Slashdot Mirror


Apache 2.0.48 Released

Gruturo writes "Busy week for the Apache software foundation: After 1.3.29, version 2 gets an update as well with 2.0.48, which mainly fixes these two security vulnerabilities. As usual, using a mirror is recommended." The official announcement lists several changes as well.

159 comments

  1. emerge sync; emerge -u apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And my server is safe, secure and can take a slashdotting.

    1. Re:emerge sync; emerge -u apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      Official Gentoo-Linux-Zealot translator-o-matic

      Gentoo Linux is an interesting new distribution with some great features. Unfortunately, it has attracted a large number of clueless wannabes and leprotards who absolutely MUST advocate Gentoo at every opportunity. Let's look at the language of these zealots, and find out what it really means...

      "Gentoo makes me so much more productive."
      "Although I can't use the box at the moment because it's compiling something, as it will be for the next five days, it gives me more time to check out the latest USE flags and potentially unstable optimisation settings."

      "Gentoo is more in the spirit of open source!"
      "Apart from Hello World in Pascal at school, I've never written a single program in my life or contributed to an open source project, yet staring at endless streams of GCC output whizzing by somehow helps me contribute to international freedom."

      "I use Gentoo because it's more like the BSDs."
      "Last month I tried to install FreeBSD on a well-supported machine, but the text-based installer scared me off. I've never used a BSD, but the guys on Slashdot say that it's l33t though, so surely I must be for using Gentoo."

      "Heh, my system is soooo much faster after installing Gentoo."
      "I've spent hours recompiling Fetchmail, X-Chat, gEdit and thousands of other programs which spend 99% of their time waiting for user input. Even though only the kernel and glibc make a significant difference with optimisations, and RPMs and .debs can be rebuilt with a handful of commands (AND Red Hat supplies i686 kernel and glibc packages), my box MUST be faster. It's nothing to do with the fact that I've disabled all startup services and I'm running BlackBox instead of GNOME or KDE."

      "...my Gentoo Linux workstation..."
      "...my overclocked AMD eMachines box from PC World, and apart from the third-grade made-to-break components and dodgy fan..."

      "You Red Hat guys must get sick of dependency hell..."
      "I'm too stupid to understand that circular dependencies can be resolved by specifying BOTH .rpms together on the command line, and that problems hardly ever occur if one uses proper Red Hat packages instead of mixing SuSE, Mandrake and Joe's Linux packages together (which the system wasn't designed for)."

      "All the other distros are soooo out of date."
      "Constantly upgrading to the latest bleeding-edge untested software makes me more productive. Never mind the extensive testing and patching that Debian and Red Hat perform on their packages; I've just emerged the latest GNOME beta snapshot and compiled with -O9 -fomit-instructions, and it only crashes once every few hours."

      "Let's face it, Gentoo is the future."
      "OK, so no serious business is going to even consider Gentoo in the near future, and even with proper support and QA in place, it'll still eat up far too much of a company's valuable time. But this guy I met on #animepr0n is now using it, so it must be growing!"

      -


    2. Re:emerge sync; emerge -u apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the Gentoo translator post, and I'm not a Gentoo user, but doesn't Gentoo have a text-based installer? And who are these tards who need X in order to install a distro?

    3. Re:emerge sync; emerge -u apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentoo's "installer" is you - reading instructions off the Gentoo website and typing in hundreds of commands by hand for hours and hours. It's great if you've got three or four DAYS to install something.

      My first Linux distribution was Slackware, in 1998, and THAT had a better installer than Gentoo.

  2. American Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shows that there are some 3l337 haxors on the reservations.

    1. Re:American Indians by haizi_23 · · Score: 1

      was that funny?

    2. Re:American Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was that funny?

      If it was, should I laugh for you?

  3. Apache security documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
  4. Re:[OT] I need help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go tell them off, at least it'll make you feel better and embarass them.

  5. Re:[OT] I need help... by sinucus · · Score: 0

    tell him congratualations on the new STD... that'll make for an interesting night...

  6. Re:A step in the right direction by Karamchand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tell me: For how long has Tomcat been an commercial application server?
    Yea, I know.. ihbt..

  7. RedHat Fedora coming out on Monday will have this? by linuxguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Generally RedHat will not put in new packages at the last minute. But this is a security fix release only and also Fedora is considered more experimental than regular Redhat releases.

  8. Debian by cscx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe Debian Stable can finally update their Apache packages??? I'm still running 1.3.26... jeez!

    1. Re:Debian by damiam · · Score: 1

      Debian stable will never update their Apache packages, although they will backport bugfixes. If you want the latest and greatest, use testing or unstable, which has had Apache 2 since the week it was released.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:Debian by cscx · · Score: 0

      although they will backport bugfixes

      Ok, good, I was curious whether or not they were actually distributing security updates, which is why I was starting to worry.

    3. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache packages in Debian stable? Err.. no. Let's not hunt a moving target, better wait until the HTTP standard has stabilized. I mean, first they jumped from 0.9 to 1.0 and now this 1.1 fad. What's next? 1.1.0.1?

    4. Re:Debian by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Can I ask a stupid question, and say

      Why not jsut download it and install it yourself?

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    5. Re:Debian by damiam · · Score: 1

      Make sure you have security.debian.org in your /etc/apt/sources.list file. If you don't, you won't get security updates until they hit the main repository in a minor release, which can be a while.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    6. Re:Debian by jjohnson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, I avoided the RPM of apache when I built my webserver, instead choosing to download it and compile 2.0 from source, and get it working myself. Which I did. Having done it once, I know it pretty well now, and it took me five minutes to go from 2.0.45 to 2.0.48 after seeing this story, having saved my ./configure in an executable file. I ran that, make, make install, copy the conf files and the resin .so, test it, and switch the symbolic link that the sys V script goes to.

      So. Untinstall the deb, download it, compile it, install it, and get it working. It's no harder to configure, and you're free of package tyranny.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    7. Re:Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you didn't install 2.0.46 and 2.0.47?

      If you'd used a package your system could be updated automatically

    8. Re:Debian by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Neither did the OP. Nor 2.045, nor 2.0 at all.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  9. It's deja-vu all over again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this post a couple of weeks back.

    Be original, create your own trolls.

    1. Re:It's deja-vu all over again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like "BSD is dead," huh???

    2. Re:It's deja-vu all over again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be original, create your own trolls.

      Will this do?

  10. Time to upgrade my Apple ][ server. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re:Time to upgrade my Apple ][ server. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a liar.

  11. Hmmm... by damiam · · Score: 3, Funny

    An Apache point release on the front page? Can you say "slow news day"?

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    1. Re:Hmmm... by spektr · · Score: 3, Funny

      An Apache point release on the front page? Can you say "slow news day"?

      It annoys me that I have to download the full dupe at every point release. Can't they post incremental patches for the article and the replies?

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Ianoo · · Score: 1

      Why not use something like ccache? Then you only need to recompile changed files. I think. I don't personally use it...

    3. Re:Hmmm... by spektr · · Score: 2, Funny

      I rarely compile slashdot threads. I think CVS access to the article database would suffice.

    4. Re:Hmmm... by shibbydude · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! I think he was trying to be funny.

      --
      We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
    5. Re:Hmmm... by error502 · · Score: 1

      Can you say "slow news day"?

      I have a speech impediment, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:Hmmm... by spektr · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! I think he was trying to be funny.

      I tried? Dang. There is no try...
      Then better mod me sideways, before my posting makes somebody cry.

    7. Re:Hmmm... by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 2, Funny

      slaw nows dee ...dammit, I guess I can't

    8. Re:Hmmm... by nr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well its sunday after all. Dont you thinks its even more gnarley that the ninth Linux kernel pre-release (-pre9) made the frontpage, its not even dot release! :) I thinks its good that important open-source software get their spot in the sun, becouse many of us do not follow all projects closely and its nice to have interesting discussions about the software and the project.

    9. Re:Hmmm... by tenman · · Score: 0, Troll

      what happened to your JEs? I kinda miss catching up on your laptop, your school schedule, and life with the 'rents...

      Left hanging,
      TEN

  12. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the funniest pseudo-product placement troll I've ever read. Congrats.

  13. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2) Ever heard of Mono? Didn't think so ...

  14. Re:A step in the right direction by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Informative

    commercial application servers such as Tomcat

    Tomcat is open source; it's one of the Jakarta projects.

    compared to Oracle's WebSphere

    IBM make WebSphere, not Oracle.

    If Ximian would only release the .NET framework for Solaris

    Microsoft makes the .NET Framework, not Ximian, although Ximian does have a hand in Mono, the open source implementation of the .NET Framework.

  15. Re:A step in the right direction by zaphod.nu · · Score: 1

    WebSphere is IBM, not Oracle.
    Tomcat is Apache Foundation and Free(tm).
    LocalDirector is Cisco.
    .NET Framework is Microsoft.

    Besides those minor error and the jibberish the +1 Interesting might be sensible?

  16. OMG YES YES YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    2.0.48 is released!

    This is the defining moment of my life. I have been continually pressing the "refresh" button since the story about 2.0.47 being released. Now all my hard work has paid off.

    2.0.48 is released at last!

    1. Re:OMG YES YES YES! by Praeluceo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, and even after refreshing your browswer since July 10th, for the sole purpose of finding this announcement, you -still- couldn't get a first post? That's just pathetic.

      Not only do you need a life, you need to get better at not having one!

  17. I got a color TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... so I can see, the Knicks play basketball.

  18. Logging bug by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used Apache 2.0.47 for all of a day before I decided to never use the 2.0.x line again. Apparently when a partial transfer is requested, Apache 2.0.47 logs the full amount requested. Not what was actually transfered. I ended up showing over 10GB of transfer in a single day on a 256Kbit DSL line. Which if you do the math is only physically capable of about 2.5GB a day.

    I looked at my logs and determined that a couple AOL users were trying to get a rather large file

    aca9bd40.ipt.aol.com 655 6689 1004 310
    acc4e74f.ipt.aol.com 1014 5412 521 148
    ac8bd972.ipt.aol.com 140 1565 534 745

    Requests MB KB Bytes. All that transfer supposedly happened in about a day.

    I notified bug-track but apparently such a simple problem (which doesn't exist in the 1.3.x line) isn't worth addressing.

    After all, who actually uses the Apache 2.0.x logs to monitor transfer? Hopefully not any hosting companies because the customers are going to get royally screwed.

    Ben

    1. Re:Logging bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Download the code and fix it yourself. Submit a patch back to Apache. Feel good knowing you both helped a project you use and fixed your own problem.

    2. Re:Logging bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he doesn't know C, or have the time to learn the ins and outs of the Apache code.

      Or maybe if he's really motivated he will take the time to learn both only to realize that the problem gets fixed while he's working on it.

    3. Re:Logging bug by portnoy · · Score: 5, Informative
      Um, didn't someone provide a solution to your bug report? (i.e. use the more advanced log module).

      Seems to me that they do see this as a problem worth addressing; they already have a fix.

    4. Re:Logging bug by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      This continues my confusion as chronicled here.

      Can we get past these comments about "fixing it yourself"? Or is this just the default customer service coming out these days?

      I do thank you for not Karma whoring by posting as AC.

    5. Re:Logging bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations!

      You're the winner of the most piss-ant nit-picky mountain-out-of-a-pimple reason for completely abandoning an otherwise fine piece of software.

      What the fuck would you have Apache do - UPDATE THE LOGS FOR EACH AND EVERY FUCKING BYTE SENT??

      MORON!

  19. If it "works", why did it need a patch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twice. Software that works means it is right, THE FIRST TIME. If this had been MS, you know damn well you'd be all over them for 'buggy' stuff.

    All this proves is OSS zealots are hypocrites, with double standards.

    1. Re:If it "works", why did it need a patch? by shibbydude · · Score: 1
      All this proves is OSS zealots are hypocrites, with double standards.

      Thank you! Now where are my mod points?...

      --
      We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
    2. Re:If it "works", why did it need a patch? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      When was the last time a virus spread all across the world, shut down networks, etc., by exploiting a bug in Apache?

      Microsoft has VERY LITTLE (compared to Apache) market share, yet it's been actually exploited MUCH MUCH more.

      Another point about Apache is that it's open source (we can search the source and find buffer overflow succeptible code, fix it, etc.,) while with Microsoft or others, once they fix a bug, you have no idea how bad their source code it.

      Also, fixing 2 bugs in this many months is actually pretty good. I think my XP box got like 50 or so 'critical updates' just this summer from windowsupdate.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  20. Re:Guess I missed out again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  21. Link above logs you out by fred87 · · Score: 1

    Just thought i'd say - the link is a logout link

  22. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like you've got a lot of $1499 licensing fees to pay, you cock-smoking teabagger.

  23. 10 bucks by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    10 bucks says my university still doesn't upgrade it's servers from 2.0.40

    1. Re:10 bucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are they're using RedHat 9. RedHat generally does not upgrade to the latest version for security issues but rather back ports the specific fix. This keeps them from having to break compatability. In the case of Apache this is huge to, if they were to move past 2.0.43, every single apache module (php, mod_perl, not to mention custom and commercial modules) would need to be rebuilt from source.

  24. Re:Guess I missed out again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How?

  25. Re:In other words, yet another OSS bug? by vigilology · · Score: 1

    You don't pay for the oxygen you're breathing, do you?

  26. One question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Do you know if they released 2.0.48 yet?

  27. Netcraft stats for Apache by bhny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the new netcraft stats are posted.

    apache just keeps stealing more market share-

    1. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit.

      An image of that Baldheaded Monkey Boy from Redmond waking up in the middle of the night in his own piss screaming "Apache!" comes to mind...

    2. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and all those internal servers running Windows (and IIS on top of that) - where are they in the Netcraft stats. Oh, they aren't.

    3. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I love that graph.

      At no point in history has Apache ever had less marketshare than Microsoft's webserver. :)

    4. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      These are not OS stats...they are server stats. If a machine is running Apache on Windows, it gets counted as Apache. If a Windows/IIS server is behind some kind of elaborate proxy setup which is under another OS, it will be counted as IIS, although some impossible combinations like Linux/IIS or Solaris/IIS may result.

      If it is not serving web pages at all, it shouldn't be counted, and it won't be.

    5. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and what about all those *internel* windows servers running IIS that aren't visible to Netcraft. They're never counted in the stats.

    6. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where would these IIS servers be then? And how many Apache servers are there running on Windows?

    7. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by CapeBretonBarbarian · · Score: 1

      ...and what about all those *internel* windows servers running IIS that aren't visible to Netcraft. They're never counted in the stats. Nor are our internal servers running apache. Worrying about internal servers is pointless. You'll never know for sure.

    8. Re:Netcraft stats for Apache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes yes yes, we know.

      the lurkers support IIS.

  28. Re:RedHat Fedora coming out on Monday will have th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too bad Fedora will not be coming out on Monday.

  29. Re:Guess I missed out again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry don't have time to answer - must test if it is working

  30. Re:Cock-smoking? by tds67 · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...to pay your $1499 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

    Yah, as if anyone's going to let you take a lighter to their cock...sheesh...

  31. Re:Don't forget... by shibbydude · · Score: 1

    Stop the fucking SCO jokes!!! It's over.

    --
    We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
  32. YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    nice effort
    unfortunatly you are dealing with greasy spotty fatso's here who don't know about sex (except with themselves) but they do know about IT products, maybe you would be better off at Yahoo or MSN forums, they like someone experienced ;)

    1. Re:YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree. That greasy fatsos know nothing.

    1. Re:Nope by morelife · · Score: 1

      I just read the link you posted to the "webmin" comment.

      Although my heart goes out to the original poster, bless his soul, it's the moderators I'm worried about. Everyone who moderated that post either Interesting or Informative should have their testicles removed to ensure that the disease goes no further. Actually I think Ashcroft's working on a USA PATRIOT Act improvement addressing this very issue. That way we wouldn't need a warrant. Just go in, castrate, ask questions later.

  34. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  35. Re:A step in the right direction by morelife · · Score: 1

    ISA Server
    huh? Microsoft Internet Security and Acceleration Server? The one all the dweebs put in front of Exchange when management's looking the other way? That's not an application server, it's a proxy/firewall whose chief function is to generate revenue for Microsoft while providing zero real functionality.

    the Apache team outdid themselves by providing a nice API that integrates nicely with most the commercial application servers such as Tomcat...
    How /wierd/ that the httpd team would shoot for functionality with another product from the Apache
    Group..

    DBAs find the performance lacking compared to Oracle's WebSphere
    And they are right: Oracle's Websphere is pretty slow - it doesn't freekin' exist so it doesn't run very fast AT ALL.

    If Ximian would only release the .NET framework for Solaris we would definately be able to unleash some more serious functionality
    Looks like you and the team switch development and delivery platforms every 7 to 10 days. It seems like those Ximian people go out of their way to slow progress. BASTARDS!

    definately
    Most everyone is definitely using a more recent version of definitely, which is nice. You can download it at www.m-w.com on the Internet.

  36. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT's OVER?

    WTF do you mean? It sure as hell looks like their stock price is going up to me? It sure as hell looks like they have other corporate idiot assholes convinced?

    It's OVER? You're a fucking idiot! They hase OSS over a barrel!

  37. MOD PARENT DOWN: REDUNDANT AND A TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN: REDUNDANT AND A TROLL by morelife · · Score: 1

      If some of the ideas in the post you linked struck a nerve with you, and it sounds like they might have, why don't you log in under a real name and say what's on your mind?

    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN: REDUNDANT AND A TROLL by morelife · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh. Maybe because you're an editor here...

  38. Re:A step in the right direction by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The quality of both the mods and /. itself continues its downhill slide. And it is piciking up pace!

  39. MOD PARENT OFF-TOPIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. I've used up my mod-points.

  40. Re:Yay by mentin · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    What works? All I see is two security bugs fixed.

    If the fixes were from Microsoft, the /. would have an article "Two More Critical Windows Flaws".

    But it is open source, so we get "Apache 2.0.48 Released".

    So does it proof anything except double standard on /.?

    --
    MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
  41. What??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just made simple statement that indicated that the original post reflects the sad state of affairs of /. and its moderation system. If you look at my low UID you'll see I've been around here for years so I think I have to right to speak my mind.

    1. Re:What??! by FxChiP · · Score: 1

      ... why'd you post as an AC?

    2. Re:What??! by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I didn't and I don't.

      side note. I love this type m keyboard!!!

    3. Re:What??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clacka clacka crunch crunch!
      You aren't busy unless you make a lot of noise!

      I wonder if I can get something like IBM type M with a sub connector.

      Ah well: off to lunch!

  42. Re:RedHat Fedora coming out on Monday will have th by Bartlet · · Score: 1

    For the pollyannish ...

    From:
    http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/sche dule/

    Schedule
    Fedora Core 1 / Cambridge

    * July 21 2003 - Test 1 (originally called Beta 1) release
    * September 25 2003 - Test 2 release
    * October 13 2003 - Test 3 release
    * November 3 2003 - General Availability

  43. Is it better than Apache 2.0.47? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should I upgrade?

    Or should I hold out for 2.0.49?

  44. Re:RedHat Fedora coming out on Monday will have th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  45. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How /wierd/ that the httpd team

    If you're going to flame someone's spelling, at least take the time to get your own spelling right. It's "weird."

  46. Apache 2.0 by ceswiedler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are people using 2.0 much yet? I remember all of the blowup over how 2.0 didn't really add anything unless you wanted to run it on Windows, and it caused a lot of problems for modules like mod_perl. Is everyone still sticking with 1.3?

    1. Re:Apache 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      2.0 does have numerous features and enhancements over 1.3 but didn't offer significant performance advantages over 1.3 on Linux and most Unix platforms . And as far as "problems" go, 2.0 had a completely new module system so modules had to be redesigned for 2.0, not really a problem with the modules. Just taken awhile to redesign them. Most Linux distros have moved to 2.0 which is what people really have been waiting for.

    2. Re:Apache 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Apache2 runs quite well with mod_perl and just about everything else under win32.

      Check out http://www.devside.net

    3. Re:Apache 2.0 by Spoke · · Score: 5, Informative

      IMO, the best reason to use Apache 2.0 is that with mod_deflate, you can now easily add content encoding compression to an entire website to save bandwidth. Previously with Apache 1.3, you could add in mod_gzip, but mod_gzip wouldn't compress SSL content without some very ugly config hacks including mod_proxy with a substantial performance benefit. 2.0 eliminates this issue.

      I've seen bandwith drop on websites drop from 20-80% depending on how much content is non-compressible (like graphics).

    4. Re:Apache 2.0 by haeger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh yes.
      mod_perl is a real showstopper for me. I'd love to upgrade to Apace2.x but I really need mod_perl to function properly and it isn't ready so I'm sticking with 1.3 for now.

      Does anyone know the status of mod_perl? Should I try to lessen my dependency on it? Is 2.0 worth the upgrade even if I have to rewrite my app?

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    5. Re:Apache 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently started using it. Works great and performs MUCH better than 1.3.

    6. Re:Apache 2.0 by Corporate+Gadfly · · Score: 1

      I am using mod_perl 2 (really 1.99_10) in production without any problems. You do have to sort of keep up with the mod_perl mailing list, but it has performed without any problems for me so far.

      --
      Corporate Gadfly
      Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
    7. Re:Apache 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto here, been using Apache 2.0 with MP 1.9 for sometime no issues.

    8. Re:Apache 2.0 by sffubs · · Score: 1

      I'm using it very happily - tbh I can't tell much difference between 2.x and 1.x, except that I can use mod-xslt on 2.x

      --sffubs

      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
  47. Old news by mrt300 · · Score: 1

    See this.

    This version was released the same day as 1.3.29 earlier in the week, Wednesday, I believe. Perhaps future posters would consider combining this news into one post.

  48. releasing open source software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When trying to get your software announced on freshmeat.net, has anyone else got pissed off with how long it takes the editors to post your announcement on the front page.

    When it does finally appear, it appears in the same batch as hundereds of other announcements and goes off the front page straight away. Grr...

  49. 1.3 branch by amembleton · · Score: 2

    Why are there two branches of Apache? There's the 1.3 and 2.0 lines. I've heard that 1.3 is better than 2.0, so is 2.0 effectivelly a beta? Why are there still new releases of 1.3, why not concentrate on 2.0?

    1. Re:1.3 branch by jjohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 2.0 line offers new internals and a new module API that's supposedly a lot cleaner and better organized. The biggest internal change of which I'm aware is that Apache now does proper threading, instead of fork()ing--that's why the big improvement on Windows, which is natively threaded, while a smaller improvement on unices.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. Re:1.3 branch by crisco · · Score: 3, Informative
      AFAIK New releases of 1.3 are bugfixes and security patches. 2.0 has been labeled production ready for over a year.

      The problem isn't Apache itself but the open source modules that help make Apache the most useful webserver out there. Widely used projects like mod_perl and mod_php have only recentlyy released versions of these that work properly with Apache 2 and even these are still labeled betas.

      Additionally, most competent sysadmins won't mess with what isn't broken, so their server farms running 1.3 are going to continue running 1.3 for a while yet.

      --

      Bleh!

    3. Re:1.3 branch by Spoke · · Score: 1

      As long as you stick with the pre-forked MPM of Apache2, you really shouldn't have any problems with add-on modules like mod_perl and mod_php. Problems only arise when using one of the threaded MPMs.

  50. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know "open source" contrasted with "commercial."

  51. Re:RedHat Fedora coming out on Monday will have th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > We had to respin FC1 today for a non-technical issue

    What the heck is "respin" ?

  52. Better than ever before by a5cii · · Score: 1, Informative

    Apache 2.0.48 works extremely well on windows 2000 there are no problems such as hanging during shutdown for me anymore one qualm i have is that the configuration could be made a bit easier using a web based interface like the one which abyss web server from www.aprelium.com has i look forward to a long and happy life with apache MC

  53. API Calls by a5cii · · Score: 0

    The "Monitor Apache Servers" program seems to have a weird effect on the windows API when it is visible for example copy and paste wont work very well if at all, minimizing the window fixes the problem very weird all in all a better apache

  54. Re:[OT] I need help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, what are you waiting for? Go in there and hook up some fingercuffs / DP action.

  55. Workaround, not a fix by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    That fix should be standard. Obviously Apache knows about the problem but even when someone fixes it for them (so writting a fix myself as someone else suggested is a worthless pursuit to try to actually fix the problem) they continue to insist on ignoring the problem and linking by default to a known broken module that they refuse to fix. And on top of that, they fail to properly document the workaround.

    Most web-site owners are more interested in running their business than dicking around with source code. Even if they knew how to even begin looking for the problem spot. I opted to revert back to 1.3.x since it's solid.

    This reflects very poorly on Apache in regards to their attitude about bugs. Especially considering this shouldn't have been broken from the first 2.0 release.

    "We know about it, but we don't care to fix our default logging module" is pretty sad.

    It's nice to know a workaround exists but when something as simple as logging can't get an official fix it does very little to instill confidence in the product.

    Maybe I'll give 2.0 another try later with my personal server but the server my business runs on will be sticking with 1.3. It works great and so I can just focus on running the business and writting source code for a job instead of reinventing fixes for a wheel that's been known to be broken for a very long time.

    Ben

    1. Re:Workaround, not a fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RecycledRussianBrides.com

      Wow, that's a real nice business you got there.

    2. Re:Workaround, not a fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have so much spite for apache why the fuck do you use it anyway?

    3. Re:Workaround, not a fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea youre website is just the kind we all want around. charging via paypal for every little thing you can get your dirty hands on. get a fucking life.

    4. Re:Workaround, not a fix by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Frankly, all of the Apache projects I've interacted with seem really insular :/

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  56. "Fix it yourself" by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Doesn't go over well with business people. I do programming as a profession. However, when the 1.3.x line is flawless it's hard to convince myself it's worth my time to tackle this problem. Considering how many people have downloaded and rely on the 2.0 line, I wonder how many have the skill or motivation to fix such a glaring and simplistic flaw that should never have existed.

    Especially considering someone did take the time to write a logging module that works and Apache still refuses to make it the standard, insisting instead to link to the default, "approved," known to be broken one.

    By telling me to "fix it myself" he was basically telling everyone to ignore the fact that Apache is ignoring already existing fixes and needlessly reinvent the wheel themselves.

    I'd actually be happier not knowing the fix existed. Apache's actions would make more sense (and be more acceptible) because I could pretend it was a complicated issue still in progress.

    Ben

  57. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Wow, Apache should put a line in their license to disallow you from using it.

    I do programming as a profession

    Oooh. Am I supposed to bow to your mightiness? Frankly, you've already swept me off my feet.

    By telling me to "fix it myself" he was basically telling everyone to ignore the fact that Apache is ignoring already existing fixes and needlessly reinvent the wheel themselves.

    No, actually, he was basically telling you to fix it yourself, no need to read into it. If you're such a programming professional, it should be trivial to fix. Apache isn't someone you pay for something to work. It, like all other OSS projects, only get better when people get off their butt and fix problems. However, I'd rather have it stay broken and get fixed by someone decent than for it to grudgingly get fixed by as it's obvious you are a leech on open source's inner thigh.

  58. Re:[OT] I need help... by togofspookware · · Score: 1

    How is this flamebait? Seriously, if what this poor bloke says is true, then his roommate deserves at least *one million* punches-in-the-face.

    (link for the humour impaired)

    --
    Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
  59. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    When Windows Service Packs come out, you get a "Windows Service Pack released" header.

  60. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you read the responses before making your own? YOU HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING. Good show.

  61. taht's not good enough motivation to move to 2.x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Apache team wants everyone to adopt 2.x, they better make sure it works flawlessly. Or at least as good as the 1.x line. I agree with Ben, and I'm not the only one (a lot of admins still like 1.x better) and I'm not upgrading until all the shit works right. Production sites should only run the most stable and bug-free code, and that means 1.x for now and maybe quite some time into the future if what Ben described was true (the part about the Apache developers not caring enough to use a working subsystem instead of the standard, but broken version).

  62. Excellent for mod_python 3.0.3 and Solaris by milosoftware · · Score: 1

    Saving lots of memory: Just run in 'worker' mode, and have only one system wide Python Interpreter. Also makes sharing DB connections and so much easier since you can just keep lots of globals around.

    And that's on Solaris, where worker isn't default.

    Oh, and mod_deflate is nice too.

    --
    Musicians don't die. They just decompose.