Slashdot Mirror
Apache 2.0.50 Released
Gruturo writes "The Apache Software Foundation just released version 2.0.50, which, apart from the usual incremental improvements and bug fixes, addresses security vulnerabilities such as CAN-2004-0493 (Memory leak which could lead to resource depletion == DoS) and CAN-2004-0488 (a mod_ssl buffer overflow). Be kind to their servers and use a mirror."
The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.
The article does not strictly deal with this most recent release of Apache, but it is mentioned in this article as an example of open source's successes. The rest of the article is certainly worth reading, if only for a well-argued perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of open source.
----
Open source
Beyond capitalism?
Jun 10th 2004
From The Economist print edition
The open-source model can be applied to goods other than software, but it has its limits
THAT "open source" is a good way to make software is beyond question. For those unfamiliar with the term, the open-source model allows many people to collaborate on the development of a piece of software by making its underlying programming instructions, or source code, open to everyone, usually by publishing them on the internet. The resulting program is then given away too: open-source software is shared, not sold. Commercial software vendors, by contrast, jealously guard their source code because only by keeping it secret can they protect their ability to demand money for their products.
[Image]
By far the best-known example of open-source software is Linux, an operating system that is maintained by volunteers around the world, runs on everything from wristwatches to mainframes and now powers one in five of the world's server computers. Open source's other successes include Apache, a piece of software that powers two-thirds of the world's web servers, Sendmail, a program that dispatches most of the world's e-mail, and MySQL, a database program.
Advocates of open source argue that it produces software that is secure, reliable and, of course, cheap. All this is clearly true, despite the fact that open source's opponents--chief among them Microsoft, the world's largest software company--try to deny it. Now many people want to apply the open-source model in many fields other than software. There is already an open-source cola recipe, an open-source encyclopedia and open-source academic journals. The model is also being applied in medical research (see article). Some zealots even argue that the open-source approach represents a new, post-capitalist model of production. Are there no limits to the power of open source?
Of course there are. The model is particularly well suited to information-rich goods, of which software is merely the most obvious example, since it is pure information. The surprisingly good open-source encyclopedia (see Wikipedia.org) is another example. Like software, it is modular, which allows different people to work on different bits. Drugs, too, are information-rich goods, and searching for candidate molecules and performing clinical trials may be amenable to open-source-style distributed collaboration. So far, so good. But building, say, an open-source car is rather more problematic, since information (in the form of design and specifications) constitutes only a minor ingredient: the costs of materials and manufacturing would remain. Until someone invents a "universal replicator" capable of synthesising any object from software specifications, it is hard to see how the open-source model can be applied to manufactured goods.
The model has other limitations as well. It is not clear, for example, that the open-source model can be genuinely innovative--most open-source software merely imitates existing commercial products. Furthermore, the open-source software movement is driven by the desire to dethrone the proprietary software model, embodied by Microsoft. This shared g
I'm still using 1.3.31. php working okay these days? How about php 5?
For security I wouldn't use anything where the source is open.
I recommend Microsoft(r) Internet Information Services for server software (compiled with GS switch, so it's double secure compared to other products) and Microsoft(r) Internet Explorer for client (my favorite site MSN.com looks great in it).
Ok, so Apache2 has been around forever now. The big hoopla was the threading module instead of prefork. However, you can't really use the threading model with PHP or mod_perl due to 3rd party libs not being thread safe.
So is there really any point in using apache2 at all?
Beyond maybe a cache/proxy role?
I laughed.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
although i think it works in apache 1.3.x now, mod_mono was a deciding factor for me to switch to the 2.0 series. and for that, it has been working great...
First of all, to the people who wonder what's so great about Apache 2.x you should take some time to understand that Apache 2 is a completely new way of thinking about the HTTP server paradigm. Apache 2.x is now no longer simply an HTTP server but a protocol server that can serve anything you can write, FTP, SMTP whatever. In fact Apache 2.x FTP server has been darn stable.
Besides the threaded model and the above paradigm shift, there is also the great improvements in the build system, the API and IPv6 support. You can read all about it here: New Features 2.0 . Do yourself a favor and start learning Apache 2.x now, you will not regret it down the line.
Finally, I believe that with the 2.0.50 release the contributors have solved some of the most serious bugs and have delivered one of the most stable releases of Apache to date. Of course time will tell if there are significant bugs, I wouldn't go upgrading your production environment tomorrow. But the folks there have worked really hard on the big bugs and I have to give them a big thank you.
The full change list is here: Changes 2.0.50 . They have fixed a very serious stderr bug, several annoying ldap bugs, addressed various other security and performance issues and generally done a great job.
Way to go folks. Thank you!!!
Apache2 is a great OS, now it just needs a good web server.
Cue the FUD about PHP being broken under Apache2...
*sigh*
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
If you want to host subversion repositories using Apache, you need Apache 2.x.
Of course, subversion doesn't REQUIRE Apache at all if you use the provided svnserve but I recommend the Apache+Subversion combo because it leverages all the network/authentication features in Apache.
http://subversion.tigris.org/
Why they hell would anyone use Apache 2, when PHP support is completely broken, like what 2 YEARS after Apache 2 was released?
Does anyone know at which point multithreaded Apache (2.0) is better than multiprocess Apache(1.3)? I'm still using 1.3.x with PHP 4.3.x