Fw: HTTP response problem on 2.0.24

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Just to file this away where I won't loose it.  Unfortuatnely, with buckets, it will
be a danged site difficult to find the win9x invalid operation.

Sort of cute that we bubble up rv's instead of http result codes :(

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.spam.not.welcome.net>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: HTTP response problem on 2.0.24


> It's a network error (32045 - 22000 is 10045, winsock error WSAEOPNOTSUPP).
> 
> Now that's odd.  But as everything on the ASF site indicates, it really doesn't
> work on Windows 9x (or ME) yet.  You were warned.
> 
> This is the reason that the huge number of folks offering their 'binaries' irks
> me.  Please don't any support on this yet.  A beta for Windows NT is in the works
> (likely to be 2.0.25) and a beta on 9x will follow the next month.
> 
> But as the group has always indicated, if you can't compile Apache yourself, you
> aren't ready for 2.0 (or, 2.0 isn't ready for you :)
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> "Michael Maclean" <us...@no-surprises.co.uk> wrote in message news:9mebgr$1e261$1@ID-93766.news.dfncis.de...
> > Hi,
> > Apologies if this is a blindingly obvious problem ;o)
> >
> > I downloaded the Windows binary of Apache 2.0.24 from Jerry Baker's site and
> > installed it onto my 98 First Edition machine, and all seems to be fine. I
> > changed all the @@ lines in httpd.conf to valid values and started the
> > server, and it seemed to work fine. I then changed it to run on port 8080 to
> > avoid messing with my existing 1.3.20 setup. I then started running through
> > the manual pages in the htdocs folder via http://localhost:8080, until I
> > tries to access the /manual/misc/FAQ.html page. When I did this, it came
> > back with a page titled "200 OK" and saying "OK" then "The server
> > encountered an internal error or misconfiguration..." like you get with a
> > 500 error. It only seems to happen with certain pages:
> > /manual/misc/client_block_api.html seems to work fine.
> >
> > Nothing appears in the error log when this happens, but the access log looks
> > like this:
> > 127.0.0.1 - - [27/Aug/2001:21:44:35 +0000] "GET /manual/misc/FAQ.html
> > HTTP/1.1" 32045 119496
> >
> > indicating a 32045 HTTP response code. Anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: Fw: HTTP response problem on 2.0.24

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

From: "Jerry Baker" <je...@weirdness.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:55 PM


> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > > This is the reason that the huge number of folks offering their 'binaries' irks
> > > me.
> 
> Here's the problem: On *nix machines you can get a compiler for free and
> figure out how to use it. If you can figure out how to use it, then
> you're probably smart enough to know what you're getting into by
> building an alpha quality product. With the Windows platform the
> compiler costs a minimum of $100+. That is out of the range for many
> qualified persons to afford (I couldn't even afford it now). It is also
> out of the range of persons who primarily run *nix but do some testing
> on Windows. That is the reason for my binaries. It is not to let anyone
> and everyone download Apache. If I knew of a way to stop unqualified
> individuals from downloading it I would do it. Do you know any way?

No, I know of no way to prequalify users.  Heck, even the big warning "Windows 95
users READ THIS FIRST" warning at www.apache.org:/dist/httpd/binaries/dist still
allows half a dozen induhviduals download without grabbing a good WinSock (that
always scares me.  Code Red?  Little wonder.)

Heck, I have an install package (considerably improved) nearly finished for 2.0.
I built binaries from .16 through .24, but we've found real show stoppers each
time on the Win32 branch.

When I replied to this fellow, I really believe that .25 can be beta quality by
the end of this week.  Optimistic?  Perhaps.  But it still isn't going to be
ready for Windows 9x/ME.  Will probably throw the toggle to discriminate against
installation on pre-NT machines to be on the safe side.  Once we have some idea
that it actually runs, and we've crippled the features in APR that will hurt
the server, then we are ready for 9x/ME binaries.

Once some folks spend some real time testing on 9x (these are developers, mind
you, with compilers) and we have the kinks worked out, then unleash it on the
world.  I know there are a half dozen of you out there.  If I had 80 more hours
a week, I'd be chipping in too (and will, once my plate is somewhat cleared and
NT is actually beta ready.)  I will at least promise to do my best to get the
code fixes committed that Win9x folk offer up.

But you can't productively solve bugs without a compiler and a debugger.  
Apache 2.0 on Win9x isn't ready for a farm team, never mind the majors.  As soon 
as someone assures me otherwise (I know Mladen started some code, of which I need 
to get to committing sooner) then we will kick some binaries out the door.

> PS - Sorry for the OT spam, but I could not find these posts on my NNTP
> server.

No fear... it's not OT.  

Re: Fw: HTTP response problem on 2.0.24

[Jerry Baker <je...@weirdness.com>]

"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> 
> > This is the reason that the huge number of folks offering their 'binaries' irks
> > me.

Here's the problem: On *nix machines you can get a compiler for free and
figure out how to use it. If you can figure out how to use it, then
you're probably smart enough to know what you're getting into by
building an alpha quality product. With the Windows platform the
compiler costs a minimum of $100+. That is out of the range for many
qualified persons to afford (I couldn't even afford it now). It is also
out of the range of persons who primarily run *nix but do some testing
on Windows. That is the reason for my binaries. It is not to let anyone
and everyone download Apache. If I knew of a way to stop unqualified
individuals from downloading it I would do it. Do you know any way?

PS - Sorry for the OT spam, but I could not find these posts on my NNTP
server.

-- 
Jerry Baker

PGP Key: http://www.jerrybaker.org/pgp.html

LAME MP3 Encoder Binaries: http://www.jerrybaker.org/lame/
Apache 2.0 Web server Installer: http://www.jerrybaker.org/apache/