You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Brian Behlendorf <br...@apache.org> on 2000/02/24 01:27:09 UTC
Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Anyone want to take this one? Thanks.
Brian
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:19:13 -0800 (PST)
From: kelly clark <we...@yahoo.com>
To: press@apache.org
Subject: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare
Hi,
My name is Kelly Clark, and I'm a freelancer at
internet.com's WebCompare site
(http://webcompare.internet.com/). One of WebCompare�s
key features is its profiles of Internet servers.
We are in the process of updating our profiles and
would like to give you the opportunity to update
Apache's features. The current listing can be found
at:
http://webcompare.internet.com/cgi-bin/detail.pl?03_Server=Apache&04_Version=1.3
Please take a few minutes to fill in the form below,
checking off all features and descriptions that apply
to your product. Feel free to contact me via e-mail
if you need any additional information or have any
questions.
Thank you.
Kelly
WebCompare Registration Form
Server Name: ___________________
Version: __________________
Vendor: ________________________
Operating Systems Supported (check all that apply)
Windows:
( ) Windows 98
( ) Windows 95
( ) Windows CE
( ) Windows NT
( ) Windows 3.x
( ) MS-DOS
Unix
( ) AIX
( ) BSDI
( ) Digital Unix
( ) FreeBSD
( ) HPUX
( ) IRIX
( ) Linux
( ) Lynx
( ) NetBSD
( ) SCO
( ) Solaris
Other
( ) OS/2
( ) QNX
( ) Macintosh
( ) Novell NetWare
( ) VMS
( ) Amiga
( ) AS/400
( ) VM/CMS
( ) MVS
( ) Java_VM
( ) Be OS
( ) Embedded
Launching and Logging
( ) Can listen to multiple addresses and ports
( ) Supports Non-IP Intensive Virtual Servers
( ) Can run from inetd (Unix and OS/2 systems only)
( ) Runs as Windows NT service and/or application
( ) Logging with syslog (Unix) or Event Log (Windows
NT)
( ) CERN/NCSA common log format
( ) Log files can be automatically cycled or
archived
( ) Normal (hit) log entries can be customized
( ) Server can generate non-hit log entries (such as
comments)
( ) CGI scripts can create their own log entries
( ) Performance measurement logs
( ) Can generate referer log entries
( ) Can track individual users in log
( ) Can write to multiple logs
( ) Can generate browser log entries
( ) Can serve different directory roots for
different IP addresses
Protocol Support and Includes
( ) Automatic response to If-Modified-Since
( ) Select documents based on Accept header
( ) Select documents based on User-Agent header
( ) Includes based on HTML comments
( ) Includes can be based on request headers
( ) Server can force includes
( ) Automatically include any HTTP headers in
responses
( ) Access to server state variables from CGI or
other scripting
( ) Has built-in scripting language
( ) Has built-in image-map handling
( ) Supports HTTP/1.1 PUT
( ) Supports HTTP/1.1 byte ranges
( ) Supports HTTP/1.1 persistent connections
( ) Understands full URIs in HTTP/1.1 requests
( ) Non-supported methods can invoke a script
( ) Supports the Windows CGI interface
( ) Understands full URIs in HTTP/1.1 requests
( ) Non-supported methods can invoke a script
( ) Supports the Windows CGI interface
( ) Comes with SNMP agent
( ) Supports Netscape Server API
( ) Supports Microsoft ISAPI
Name shown in the �Server� response header
_______________________________
Security
( ) Supports Set
( ) UID CGI Execution
( ) Can require password (Authorization: user)
( ) Supports SSL v. 2
( ) Supports SSL v. 3
( ) Supports S-HTTP
( ) Supports PCT
( ) Prohibit access by domain name
( ) Prohibit access by IP address
( ) Prohibit access by user and group
( ) Prohibit access by directory and file
( ) Configurable user groups (not just a single user
list)
( ) Can change user access control list without
restarting server
( ) Can hide part of a document based on security
rules
( ) Security rules can be based on URLs
( ) Hierarchical permissions for directory-based
documents
( ) Integrated certificate server
Default security model for file-based document
_________________________
Additional security features
____________________________________
Other Features
( ) Multi-Threaded
( ) GUI-based setup
( ) GUI-based maintenance
( ) Remote maintenance
( ) Real-time performance measurement tools
( ) Script or action based on output media type
( ) Also serves other TCP protocols
( ) Automatic directory tree
( ) User directories
( ) Search engine
( ) Has direct (non-CGI) link to a DBMS
( ) Includes user interaction tools
( ) Allows nonblocking DNS
( ) Has a support mailing list
( ) Also acts as an HTTP proxy server
( ) Proxy server also caches
( ) Includes full source code for server
Type of server-side image maps:
( ) NCSA
( ) CERN
URL where more information can be found
______________________
Pricing Info. ____________________________
Best Features
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- end -
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Re: apr_config.h from http_log.c???
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
This line was added last night, and is wrong. I am looking into why it
was added, and how to fix it.
ap_config.h is not a portable header file, and should never be included by
any files not in APR.
Ryan
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What happened? Seems we are invoking apr_config.h which doesn't exist in
> the apache-2.0 source tree... hacked it to apr_wincofing.h to force the
> build - but the instigator resolve? Are we now pointing out to the apr
> tree?
>
>
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: apr_config.h from http_log.c???
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
I just fixed this. I haven't looked at http_log recently. Hopefully,
I'll get a chance to look into it later today.
Ryan
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> it certainly exists in my build tree, but then i'm on unix.
>
> as i mentioned in the source file where i put in that #include
> "apr_config.h", which i'm certain is wrong, it's to get the prototype for
> ap_signal(). i couldn't find ap_signal() anywhere else.
>
> shouldn't vast sections of http_log.c should be temporarily #if 0'd, or
> ported to 2.0, given they deal with child processes and we completely
> changed that in 2.0, no?
>
> Dean
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > What happened? Seems we are invoking apr_config.h which doesn't exist in
> > the apache-2.0 source tree... hacked it to apr_wincofing.h to force the
> > build - but the instigator resolve? Are we now pointing out to the apr
> > tree?
> >
> >
>
>
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: apr_config.h from http_log.c???
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
> Would you check the cvs and let me know where in the tree it is?
>
> I'm pulling down the tree from anoncvs - only the apache-2.0.
apr_config.h is not used on Windows. This file is created by autoconf on
Unix. On Windows, we use apr_winconfig.h, which is hand edited.
Ryan
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win32 2.0 build of the moment
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
Thank you Dean! Explorer no longer complains about chunking (though I've
yet to double check the dump). Now at least I can continue development for
my clients within 2.0, while discovering new and wonderous bugs ;~)
Commenting out (for the moment) solved the entire issue... but wait there's
more...
ap_set_pipe_timeout does not exist yet in pipe.c under apr\file_io\win32.
However, iol_file.c now insists on its linkage for file_setopt().
As I look at pipe.c - this should be (sorta) simple to implement, and I will
in the next three days - if someone isn't already beating me to it.
Only ap_create_pipe exists in the apr\file_io\win32, while
ap_create_named_pipe and others should be straightforward. I'll go ahead
tommorow if no one speaks.
Bill
RE: apr_config.h from http_log.c???
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Gaudet [mailto:dgaudet-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 12:04 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: apr_config.h from http_log.c???
>
>
> it certainly exists in my build tree, but then i'm on unix.
Would you check the cvs and let me know where in the tree it is?
I'm pulling down the tree from anoncvs - only the apache-2.0.
> as i mentioned in the source file where i put in that #include
> "apr_config.h", which i'm certain is wrong, it's to get the
> prototype for
> ap_signal(). i couldn't find ap_signal() anywhere else.
>
> shouldn't vast sections of http_log.c should be temporarily
> #if 0'd, or
> ported to 2.0, given they deal with child processes and we completely
> changed that in 2.0, no?
>
> Dean
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > What happened? Seems we are invoking apr_config.h which
> doesn't exist in
> > the apache-2.0 source tree... hacked it to apr_wincofing.h
> to force the
> > build - but the instigator resolve? Are we now pointing
> out to the apr
> > tree?
> >
> >
>
Re: apr_config.h from http_log.c???
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
it certainly exists in my build tree, but then i'm on unix.
as i mentioned in the source file where i put in that #include
"apr_config.h", which i'm certain is wrong, it's to get the prototype for
ap_signal(). i couldn't find ap_signal() anywhere else.
shouldn't vast sections of http_log.c should be temporarily #if 0'd, or
ported to 2.0, given they deal with child processes and we completely
changed that in 2.0, no?
Dean
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What happened? Seems we are invoking apr_config.h which doesn't exist in
> the apache-2.0 source tree... hacked it to apr_wincofing.h to force the
> build - but the instigator resolve? Are we now pointing out to the apr
> tree?
>
>
apr_config.h from http_log.c???
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
What happened? Seems we are invoking apr_config.h which doesn't exist in
the apache-2.0 source tree... hacked it to apr_wincofing.h to force the
build - but the instigator resolve? Are we now pointing out to the apr
tree?
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.
>
Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
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.
Replacement of WARNING.NT proposed
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
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: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > The Apache Software Foundation has developed the Apache WWW
> > server to be
> > portable, including support for use on Win32 platforms (both
> > Windows 95/98
> > and Windows NT/2000). However, since Windows 95/98 is only
> > designed for
> > use as a client operating system, and in particular lacks the security
> > features found in server platforms, we do not recommend the
> > use of Windows
> > 95/98 as a server except for small-scale, protected environments (an
> > isolated LAN, for example, or for testing a prototype WWW site.)
>
> Replace: server platforms ; Replace-With: NT/2000 platforms
+1; NT Workstation has all the security features, too, but isn't
considered a server platform by Microsoft...
> Add: 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.
+1 and thanks for the URL :-)
(snip)
> > Apache originated on the Unix platform, with the Win32 port only being
> > added relatively recently, and as such, the other platforms
> > have been more
> > thoroughly tested. However, Win32 IS a supported platform,
> > and as such,
> > any problems encountered will be treated in the same way as
> > on any other
> > platform. Apache 2.0 (now approaching alpha release) is being
> > developed
> > in parallel on all supported platforms, with a greater
> > proportion of the
> > code being shared between platforms than is presently the
> > case; as such,
> > the Win32 port will be close to parity with the better established
> > platforms.
> >
>
> Delete: (now approaching alpha release)
> - as they read this it is already in release, right?
s/approaching/in/o ?
> +1 from me (not that I have a vote or nuthin' :~)>
Nor do I :-)
> > The trouble is, we need to encourage people to use Apache on
> > Win32 without
> > lulling them into a false sense of security about it - have I
> > struck the
> > right balance here?
>
> Yes - we have to stop scaring NT folks away from trying the product. YES -
> it's not _AS_ reliable as the Unix build, but if we want the market share,
> we will need to change the warning!!! We want to presuade them that there
> are stability aspects to Unix, but if they will run NT, we want them still!
Yep; I've used Apache on NT without any problems. Now, a nice *complete*
binary (i.e. Apache+mod_perl+Perl+modules) would have been nice; an NT box
on a 64K leased line just doesn't compare to a *nix box on an OC-3 :-)
James.
RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Sutherland [mailto:jas88@cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:14 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
>
> How about:
>
> The Apache Software Foundation has developed the Apache WWW
> server to be
> portable, including support for use on Win32 platforms (both
> Windows 95/98
> and Windows NT/2000). However, since Windows 95/98 is only
> designed for
> use as a client operating system, and in particular lacks the security
> features found in server platforms, we do not recommend the
> use of Windows
> 95/98 as a server except for small-scale, protected environments (an
> isolated LAN, for example, or for testing a prototype WWW site.)
Replace: server platforms ; Replace-With: NT/2000 platforms
Add: 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.
> We also actively encourage contributions of reports of any
> problems you
> may encounter using Apache on any platform, as well as reports of
> deploying Apache successfully on newly released platforms, or
> previously
> unsupported platforms. Once we have a sufficient number of success
> reports, we will declare the platform to be compatible with it.
>
> Before submitting any reports, please check the bug database and the
> newsgroup news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows - you
> may well find
> that the problem has already been discovered, and perhaps resolved.
>
> If you cannot find a reference to your problem in the bug
> database, and
> the newsgroup members cannot help, please report the issue at (***).
> Similarly, if you are successful in running Apache on a particular
> platform, please post a "bug" report to that effect, titled
> "Apache/Win32
> tested on Windows __" (2000 etc.), mentioning any problems
> you may have
> encountered.
>
> Apache originated on the Unix platform, with the Win32 port only being
> added relatively recently, and as such, the other platforms
> have been more
> thoroughly tested. However, Win32 IS a supported platform,
> and as such,
> any problems encountered will be treated in the same way as
> on any other
> platform. Apache 2.0 (now approaching alpha release) is being
> developed
> in parallel on all supported platforms, with a greater
> proportion of the
> code being shared between platforms than is presently the
> case; as such,
> the Win32 port will be close to parity with the better established
> platforms.
>
Delete: (now approaching alpha release)
- as they read this it is already in release, right?
+1 from me (not that I have a vote or nuthin' :~)>
>
> The trouble is, we need to encourage people to use Apache on
> Win32 without
> lulling them into a false sense of security about it - have I
> struck the
> right balance here?
Yes - we have to stop scaring NT folks away from trying the product. YES -
it's not _AS_ reliable as the Unix build, but if we want the market share,
we will need to change the warning!!! We want to presuade them that there
are stability aspects to Unix, but if they will run NT, we want them still!
RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > I would like the 2.0 NT warning text to read something more
> > like this:
> > >
> > > The Apache Software Foundation works to ensure that the
> > Win32 port works on
> > > all 32 bit flavors of Windows, that is, Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000.
> > > However, ASF does not endorse deploying the Apache web
> > server on Windows 95
> > > or 98. Inherent weaknesses in the cooperative multitasking
> > architecture of
> > > the consumer Windows platforms (Windows 95, 98 and
> > Millenium) expose certain
> > > vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed by any single
> > application. Windows
> > > NT and 2000, being preemptively multitasking platforms
> > (programs grab the
> > > CPU in turn, they don't simply request it), are more
> > reliable and secure in
> > > their exposure to the internet.
> >
> > Hrmm... Windows 95/98 are also preemptively multitasked. Do
> > you mean the
> > problems with The Problem Formerly Known as Win16Lock?
>
> That's why I threw it up here... however how preemptive are
> the 'consumer' products? Of course the 16 bit subsystem is
> not preemptive, but if the entire platform is preemptive and
> sufficiently stable for the Win32 amoung us - we can drop it.
> There is no question, however, that MS did far more to keep
> NT secure in the public arena - the same security is more of
> an afterthought to 95/98. Care to rewrite?
How about:
The Apache Software Foundation has developed the Apache WWW server to be
portable, including support for use on Win32 platforms (both Windows 95/98
and Windows NT/2000). However, since Windows 95/98 is only designed for
use as a client operating system, and in particular lacks the security
features found in server platforms, we do not recommend the use of Windows
95/98 as a server except for small-scale, protected environments (an
isolated LAN, for example, or for testing a prototype WWW site.)
We also actively encourage contributions of reports of any problems you
may encounter using Apache on any platform, as well as reports of
deploying Apache successfully on newly released platforms, or previously
unsupported platforms. Once we have a sufficient number of success
reports, we will declare the platform to be compatible with it.
Before submitting any reports, please check the bug database and the
newsgroup news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows - you may well find
that the problem has already been discovered, and perhaps resolved.
If you cannot find a reference to your problem in the bug database, and
the newsgroup members cannot help, please report the issue at (***).
Similarly, if you are successful in running Apache on a particular
platform, please post a "bug" report to that effect, titled "Apache/Win32
tested on Windows __" (2000 etc.), mentioning any problems you may have
encountered.
Apache originated on the Unix platform, with the Win32 port only being
added relatively recently, and as such, the other platforms have been more
thoroughly tested. However, Win32 IS a supported platform, and as such,
any problems encountered will be treated in the same way as on any other
platform. Apache 2.0 (now approaching alpha release) is being developed
in parallel on all supported platforms, with a greater proportion of the
code being shared between platforms than is presently the case; as such,
the Win32 port will be close to parity with the better established
platforms.
The trouble is, we need to encourage people to use Apache on Win32 without
lulling them into a false sense of security about it - have I struck the
right balance here?
James.
RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
> > I would like the 2.0 NT warning text to read something more
> like this:
> >
> > The Apache Software Foundation works to ensure that the
> Win32 port works on
> > all 32 bit flavors of Windows, that is, Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000.
> > However, ASF does not endorse deploying the Apache web
> server on Windows 95
> > or 98. Inherent weaknesses in the cooperative multitasking
> architecture of
> > the consumer Windows platforms (Windows 95, 98 and
> Millenium) expose certain
> > vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed by any single
> application. Windows
> > NT and 2000, being preemptively multitasking platforms
> (programs grab the
> > CPU in turn, they don't simply request it), are more
> reliable and secure in
> > their exposure to the internet.
>
> Hrmm... Windows 95/98 are also preemptively multitasked. Do
> you mean the
> problems with The Problem Formerly Known as Win16Lock?
That's why I threw it up here... however how preemptive are
the 'consumer' products? Of course the 16 bit subsystem is
not preemptive, but if the entire platform is preemptive and
sufficiently stable for the Win32 amoung us - we can drop it.
There is no question, however, that MS did far more to keep
NT secure in the public arena - the same security is more of
an afterthought to 95/98. Care to rewrite?
> > As new versions of Windows (specifically Windows 2000 and
> the forthcoming
> > Millenium release) are created, we actively solicit contributions of
> > incompatibilities that are introduced. Further, for the
> first months
> > following a new release of any OS, we solicit reports of
> success with
> > compatibility. Once a threshold of users report that the
> platform is
> > stable, we will declare Apache to be compatible with the
> Operating Systems.
> > If you would like to share your success or failure, please
> first search for your
> > issue in the bug database and in the newsgroup:
text continues:
news:comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows
If you cannot identify the bug, and the news group yeilds no
answers, please report the issue at
To Report Success, please search the BugDB for the phrase
'Apache/Win32 Tested on Windows __' (2000, etc) to indicate
installation success along with very minor glitches.
>>>>> OK _ THIS IS NOT READY - since we have to figure what
>>>>> the bugdb interface (bugzilla) will look like.
> > While many users have found success in deploying Apache
> within the Windows
> > OS family, ASF still cautions that the platform is an
> adjunct to the Unix
> > code base, and some functions were implemented with unique
> code. Apache 2.0
> > is being developed with the active participation of NT
> platform developers,
> > so it will share more of the same code and functionality.
> Therefore it will
> > earn additional trust by the ASF that the Windows performs
> to the standards
> > of the Unix implementations measured by security and reliability.
> >
Additional Contributions?
RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I would like the 2.0 NT warning text to read something more like this:
>
> The Apache Software Foundation works to ensure that the Win32 port works on
> all 32 bit flavors of Windows, that is, Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000.
> However, ASF does not endorse deploying the Apache web server on Windows 95
> or 98. Inherent weaknesses in the cooperative multitasking architecture of
> the consumer Windows platforms (Windows 95, 98 and Millenium) expose certain
> vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed by any single application. Windows
> NT and 2000, being preemptively multitasking platforms (programs grab the
> CPU in turn, they don't simply request it), are more reliable and secure in
> their exposure to the internet.
Hrmm... Windows 95/98 are also preemptively multitasked. Do you mean the
problems with The Problem Formerly Known as Win16Lock?
> As new versions of Windows (specifically Windows 2000 and the forthcoming
> Millenium release) are created, we actively solicit contributions of
> incompatibilities that are introduced. Further, for the first months
> following a new release of any OS, we solicit reports of success with
> compatibility. Once a threshold of users report that the platform is
> stable, we will declare Apache to be compatible with the Operating Systems.
> If you would like to share your success or failure, please search for your
> issue in the bug database, ask the newsgroup:
>
> While many users have found success in deploying Apache within the Windows
> OS family, ASF still cautions that the platform is an adjunct to the Unix
> code base, and some functions were implemented with unique code. Apache 2.0
> is being developed with the active participation of NT platform developers,
> so it will share more of the same code and functionality. Therefore it will
> earn additional trust by the ASF that the Windows performs to the standards
> of the Unix implementations measured by security and reliability.
>
> Please start by searching the BugDB with
With????
James.
RE: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
I would like the 2.0 NT warning text to read something more like this:
The Apache Software Foundation works to ensure that the Win32 port works on
all 32 bit flavors of Windows, that is, Windows 95, 98, NT and 2000.
However, ASF does not endorse deploying the Apache web server on Windows 95
or 98. Inherent weaknesses in the cooperative multitasking architecture of
the consumer Windows platforms (Windows 95, 98 and Millenium) expose certain
vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed by any single application. Windows
NT and 2000, being preemptively multitasking platforms (programs grab the
CPU in turn, they don't simply request it), are more reliable and secure in
their exposure to the internet.
As new versions of Windows (specifically Windows 2000 and the forthcoming
Millenium release) are created, we actively solicit contributions of
incompatibilities that are introduced. Further, for the first months
following a new release of any OS, we solicit reports of success with
compatibility. Once a threshold of users report that the platform is
stable, we will declare Apache to be compatible with the Operating Systems.
If you would like to share your success or failure, please search for your
issue in the bug database, ask the newsgroup:
While many users have found success in deploying Apache within the Windows
OS family, ASF still cautions that the platform is an adjunct to the Unix
code base, and some functions were implemented with unique code. Apache 2.0
is being developed with the active participation of NT platform developers,
so it will share more of the same code and functionality. Therefore it will
earn additional trust by the ASF that the Windows performs to the standards
of the Unix implementations measured by security and reliability.
Please start by searching the BugDB with
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manoj Kasichainula [mailto:manojk@io.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 6:00 PM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:42:53AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual
> Size wrote:
> > For the record: Are we still only 'officially' supporting NT
> > of the Windows stable, and not 95, 98, nor 2000? I *think*
> > that's our position, but am I right?
>
> Well, I'd love to be able to say we support W2K. Has anyone tried it
> yet?
>
Re: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:42:53AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> For the record: Are we still only 'officially' supporting NT
> of the Windows stable, and not 95, 98, nor 2000? I *think*
> that's our position, but am I right?
Well, I'd love to be able to say we support W2K. Has anyone tried it
yet?
Re: Updated Apache profile sought for WebCompare (fwd)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> Anyone want to take this one? Thanks.
Whoof. Their current listing doesn't look right. I'll take
this one.
For the record: Are we still only 'officially' supporting NT
of the Windows stable, and not 95, 98, nor 2000? I *think*
that's our position, but am I right?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>