Internet Magazine (UK - Oct 1997) trashes Apache - ho hum (fwd)

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.misc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,uk.media
>Path: scanner.worldgate.com!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!zdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!yama.mcc.ac.uk!liv!lucs!news
>From: rkl@csc.liv.ac.uk (Richard Lloyd)
>Subject: Internet Magazine (UK - Oct 1997) trashes Apache - ho hum
>Sender: news@csc.liv.ac.uk (News Eater)
>Message-ID: <EG...@csc.liv.ac.uk>
>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:13:58 GMT
>Lines: 75
>X-Nntp-Posting-Host: rkl@ness.csc.liv.ac.uk
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK
>X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.8
>Xref: scanner.worldgate.com comp.infosystems.www.servers.misc:8302       comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix:33566      uk.media:24017     

Hey, the now very low quality "Internet Magazine" here in the UK (it's been
sinking fast in 1997 and is now very poor indeed - rating Web sites on
"Design", "Technology" and "Navigation", but NOT on "Content" just shows
how inept they are !) just predictably trashed the Apache (1.2.3) WWW server:

* They gave it a 3 out of 5 rating, but all the other Web servers reviewed
  got the same or a better rating.

* There was no attempt to benchmark any of the Web server software at all.
  Perhaps that's because Microsoft's useless effort is seriously poor
  when the Web site gets anything above low traffic and we don't want to make
  Microsoft look bad do we ?

* Apache was the only Web server reviewed that a) came with source code as
  well as binaries, b) was free and c) worked on across virtually all
  platforms. None of this counted for much in the review of course (note
  the conspicuous absence of their "Best Buy" logo in this review !!).

* It was stated that SSL 2 was "optional" and SSL 3 isn't available for
  Apache. Firstly "optional" just means "download SSLeay and the patches to
  Apache for *free*" and secondly, SSLeay *does* support SSL 3 so they got
  that one wrong.

* The individual review of Apache stated:
  "In comparison with commercial Web servers, Apache comes off second best
   in terms of features."
  Er, since when ? Apache has kept track with *all* the Web server developments
  out there and has a vast library of free additional modules to extend the
  Web server functions should you need to.

* The review also said:
  "Apache doesn't support SSL since SSL has to be paid for, but there's
   a fee-paid version called Apache-SSL"
   In fact, Apache-SSL = Apache + patches to Apache + SSLeay and it's all
   downloadable for free, which isn't clear from that statement.

* Also in the review:
  "Apache lacks sophisticated logging facilities"
  This is rubbish - Apache supports the de facto Common Log Format and recent
  versions can generate log files in various different formats. There are also
  freely downloadable modules to further modify the format of the logging.

* Their verdict on Apache was:
  "It's too technical for the ordinary user who just wants to put up an
   Internet or Intranet server".
  This is an incredible statement to make really - how many "ordinary users"
  are going to maintain a live Web server on an ISP or their company's
  intranet ? NONE is the answer !

Yet again, Internet Magazine has shown their ignorance on technical Internet
subjects. One suspects that the "Labs team" that supposedly gave a detailed
look at Web server software in the October 1997 issue of "Internet Magazine"
(note the capitals here - the magazine actually spells its title wrongly in
its main logo...they say it's "internet magazine" - duh !) simply haven't
configured a Web server in their lives before they were told to by the
mag.

Apache is the world's #1 Web server software because it's:

1. Free.
2. Has source code available.
3. It's fast (an important facet of Web serving totally ignored by the
   reviews).
4. It's updated regularly and keeps abreast with all the latest developments.
5. It has a huge library of free modules to extend server functions.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a 5-star product that's been put down by
Internet Magazine because it doesn't have a WYSIWYG configuration interface
under Windows NT.

Richard K. Lloyd,           E-mail: rkl@csc.liv.ac.uk
Connect,                       WWW: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~rkl/
5-31, Great Newton St,
Liverpool University,
Merseyside, UK. L69 3BX