Slashdot Mirror
Apache HTTP Server 1.3.28 Released
Kyle Hamilton writes "Apache HTTP Server 1.3.28 Released - The Apache Software Foundation and The Apache Server Project are pleased to announce the release of version 1.3.28 of the Apache HTTP Server ("Apache"). This Announcement notes the significant changes in 1.3.28 as compared to 1.3.27. This version of Apache is principally a bug and security fix release."
That's odd because they don't seem to mention that. They don't even tell you where you can download 1.2.x. Seems to me like sticking with an old version like that is asking to be hacked.
someone mod this asshat down.
The Apache 2 series is now using a "Kernel style" numbering system (2.1 tree is a dev tree that will create 2.2) but the apache 1.3.x tree is where you need to be if you are running apache 1.3.x for compatability with old modules or any other reason.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
So, in short, do not update your Stable Apache installs to this development version!
Yer trolllin', but I'll bite. Apache does not use the even/odd version number scheme for 1.3. Any 1.3 release you may encounter is as 'production' as it is ever going to be, and it is this version that 63% of all web sites run on.
The 2.x development effort recently forked a 2.0 stable branch, with development happening on HEAD and fixes backported to the branch after review. The HEAD effort is usually referred to as 2.1, but no official releases have been made of this tree yet. There are plans to eventually promote the 2.1 effort to 2.2 and make releases of it. This would more closely follow the linux kernel version numbering scheme.
What Would the Fab Five Do?
What were the problems with security that were fixed in 1.3.28?
http://www.cgisecurity.com/webservers/apache/
You've got to admire them for supplying fixes for a Dead (if not almost) OS
From the article
"Fix the rotatelogs support program on Win32 and OS/2"
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache HTTP Server fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache HTTP Server (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache HTTP Server, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache HTTP Servers, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Apache HTTP Server addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Apache HTTP Server addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
It helps if you can distinguish between hardware and software before entering into such a discussion.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
???? Apache HTTP Server is a web server software from the Apache Group. Apache does not make computers. From your message I guess that your machine is a Mac. So what you are saying is that a Macintosh running Apache HTTP Server is slow copying large files.
At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache HTTP Server, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
Again, Apache HTTP Server is web server software. It is not the OS and does not control the OS. If the copying is slow, I would check out what
1) what else is running on the Mac. The more processes you have running, the slower it is.
2) How many HTTP connections you have. It makes sense that the more users you have connecting to your server makes it slower.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
So let me get this straight, you are running HTTP with who knows how many connections, while running a web browser, while running a text editor, AND transferring 17MB worth of files. Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but computers are not all powerful. They have their limits. Any computer under this much strain will have an effect whether they run Windows or Macintosh. Newer machines will see less of a performance degradation but you are not on a new machine. If you ran the same conditions on your Wintel machines they would see the same performance problems. They would probably even crash.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
[ for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file ]
That's 14KB/s, you moron! Certainly not a software limitation...
Apache is dying!
Seriously. What even comes close to competing with A: The freeness and B:The power of Apache.
It's really kind've ridiculous. Don't you think?
Many Thanks,
Luke
Um? Lets see, I run Apache on:
SPARC Solaris 8 on an E5500, E450, and an Ultra5.
x86 Linux (Gentoo) on a Pentium 4 2.4GHz on MSI Board
x86 OpenBSD on a AMD Athlon
You're confusing software and hardware. Apache distributions are available on many many platforms, not just Mac. In fact, I would go as far as to say Apache distros that run on Mac are far fewer than any other.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Obvious troll, please mod down accordingly.
A real 8600/300 would not have such exaggerated problems under the stated load, and the complaints aren't even directed at Apache itself despite the wording.
There is no such thing as a windows nt crash .. only a tempory set back. I wish you non windows guys would get that straight windows doesn't crash. It is full of holes gets viruses, and a case of the worms now and then, but it never really crashes. It just doesn't work sometimes. Its resting pining for the fjords not dead! Like bsd oh shit I had better check my Hot Mail see thats how good windows works I can always get my hot mail.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!