Slashdot Mirror
The Apache Newsletter
Kyle Hamilton writes "The first Apache Newsletter was released today. The Newsletter is a result of the outgrowth of the 'Jakarta Newsletter' and the newsletter
can cover all the projects including infrastructure, incubator et cetera."
I have a question, pretty dumb perhaps. I've downloaded this movie off Shareaza, and it's got two files - a .bin and a .que. How do I view the movies in the BIN format? Any special codec?
Thanks.
It seems to be a copy of the changelogs of projects, which is what Slashdot, Freshmeat and README files are for.
A newsletter should have content beyone release notes...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Apache is the least functional and worst-supported software that I have dealt with. I submitted a request for Apache server to support .exe files to compete effectively with IIS, but so far I don't see that happening.
So if you don't like the content you can edit it. Just click "Edit this page"
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front
of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one
directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all
standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl 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 machines, but suffice it to
say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite
the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at
times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.
Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other
faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl 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 machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.
Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.
Open Source? More like Openly Racist
The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.
Allow me to explain.
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.
What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.
Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.
More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.
It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.
It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.
Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!
One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages.
I used to read http://www.apacheweek.com/ fairly regularly. Now seems to be not maintained as well.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl 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 machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.
Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons
http://www.devside.net
Apache, PHP, MySQL, Perl, SSL...
Up-to-date instructions for building for Windows 2000 and XP, and Linux.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl 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 machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.
Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.
Someone PLEASE mod the parent up as +5 funny. You can't multitask windows on a p200... Now my Linux P200 has no trouble transfering large files from one computer on my internal 100mb network, to another. AND IT STILL WORKS FROM THE OTHER COMPUTERS! I.E. Transfering an ISO Via wget to my burn-box (1ghz WinXP), from my store-box (p200 Lin Apache.), and browsing the store-box contents via Mozilla from the desk-box (800mhz FreeBSD) NOTE: I have shit loads of computer because I like to play with the OS's, I never intended each box for its specified task... It just worked out that way. My BurnBox has a burner and games on it, my store-box sits in a closet and acts as my i.e. gateway, and webserver, and the desk-boxs is a dualhead machine that I use for browsing, developing, and just messing abount (like now).