You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com> on 1998/03/11 08:08:32 UTC
lantimes Apache article
FYI, it also appeared in print on the March 2nd issue. Page 14; page
after a Microsoft ad for a... erm... Digital_Nervous_System. I would
really prefer to keep my nervous system the way it is, thanks.
To tell you the truth, some of the stuff that Zona guy is saying look even
dumber on paper, even though they are the same words from the online one.
You see a graph of Netcraft's results: 46% Apache. You see a SiteMetrics
graph for "large company web sites": 36% Apache with a 15% lead over
anything else. Then he says "The only place where we see really strong
use is among medium-sized companies' publicly available web sites." But
that is the sentence after he says "Apache is most attractive to nonprofit
organizations and small companies". Whatever; it isn't my problem, its
Zona's problem.
Re: InternetWorld article
Posted by Chris Tacy <ch...@enginered.com>.
letters@iw.com
Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Chris Tacy wrote:
>
> > http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-3types.html
> >
> > "...plus the overwhelmingly popular freeware package Apache HTTP Server
> > 1.25 and 1.3..."
>
> If they can't even get the version number right, they obviously don't give
> a damn about actually looking at software.
>
> Lovely claim to "sidestep the OS issue" by picking an OS that there isn't
> any released version of Apache for and by demanding OS-specific features.
>
> I have no idea what sort of drugs they are smoking when they talk about
> higher hardware costs for Unix systems; yes, to get a better Unix system
> with specialized hardware with better performance at the high end and more
> fault tolerance it will cost more. But FreeBSD and Linux, etc. need less
> hardware than NT to do the same job. They even mention FreeBSD and Linux
> in their features chart!
>
> Hey everyone, better stop doing ad banners. It can't be done on Apache.
>
> The biggest problem with their "types of sites" reviews is that they are
> approaching it from the view of a clueless journalist trying to setup a
> complex site. If there is a pretty little tool to click on then they will
> use it and think that if it works for their five minute test of a
> "complex" site, it will work in reality. They ignore the fact that _any_
> development of a complex site will take real time.
>
> >
> > i know there is no point in trying to explain the "freeware" thing to
> > people -- but perhaps the verbiage from ABOUT_APACHE.html could be
> > copied to the homepage or something? it might help to just stick that
> > one line about "freely-available source code" there - maybe with
> > something saying "not freeware." some day i guess it might be nice to
> > have the "Why Apache is Free" section expanded and again mention "not
> > freeware."
> >
> > i know this sort of whining is pointless, and we should all be glad that
> > apache was even considered - but...
> >
> > - they didn't test 1.25 (contrary to the above statement) as they
> > tested on NT only.
> > - "However, these factors are counterbalanced by the affordability of
> > hardware for running Windows NT, given the declining prices of PCs."
> > (cost of PC + cost of NT) > (cost of PC + cost of FreeBSD)
> > - "In the end, with the exception of the issue of user authentication
> > under Windows NT, our evaluation criteria depended very little on
> > operating system features."
> > but somehow the one server developed specifically for NT, by the
> > manufacturer of NT came out on top.
> >
> >
> > http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-table.html
> >
> > - Browser-based administration = no
> > i got email from them saying they were only testing "released non third
> > party software." i guess that means they DID test 1.25 on NT (Grin).
> > - Development Languages
> > this is too weird. under MS Site Server only Perl is listed.
> > - Database connectivity = ODBC
> > ouch
> > - APIs = N/A
> > double ouch
> > - LDAP = N/A
> >
> > oh, and does anyone want to write mod_adrotate? heh
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> > --
> > ###################################
> > chris tacy chris@enginered.com
> > co-founder fire engine red
> >
--
###################################
chris tacy chris@enginered.com
co-founder fire engine red
Re: InternetWorld article
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Chris Tacy wrote:
> http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-3types.html
>
> "...plus the overwhelmingly popular freeware package Apache HTTP Server
> 1.25 and 1.3..."
If they can't even get the version number right, they obviously don't give
a damn about actually looking at software.
Lovely claim to "sidestep the OS issue" by picking an OS that there isn't
any released version of Apache for and by demanding OS-specific features.
I have no idea what sort of drugs they are smoking when they talk about
higher hardware costs for Unix systems; yes, to get a better Unix system
with specialized hardware with better performance at the high end and more
fault tolerance it will cost more. But FreeBSD and Linux, etc. need less
hardware than NT to do the same job. They even mention FreeBSD and Linux
in their features chart!
Hey everyone, better stop doing ad banners. It can't be done on Apache.
The biggest problem with their "types of sites" reviews is that they are
approaching it from the view of a clueless journalist trying to setup a
complex site. If there is a pretty little tool to click on then they will
use it and think that if it works for their five minute test of a
"complex" site, it will work in reality. They ignore the fact that _any_
development of a complex site will take real time.
>
> i know there is no point in trying to explain the "freeware" thing to
> people -- but perhaps the verbiage from ABOUT_APACHE.html could be
> copied to the homepage or something? it might help to just stick that
> one line about "freely-available source code" there - maybe with
> something saying "not freeware." some day i guess it might be nice to
> have the "Why Apache is Free" section expanded and again mention "not
> freeware."
>
> i know this sort of whining is pointless, and we should all be glad that
> apache was even considered - but...
>
> - they didn't test 1.25 (contrary to the above statement) as they
> tested on NT only.
> - "However, these factors are counterbalanced by the affordability of
> hardware for running Windows NT, given the declining prices of PCs."
> (cost of PC + cost of NT) > (cost of PC + cost of FreeBSD)
> - "In the end, with the exception of the issue of user authentication
> under Windows NT, our evaluation criteria depended very little on
> operating system features."
> but somehow the one server developed specifically for NT, by the
> manufacturer of NT came out on top.
>
>
> http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-table.html
>
> - Browser-based administration = no
> i got email from them saying they were only testing "released non third
> party software." i guess that means they DID test 1.25 on NT (Grin).
> - Development Languages
> this is too weird. under MS Site Server only Perl is listed.
> - Database connectivity = ODBC
> ouch
> - APIs = N/A
> double ouch
> - LDAP = N/A
>
> oh, and does anyone want to write mod_adrotate? heh
>
> -c
>
>
> --
> ###################################
> chris tacy chris@enginered.com
> co-founder fire engine red
>
InternetWorld article
Posted by Chris Tacy <ch...@enginered.com>.
http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-3types.html
"...plus the overwhelmingly popular freeware package Apache HTTP Server
1.25 and 1.3..."
i know there is no point in trying to explain the "freeware" thing to
people -- but perhaps the verbiage from ABOUT_APACHE.html could be
copied to the homepage or something? it might help to just stick that
one line about "freely-available source code" there - maybe with
something saying "not freeware." some day i guess it might be nice to
have the "Why Apache is Free" section expanded and again mention "not
freeware."
i know this sort of whining is pointless, and we should all be glad that
apache was even considered - but...
- they didn't test 1.25 (contrary to the above statement) as they
tested on NT only.
- "However, these factors are counterbalanced by the affordability of
hardware for running Windows NT, given the declining prices of PCs."
(cost of PC + cost of NT) > (cost of PC + cost of FreeBSD)
- "In the end, with the exception of the issue of user authentication
under Windows NT, our evaluation criteria depended very little on
operating system features."
but somehow the one server developed specifically for NT, by the
manufacturer of NT came out on top.
http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/iwlabs/19980309-table.html
- Browser-based administration = no
i got email from them saying they were only testing "released non third
party software." i guess that means they DID test 1.25 on NT (Grin).
- Development Languages
this is too weird. under MS Site Server only Perl is listed.
- Database connectivity = ODBC
ouch
- APIs = N/A
double ouch
- LDAP = N/A
oh, and does anyone want to write mod_adrotate? heh
-c
--
###################################
chris tacy chris@enginered.com
co-founder fire engine red