Registration Opens For ApacheCon US 2003

Dan writes "Apache.org's Joshua Slive says that ApacheCon, the official conference of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), announced today the opening of registration for ApacheCon 2003, to be held November 16-20, 2003 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Apachecon kicks off with intensive full- and half-day tutorials that offer real world insight, techniques, and methodologies pivotal to the increasing demand for open source software. Agenda and sessions include topics such as Apache with XML and Java; All Things Apache; and Apache with Perl and PHP."

Comments

ApacheCon Ad Banners

[stonebeat.org]

ApacheCon Ad Banners are available @ http://www.apache.org/~ceki/ac2003/ or http://www.xml-dev.com/xml/ac2003/
Please help spread the word on ApacheCon by including the Ad Banner on your websites.
A sample annoucement you can put on your website is available @ http://www.xml-dev.com/xml/apachecon.html

Car Pooling?

[Kyle Hamilton]

Does Anyone know of a web site that will org people to car pool I know Defcon does this -kyle

bling bling

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again ApacheCon is offering early registration incentives, including a tiered discount of up to $400 off the $899 individual registration fee to those who register by 30 September.

Oh yeah, I'll be sure to hit this one. /nocorporatesponsor

Apache Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apache Problems

[stonebeat.org]

Offcourse there are other optimized HTTP daemons, that are faster than regular build of apache. but these are optimized for a specific application. you can NOT take these web deamons and run PHP/java on them. for e.g. the WebCam server based on a BSD kernel runs a optimized httpd will not run php/java.

When I was in university, i built a webserver that could query a Objectivity DB. It was extremely fast at doing that "particular function". But that doesn't it was better than Apache. Cause querying a ObjectivityDB was all it could do - which is not of much use if you are not using objectivity

However in everyday usage you need a HTTPD that is more generic in nature, and can handle various elements of a technology stack.
Apache is far better than other general purpose webservers, that are capable of handling various technologies (java/php/webdav etc). IIS is also one of these. But IIS is not faster or better than Apache.

maybe you didnt setup your webserver correctly.

Re:Apache Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether IIS is better or faster depends on who you ask,what configuration parameters you are using, and what version of Apache and IIS you are using. I've seen benchmarks that go both ways.

Re:Apache Problems

[UnknowingFool]

I won't bother posting the next time you see this. This troll has been here are few times. See this link.

Re:Apache Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not your job to. Its offtopic and redundant. And it hardly deserves your +1 Karma Bonus.

YHBT. YHL. HAND

[Anonymous Coward]

Text in case of slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

oh wait, this is the Apache section. The one that noone reads. nevermind.

Apache Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Apache Problems?

[nahemah]

Are you actually serious?

Re:Apache Problems?

[UnknowingFool]

No, someone mod original parent down. This troll has been here a few times. See this

apachecon and other tidbits

[nahemah]

Okay, so people like apache.. and people dont. I think it's a great product, if it does what you need it to. Sometimes it may be better to use a windows-based server, but I haven't found a reason yet. It's worth the cost of chilisoft if you need asp that badly, and to be honest, more people should be learning php and perl and other languages that yeild a much more efficient return.

I read a post here earlier where a user was trying to copy a file, and attempted to place blame on apache for the length of time that it was taking to copy a file. I hate to break it to you, my friend, but rarely is software responsible for throughput.

I get all the help I need from google, and friends, and I don't have a problem trying things until they work. In the last 7 months I have been converted from a windows user, to a linux girl. I am not ashamed, and I think everyone should try it.

I know that this section of slashdot doesnt get much attention, but maybe if more people were willing to share their secrets, as the rest of the linux community goes, we would be a bit sore in the eye from all the posts here.

If apache wasn't a great idea, why would they port it to windows at all?

Just a few of my thoughts...

~nahemah~

by the way.. apachecon prices are bit high.. but i think that it weeds out the defcon drunks from the serious system and web administrators.

car pooling? free passes?

[nahemah]

i'll keep my eye out.. does anyone know of a web site that will gather funds for people to get a pass to ApacheCon? it would be nice to go, but it's not reasonable or cost-efficient to go for me. Where are you going to be leaving from? (in case I happen to hear of something)

~nahemah~

Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

This post has been posted a couple of times. Its redundant.

Anyone with half a brain knows its a troll. We don't need some righteous busybody to remind us.

Apache

[Prax101]

I prefer Linux, but anything that is open is better then paying money to monoplists.

jobs@maficstudios.com