Sites Rejecting Apache 2?

An anonymous reader writes "Vnunet reports on the low adoption of Apache 2 has caused its producers to advocate freezing development of the open-source Web server until makers of add-in software catch up. Almost six months after the launch of Apache 2, less than one percent of sites use it, due to a lack of suitable third-party modules." I'm not sure where they are getting the freezing Apache development part, more talk about forking for 2.1 right now on the httpd mailing list. The article does have it right though that until there is a reason to upgrade and the modules are in place that adoption is not going to happen. While the cores of both Perl and PHP are thread-safe, the third-party modules are not. This renders one the larger reasons to use Apache 2.0, the threaded http support, useless for applications using either of these application layers. It comes down to the question of whether the third-party module writers are better off supporting what is used or what is new.

Comments

Third party modules?

[cureless]

What is the percentage of sites that actually use third party modules?

I think the fact that it's not being adopted is more because there is no need for the new version from most sites. What they have works and is stable, so there is no reason to upgrade.

cl

I'm still waiting on PHP

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as they release a stable version for Apache 2 (aka 4.3.0), then I'll look seriously at switching. It's great that Apache 2 has stablized now, though, as it lets everyone else work around a stable project.

We'll all get to Apache 2, it just takes time to migrate.

1.3 just works

[cdegroot]

My 2 eurocents: I run a webhosting company. 1.3 works, and I've waited for 2.0 to stabilize a bit - just like with Linux kernels, I like to skip the first 10 or 15 dot-releases if possible ;-).

Now, we've setup a test platform, and when our customers are happy we'll move it into production in a month or so, but secondary to our 1.3 setup. In about a year, we'll shut down the old setup and 'force-migrate' anyone that's still using it.

Targeting the SME market, we need to provide that sort of stability because my customers typically are not I-want-to-run-the-latest-and-greatest geeks and, having paid a lot of cash for their website, they're happy it runs and they don't care on what version it runs.

I think that most of my colleagues are in the same position, so 1.3 will probably be the major version for at least a year to come.

(Modules aren't the issue for me - in fact, I've not built the PHP module for 2.x because with all the script kiddies hacking around, I have decided to forward .php requests to a cgi-bin PHP interpreter sitting behind sbox).

Re:It's the PHP Stupid.

[cdegroot]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't even build the PHP module anymore. As a shared platform hoster, having all my customer sites running under a single UID is just plain too much risk. I don't think FastCGI allows, what'll we call it, 'session setuid affinity', but something like that would be cool.

Until then, PHP is an executable just like Perl and Python, and if that costs too much performance I'll shove another cheap pizzabox in the rack (that's why everyone is using a load-balancer these days :-)).

PHP works fine thank you,

[AftanGustur]

PHP Support. As of 4.2.0, Apache2 support was experimental. The change log does not show anything which says its supported.

Well, my server has been running nicely for quite some time now.

I haven't encountered a single problem, Well, except that the default config is more secure and I had to manually change it to run legacy apps.

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:18:09 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.39 (Unix) PHP/4.2.2 DAV/2
Last-Modified: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:50:43 GMT
ETag: "2d405e-d7-4ac5ac0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 215
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Re:PHP works fine thank you,

[Makali]

Oh /come on/ now, who seriously expects anyone to use a CVS snapshot in a production environment?

When 4.3.0 comes out and the PHP devs decide that the Apache2 module is stable, then they'll mark it stable. Until then, there's no good reason to remove the "this is not supported" disclaimer on 4.2.3 just because a later CVS version works better, and it's silly to tell people to compile and test their own binaries when they have every other task a sysadmin has to do. And even if they did, can you imagine trying to rationalise that decision with the bosses?

Admin: "Hey, I decided to move to Apache 2 and a development snapshot of PHP on our production servers because .. er.. there's some potential speed gains in the future"
Boss: "So if the PHP development snapshot is safe to use, why hasn't it been released as a full version increment?"
Admin: "Er.. because it's not stable yet.. oh."

The whole point of this article is that the Apache devs can see that Apache2 isn't getting picked up precisely because most third-party mods aren't stable/supported on it yet. It's a good thing that they're freezing development to allow third-party vendors to catch up, and it's a good thing that until PHP4's Apache2 support is as stable as the rest of PHP, it should be marked unsupported.

If I'd bother indeed! Get real. :) You're using a pre-release version of Windows, a pre-release version of PHP, and an early-release of Apache and you're telling me to revise my stance on production values? Tsk! :)

Re:Progress is good and all but...

[dammy]

>> Question is for which Amiga OS? Classic? H&P's
>> wb 3.5/3.9? HYPErions OS4? Berniethlon? AROS?
>> DEad? MorphOS? OH yeah, C='s Unix for the
>> A3000Us?

> Ummm, UNIX isn't AmigaOS.

Yet it was an official Amiga OS for the unix A3000 (tape back up and all).

> MorphOS is a PPC kernel isn't it?

It also emulates the 68K code as well for supposedly seemless operation. IIRC.

> I haven't heard of DEad or Berniethlon before.

DEad (think it was orginally called Digital Enviroment, or something like that) is Amino (current owners of Amiga Inc) Tao-group's JAVA repackaged for PDA/Cellphone/STBs, now called AmigaAnywhere. There has been some pretty heavy spin posted on /. over the years on this subject. I guess it's getting long in the tooth as one post on MooBunny http://flyingmice.com/squid/moobunny/amiga/message s/74837.shtml shows things not going all that well for DEad. Berniethlon is just a nickname of Amithlon Version2 (Without Haage&Partner and Mr.Frank) release.

> Classic (typically OSes 2-3.1 but not excluding
> 1.x) and 3.5-3.9 are not dissimilar (though the
> later ones have undealt with problems) and are
> usually what is meant by AmigaOS.

3.5 - 3.9's code (minus the grab bag of other code they may or may not have paid for from 3rd party developers) belongs to Haage&Partner and not to Amino (current owners of Amiga Inc). HYPErion is having to use AOS/WB 3.1 because they can't get access to source code of 3.5 - 3.9 for their HYPEOS4, which they own the source code.

> OS 4 depends on how Amiga like it is (if its a
> freak good luck).

Again, that's HYPErion's product that eveidently can continue on develope for regardless of Amino or it's Amiga Inc legal status. One of the two really smart things HYPErion has done, get DOPUS-Magellon and a legal agreement that they can continue when Amiga Inc goes belly up.

> I even think the Amiga is pretty dead though, I
> just wish there was a good OS/hardware thingy to
> replace it.....

Once they (HYPErion and MOS crew) locked themselves into PPC, I know it was the end of the line. AROS (http://www.aros.org) and Berniethlon are the only two Amiga related OSs that I hope will survive.

Dammy

current modules will not ever work 100%

[JDizzy]

Pre-forking, threading, foo, bar, mish, mash... blah..

In the final analysis, all the major apache 1.3 modules will never work corrects, to the point where code for one works well in the other, and vice-versa. The sad truth is that, like the Apache 1.x, the modules will slowly creep to replace the CGI's, and that took a few years to happen, and mainly with mod_perl replacing perl CGI's.

yeah, that might suck donkies, but its the sad way of human nature. WE simply want to make it like we used to have it in 1.3, and whatever. This it will never be again. Totally new modules should be writen, and used by the upcoming generation of coders, those whom are not corrupted by what we older folks have become used to. I'm 26 btw.

For example, the syntax of php is very good, and so are many of its ways of structuring things. But php itself needs to be thrown away as it stands now. Perl cannot speak of good syntax, it is simply one of the ugliest, yet most usefull languages there ever was. Yet mod_perl has a good chance of remaining viable on Apache2. This is what confuses most folks, because they don't understand how something to them, the elegant code they write, could not work well in another environment. And when your apache module becomes a place that itself is a launch pad for other modules, then what? For example, in php... most folks like to have mysql as a module, or GD, or whatever. However, now you have to wonder that in Apache2, that mysql could be a direct module to Apache2 itself , and php, or perl, just share the common thread. Do you suppose that php, or perl could be writen in a way to share their connections to MySQL, no... probably not going to play nice like that.

People just have to get past the notion that their development environment is just plain bad. The people at the Apache foundation knew it, and probably expected this sort of crap, why they want to mess things up in the next relase to confound the module writer is beyond me.