You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> on 2002/04/06 13:23:28 UTC
2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers
Hi,
http://httpd.apache.org still shows:
"Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available;
everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to
upgrade to 1.3, as there will not be any further 1.2.X releases.
At present, the Win32 port of Apache is not as stable as the UNIX
version."
We probably want to demote 1.3 a bit.
And, IMHO, we should upgrade the apache.org servers (at least
icarus deserves an upgrade) to 2.0.35.
Sander
RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 06:18 AM 4/6/2002, you wrote:
> > From: Mladen Turk [mailto:mturk@mappingsoft.com]
> > Sent: 06 April 2002 13:53
>
> > What bothers me is the statement the "Win32 port of Apache is not as stable
> > as the UNIX version".
>
>This is not in the 2.0 part of the page. This only goes for 1.3. In the
>2.0 section:
>
>"This version of Apache is known to work on many versions of Unix, BeOS, OS/2,
> Windows, and Netware. Because of many of the advancements in Apache 2.0, the
> initial release of Apache is expected to perform equally well on all
> supported
> platforms"
Exactly the point. The 1.3 Win32 port is certainly not as stable or
robust as Unix... that warning [whenever 1.3 is mentioned] is still needed.
> > And on the other hand what is the Win32 port? Is it Windows 95, Windows NT
> > 4, 2000, or XP?
>
>I think that we can safely assume that Apache 2.0 was targetted at Windows
>NT 4 and
>up. I personally wouldn't want to have to worry about Windows 9x (for obvious
>reasons I think).
Correct. Win9x has never been 'supported' [surprize] but we have always taken
the position, "if it works for you, great". Pre-9x won't work at all,
WinNT 4.0 SP5
or later is required for WinSock2 and some other bugs. WinXP has a broken
afd.sys that must be patched. Some 3rd party VPN clients are borked. So we
can't really say "This Just Works" on every OS... but hopefully the easier
query
and filing options in Bugzilla will help folks identify specific problems
with specific
Win9x or even Netware, OS2 and Unix family kernels.
Bill
Bill
RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Mladen Turk wrote:
> > http://httpd.apache.org still shows:
> >
> > "Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available;
> > everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to
> > upgrade to 1.3, as there will not be any further 1.2.X releases.
> > At present, the Win32 port of Apache is not as stable as the UNIX
> > version."
Whoops, sorry, forgot to look at that part. I just removed that whole
paragraph.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Mladen Turk [mailto:mturk@mappingsoft.com]
> Sent: 06 April 2002 13:53
> > http://httpd.apache.org still shows:
> >
> > "Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available;
> > everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to
> > upgrade to 1.3, as there will not be any further 1.2.X releases.
> > At present, the Win32 port of Apache is not as stable as the UNIX
> > version."
> >
> > We probably want to demote 1.3 a bit.
> >
>
> What bothers me is the statement the "Win32 port of Apache is not as stable
> as the UNIX version".
This is not in the 2.0 part of the page. This only goes for 1.3. In the
2.0 section:
"This version of Apache is known to work on many versions of Unix, BeOS, OS/2,
Windows, and Netware. Because of many of the advancements in Apache 2.0, the
initial release of Apache is expected to perform equally well on all supported
platforms"
> Are there any chances to get rid of that (IMO stupid) Win32 port warning
> stuffs.
No need, there is no warning ;)
> If the Win32 port is not as stable as the UNIX one, how the stable is UNIX
> Solaris compared to UNIX AIX, UNIX Linux, etc...
See above.
> And on the other hand what is the Win32 port? Is it Windows 95, Windows NT
> 4, 2000, or XP?
I think that we can safely assume that Apache 2.0 was targetted at Windows NT 4 and
up. I personally wouldn't want to have to worry about Windows 9x (for obvious
reasons I think).
> MT.
Sander
RE: 2.0.35 related: Website tweak, upgrade apache.org servers
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@mappingsoft.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:striker@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:23 PM
>
> http://httpd.apache.org still shows:
>
> "Apache 1.3.24 is the best version of Apache currently available;
> everyone running 1.2.X servers or earlier are strongly urged to
> upgrade to 1.3, as there will not be any further 1.2.X releases.
> At present, the Win32 port of Apache is not as stable as the UNIX
> version."
>
> We probably want to demote 1.3 a bit.
>
What bothers me is the statement the "Win32 port of Apache is not as stable
as the UNIX version".
Are there any chances to get rid of that (IMO stupid) Win32 port warning
stuffs.
If the Win32 port is not as stable as the UNIX one, how the stable is UNIX
Solaris compared to UNIX AIX, UNIX Linux, etc...
And on the other hand what is the Win32 port? Is it Windows 95, Windows NT
4, 2000, or XP?
MT.