alpha-2.0 - would anyone else (esp. Mr. Stoddard & other big Win32
contributors) please comment aye or nay (or at least offer changes.) If we
will really be releasing a solid Win32 build this time, it's time for
WARNING-NT to go.
Replace WARNING-NT.TXT with a new WIN32-READ-ME.TXT (rev 0.13) proposed by
James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com]
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT with WARNING_WIN_95_98.txt
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Then if this is what we all want to say, lets say it (I'm still looking
> forward to Mr. NT-MPM's thoughts! Are you out there Bill?)
>
> WARNING: Although the Win32 release of Apache 2.0 is engineered to the
> same standard as the Unix release, we do not recommend using it on the
> Windows 95 or 98 operating systems in a production environment. These
> consumer systems were not designed as server platforms, and do not
> support some of the features required for a flexible, secure server.
> These platforms are well suited for testing the server and developing
> web sites.
>
> Please refer to the Apache 2.0 manual pages for more specific details.
>
>
> > From: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net [mailto:rbb@shell.ntrnet.net]On Behalf Of
> > What I read in your readme, is basically a rehash of what has
> > already been said in the README
> > file, plus the part about not supporting Win9X fully. Unless we are
> > adding something that I have missed to this file, I don't see it as
> > necessary.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
>
> Q to you Ryan and James - is the originally proposed win32-read-me
> better dispatched off to the html documentation, then? I don't want
> to clutter the root with too much drivel - but I think there were
> some valid details in the 0.13 draft.
I would certainly agree with moving win32-readme into the HTML docs; IMO,
the text stuff in the root should be limited to installation information,
and warnings that Apache doesn't work with Foo 1.2.3.
A nice Win32 HTML page wouldn't hurt, with the short caveat about Win95/98
in the root containing a pointer to that. Having it visible on the WWW
site might also encourage a few more Win32 users to have a go, which can't
hurt!
James.
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT with WARNING_WIN_95_98.txt
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
Then if this is what we all want to say, lets say it (I'm still looking
forward to Mr. NT-MPM's thoughts! Are you out there Bill?)
WARNING: Although the Win32 release of Apache 2.0 is engineered to the
same standard as the Unix release, we do not recommend using it on the
Windows 95 or 98 operating systems in a production environment. These
consumer systems were not designed as server platforms, and do not
support some of the features required for a flexible, secure server.
These platforms are well suited for testing the server and developing
web sites.
Please refer to the Apache 2.0 manual pages for more specific details.
> From: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net [mailto:rbb@shell.ntrnet.net]On Behalf Of
> What I read in your readme, is basically a rehash of what has
> already been said in the README
> file, plus the part about not supporting Win9X fully. Unless we are
> adding something that I have missed to this file, I don't see it as
> necessary.
>
> Ryan
>
Q to you Ryan and James - is the originally proposed win32-read-me
better dispatched off to the html documentation, then? I don't want
to clutter the root with too much drivel - but I think there were
some valid details in the 0.13 draft.
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed - side thread
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> If what James and I propose is a windows-read-me.txt - then I agree with
> Ryan's proposal, provided we change the name to WARNING-WIN-95-98.TXT.
>
> Please see my additional ideas inline. Remember who many of our 95/98 users
> are, so we need to keep this language pretty basic.
>
> I will wait till the end of the day Monday to push for these two changes to
> be committed, so we can hear any additional feedback.
>
I don't have any problem with any of your changes. My writing style tends
to be very informal (to the chagrin of my wife/editor). I still don't
understand the need for a windows specific readme. What I read in your
readme, is basically a rehash of what has already been said in the README
file, plus the part about not supporting Win9X fully. Unless we are
adding something that I have missed to this file, I don't see it as
necessary.
Ryan
> > From: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net [mailto:rbb@shell.ntrnet.net]On Behalf Of
> >
> > I think I've missed something. This doesn't really say
> > anything new. I
> > think if we are going to replace the WARNING-NT.TXT file, it should be
> > with something simple like:
> >
> > WARNING: Although the Win32 release of Apache has been brought up to the
>
> s/Apache has been brought up/Apache 2.0 is engineered to/
>
> > same standard as the Unix release, we do not recommend using it on the
> > Win9X series in a production environment. These platforms were not
>
> s/Win9X series/Windows 95 or 98 operating systems/
>
> s/platforms/consumer systems/
>
> > designed as server platforms, and do not support some of the features
> > required for a flexible, secure server. These platforms are
> > well suited for testing the server and cgi-scripts.
>
> s/cgi-scripts/developing web sites/
> a/Please refer to the file win32-read-me.txt file for more specific
> details./
>
>
> > That's enough to let people know that the Win32 release is
> > finally up to
> > snuff, and that we are supporting Win9X, but we don't recommend using
> > them, because they may not be full-featured.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Pre Alpha-2.0 - would anyone else (esp. Mr. Stoddard &
> > other big Win32
> > > contributors) please comment aye or nay (or at least offer
> > changes.) If we
> > > will really be releasing a solid Win32 build this time,
> > it's time for
> > > WARNING-NT to go.
> > >
> > > Replace WARNING-NT.TXT with a new WIN32-READ-ME.TXT (rev
> > 0.13) proposed by
> > > James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> > > William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed - side thread
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
If what James and I propose is a windows-read-me.txt - then I agree with
Ryan's proposal, provided we change the name to WARNING-WIN-95-98.TXT.
Please see my additional ideas inline. Remember who many of our 95/98 users
are, so we need to keep this language pretty basic.
I will wait till the end of the day Monday to push for these two changes to
be committed, so we can hear any additional feedback.
> From: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net [mailto:rbb@shell.ntrnet.net]On Behalf Of
>
> I think I've missed something. This doesn't really say
> anything new. I
> think if we are going to replace the WARNING-NT.TXT file, it should be
> with something simple like:
>
> WARNING: Although the Win32 release of Apache has been brought up to the
s/Apache has been brought up/Apache 2.0 is engineered to/
> same standard as the Unix release, we do not recommend using it on the
> Win9X series in a production environment. These platforms were not
s/Win9X series/Windows 95 or 98 operating systems/
s/platforms/consumer systems/
> designed as server platforms, and do not support some of the features
> required for a flexible, secure server. These platforms are
> well suited for testing the server and cgi-scripts.
s/cgi-scripts/developing web sites/
a/Please refer to the file win32-read-me.txt file for more specific
details./
> That's enough to let people know that the Win32 release is
> finally up to
> snuff, and that we are supporting Win9X, but we don't recommend using
> them, because they may not be full-featured.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Pre Alpha-2.0 - would anyone else (esp. Mr. Stoddard &
> other big Win32
> > contributors) please comment aye or nay (or at least offer
> changes.) If we
> > will really be releasing a solid Win32 build this time,
> it's time for
> > WARNING-NT to go.
> >
> > Replace WARNING-NT.TXT with a new WIN32-READ-ME.TXT (rev
> 0.13) proposed by
> > James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com]
>
>
>
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
I think I've missed something. This doesn't really say anything new. I
think if we are going to replace the WARNING-NT.TXT file, it should be
with something simple like:
WARNING: Although the Win32 release of Apache has been brought up to the
same standard as the Unix release, we do not recommend using it on the
Win9X series in a production environment. These platforms were not
designed as server platforms, and do not support some of the features
required for a flexible, secure server. These platforms are well suited
for testing the server and cgi-scripts.
That's enough to let people know that the Win32 release is finally up to
snuff, and that we are supporting Win9X, but we don't recommend using
them, because they may not be full-featured.
Ryan
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Pre Alpha-2.0 - would anyone else (esp. Mr. Stoddard & other big Win32
> contributors) please comment aye or nay (or at least offer changes.) If we
> will really be releasing a solid Win32 build this time, it's time for
> WARNING-NT to go.
>
> Replace WARNING-NT.TXT with a new WIN32-READ-ME.TXT (rev 0.13) proposed by
> James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com]
RE: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
Pre Alpha-2.0 - would anyone else (esp. Mr. Stoddard & other big Win32
contributors) please comment aye or nay (or at least offer changes.) If we
will really be releasing a solid Win32 build this time, it's time for
WARNING-NT to go.
Replace WARNING-NT.TXT with a new WIN32-READ-ME.TXT (rev 0.13) proposed by
James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com]
> The Apache Software Foundation developed the Apache WWW server for
> portability between OS (Operating System) platforms. Apache
> originated on
> the Unix platforms as a replacement for the historic NCSA
> httpd server.
> Although Apache has been ported to the OS/2, Win32 and Novell
> platforms, the
> original Unix implementations remain the benchmark for stability.
>
> ASF supports the Windows NT/2000 platforms in tandem with our
> many others,
> and we handle problems encountered with the Win32 port (both
> Windows 95/98
> and Windows NT/2000 families) the same way as any other
> supported platform.
> Apache 2.0 was developed in parallel on all currently
> supported platforms,
> and a greater proportion of the code is shared between all
> platforms than
> any previous Apache version. ASF continues to work to ensure
> that the Win32
> port achieves parity with the most widely adopted Apache/Unix
> implementations.
>
> Microsoft designed the Windows 95/98 family as a consumer or client
> operating system. In particular Windows 95 and 98 lack the security
> features found in the Windows NT/2000 platforms. ASF does
> not advise the
> use of Windows 95 or 98 as a server platform except for small-scale,
> protected environments (an isolated LAN intranet, for example, or for
> testing a prototype WWW site.)
>
> As with all Unix platforms, we advise Windows users to
> frequently review the
> OS vendor's security bulletins, available at
> http://www.microsoft.com/security, to assess and avert
> potential risks in
> the unprotected environment of the internet.
>
> Before submitting any reports, first research your problem by
> searching the
> bug database at http://bugs.apache.org/. If your issue isn't
> there, next
> search news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows. You may
> well find that
> the problem has already been discovered, and perhaps
> resolved, or it is
> really a configuration mistake that another user has tripped
> over. Once you
> are sure that you have discovered a new issue that is not
> addressed, please
> follow the next two guidelines.
>
> Any SECURITY RISK exposed by the Apache web server needs to
> be reported by
> following the directions at
http://apache.org/security_report.html. It is
in everyone's interest that the ASF has an opportunity to identify the risk
and address it with a fix before it is publicly disseminated. If your issue
concerns a security risk, ignore the last guideline.
Once you are sure you discovered a brand new problem, please post it to
news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows and follow the discussion over
the next few days. Please don't expect instant responses, nor personal
emails, since these defeat the opportunity for others to read and comment on
the problem. If you do not get an answer, or there is agreement within the
newsgroup that the problem represents a bug (and not a user's configuration
error), please proceed and post the bug (with the fix, if available) to
http://bugs.apache.org/ so the issue can be addressed.
Finally, if you are successful in running Apache as an early adopter of the
initial or pre-release of a new Win32 platform, please post a "bug" report
to that effect, with the subject: "Apache/Win32 tested on Windows 2002" and
mention any problems you may have encountered, and the workaround you used
to solve them.
Working within the Unix and Windows communities, there will always be
debates over which platform is better. Both have proven themselves to be
viable large volume transactional systems for specific applications when
configured by competent engineers. Each offers its own strengths and
weaknesses. Many on the Apache team do not use Windows themselves, and
there are a few distinctions between the systems that cannot be eliminated.
The Apache team includes NT advocates who work tirelessly to assure that the
platform is well represented and supported. As the entire Apache team is
working to a common goal, flames about NT vs. Unix do not help argue the
case for users'
suggestions, bug reports or patch submissions.
Re: Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Replacement 0.13 of WARNING-NT.TXT to Apache 2.0 proposed for vote, final
> revisions
> (Yes James - I blew it on the bug reporting - please review)
+1 on that (or I would be if I had a vote :P)
(Is the filename appropriate, BTW? WARNING-WIN32.TXT perhaps?? It isn't
really a warning about NT...)
> > From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@lnd.com] wrote:
>
> The Apache Software Foundation developed the Apache WWW server for
> portability between OS (Operating System) platforms. Apache originated on
> the Unix platforms as a replacement for the historic NCSA httpd server.
> Although Apache has been ported to the OS/2, Win32 and Novell platforms, the
> original Unix implementations remain the benchmark for stability.
>
> ASF supports the Windows NT/2000 platforms in tandem with our many others,
> and we handle problems encountered with the Win32 port (both Windows 95/98
> and Windows NT/2000 families) the same way as any other supported platform.
> Apache 2.0 was developed in parallel on all currently supported platforms,
> and a greater proportion of the code is shared between all platforms than
> any previous Apache version. ASF continues to work to ensure that the Win32
> port achieves parity with the most widely adopted Apache/Unix
> implementations.
>
> Microsoft designed the Windows 95/98 family as a consumer or client
> operating system. In particular Windows 95 and 98 lack the security
> features found in the Windows NT/2000 platforms. ASF does not advise the
> use of Windows 95 or 98 as a server platform except for small-scale,
> protected environments (an isolated LAN intranet, for example, or for
> testing a prototype WWW site.)
>
> As with all Unix platforms, we advise Windows users to frequently review the
> OS vendor's security bulletins, available at
> http://www.microsoft.com/security, to assess and avert potential risks in
> the unprotected environment of the internet.
>
> Before submitting any reports, first research your problem by searching the
> bug database at http://bugs.apache.org/. If your issue isn't there, next
> search news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows. You may well find that
> the problem has already been discovered, and perhaps resolved, or it is
> really a configuration mistake that another user has tripped over. Once you
> are sure that you have discovered a new issue that is not addressed, please
> follow the next two guidelines.
>
> Any SECURITY RISK exposed by the Apache web server needs to be reported by
> following the directions at http://apache.org/security_report.html. It is
> in everyone's interest that the ASF has an opportunity to identify the risk
> and address it with a fix before it is publicly disseminated. If your issue
> concerns a security risk, ignore the last guideline.
>
> Once you are sure you discovered a brand new problem, please post it to
> news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows and follow the discussion over
> the next few days. Please don't expect instant responses, nor personal
> emails, since these defeat the opportunity for others to read and comment on
> the problem. If you do not get an answer, or there is agreement within the
> newsgroup that the problem represents a bug (and not a user's configuration
> error), please proceed and post the bug (with the fix, if available) to
> http://bugs.apache.org/ so the issue can be addressed.
>
> Finally, if you are successful in running Apache as an early adopter of the
> initial or pre-release of a new Win32 platform, please post a "bug" report
> to that effect, with the subject: "Apache/Win32 tested on Windows 2002" and
> mention any problems you may have encountered, and the workaround you used
> to solve them.
>
> Working within the Unix and Windows communities, there will always be
> debates over which platform is better. Both have proven themselves to be
> viable large volume transactional systems for specific applications when
> configured by competent engineers. Each offers its own strengths and
> weaknesses. Many on the Apache team do not use Windows themselves, and
> there are a few distinctions between the systems that cannot be eliminated.
> The Apache team includes NT advocates who work tirelessly to assure that the
> platform is well represented and supported. As the entire Apache team is
> working to a common goal, flames about NT vs. Unix do not help argue the
> case for users'
> suggestions, bug reports or patch submissions.
>