Slashdot Mirror
Why I Hate the Apache Web Server
schon writes "Today's the last day of ApacheCon Europe; There was a hilarious presentation entitled 'Why I Hate the Apache Web Server' for anyone who has expressed frustration with the various inconsistencies and nuances of the Internet's favourite config file. And yes, it includes a comparison to Sendmail."
I think the subject was supposed to read, "Why I hate PDF files."
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
OK, so this is a PDF file that looks like a Powerpoint presentation and it is about how much he hates Apache. *head explodes*
Here is a html version, I doubt it will stay cached for very long though.
Could the on-duty-editor-at-the-moment PLEASE add small note after the links IF TFA is in fact A PDF file. Please? That is NOT too much to ask, I hope. Sorely hope.
And no, I didn't RTFA, which was in fact TFPDF.
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
Coincidence? I think not!
atleast a decent Apache install can keep on chugging along even when faced with a slashdotting.
It's not the PDF format that sucks, it's Acrobat Reader. Use Preview or XPDF.
Complaining about PDFs is like complaining about HTTP cause you don't like IIS.
"Not yours."
News for Nerds
Wow, you ain't fuckin kidding, are ya?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
If the presentation was Hilarious, I assume that in future Apache configuration will be easier.
Otherwise I'd define it "sadly realistic"...
Apache is great but it could be *significantly* easier for beginning webmasters. And for companies to fund changes.
Sitting in #apache on freenode is actually fun sometimes. You'll actually see these common things bought up by many people every day. The PDF actually touches on only a few of the "problems" that the conf file has.
However, its the 2G file limit that makes me laugh. Sure, there's LFS (Configure 1.3 with CFLAGS="-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64", enabled by default in 2.0.53 (and higher) and in 2.1), but to be really honest, there are far better ways to send large files. HTTP isn't one of them. There's FTP and there's also torrents; Both of which have the advantage of being designed for files rather than 'hypertext', which by nature is normally text...
NeoThermic
Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
Don't be silly. PDF files are very useful to distribute printable materials, such as books, spec sheets, PR and corporate bullshit (ugh), brochures, etc... Remember that PDF is essentially Postscript wrapped in an Adobe straightjacket.
What does piss me off is:
- People who use PDFs to make read-only documents
- People who use PDFs where html or text is adequat and sufficient.
I don't see why they require me to lauch that hateful Acrobat Reader when a browser does a better job.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I love Apache, but in the same way I love my wife: with some trepidation. Fast and stable, flexible and reliable, but make one little syntax error and you can lose your ass.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
NOT A FONT. ok? Repeat after me, Comic Sans Is Not a Font! In 1995 Microsoft released the font Comic Sans originally designed for comic book style talk bubbles containing informational help text. Since that time the typeface has been used in countless contexts from restaurant signage to college exams to medical information. These widespread abuses of printed type threaten to erode the very foundations upon which centuries of typographic history are built. While we recognize the font may be appropriate in a few specific instances, our position is that the only effective means of ending this epidemic of abuse is to completely ban Comic Sans. http://bancomicsans.com/home.html
I'm also a big fan of the "Grumpy Editor's Guide" series of articles at Linux Weekly News.
The basic auth logout: yes, people have been asking for it for years, but it's HTTP itself that doesn't provide a mechanism for logging out users, it's not Apache's fault.
This one baffled me as well. How could you have a "logout" function in a stateless protocol? Logins don't persist beyond the fulfillment of a single request. The storing of a username and password for HTTP authentication is implemented on the client side, it has nothing to do with the web server or even the protocol. Complain to Microsoft/Mozilla/Opera Software or whoever makes your browser if you don't like it.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
He has some great points, and if some non-fan boys would catch things, he's an apache developer. He has the right to hate some things in apache.
I'm glad to see that someone who works with the project has some of the same frustrations I do:
mod_imap - why does anyone still need this?
http and https needing seperate entries in vhost
vhosting in general
And to those whining about PDFs would you rather to have this posted in a PPT file? Comic Sans probably means Powerpoint is at the root of this. And I'm guessing he didn't need to put the out there, so he picked a format everyone can read without resorting to PowerPoints horrible html conversion. I hate PDFs, and really hate them viewed in the browser, but that's what "save as" is for. And I'll bet you didn't have to go get a viewer just to read this. There is no pleasing the Slashbots who would rather whine about a PDF than take the criticism in stride, and with the humor it was presented in. If you have to whine about the delivery, then you're too childish to pay attention to the message. He may not have OpenOffice installed at his work (there are places who don't allow that), and this may have been the best he could do under reasonable effort.
I'd prefer his effort go into the server than in giving us an HTML page rendered just for us. He could use that time to fix some of the annoyances! Some have better things to do than to please everyone.
And I say we give him a pony!
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Pardon the obvious comment I'm compelled to spew in Apache's defense:
Due to the Open Source nature of apache, anyone who is ready to actually improve apache (in ways that the apache people potentially don't like and won't accept into the code) can fork apache and make their own even-easier-to-configure web browser.
Also remember that functionality comes before user friendliness. It should be no suprise there are warts on the config syntax, just be glad the damn thing works at all! If you want a real taste of ugly, go use IIS or (shudder) Weblogic. You'll run back to apache so fast your legs will fly off.
As apache matures even more, no doubt these warts will eventually get addressed. Maybe some kind of little task force will even form with this goal in mind.
LOOK, you lot have missed one critical point. The guy is a committer to the apache httpd project itself. He's on the INSIDE. He knows more about apache than YOU.
He's just pointing out some of the sillyness to his own teammates that apache has that people that are involved with and use apache get used to. (And, even if it is documented, that doesn't mean it's not silly.)
mod_imap? Why is that still on by default, for example.
As for the PDF complaints, THIS IS A PRESENTATION AT A CONFERENCE. What would you have perferred? A PPS file? Those that complain about the fonts? Get over yourselves.
Why can't apache's configuration file be XML compliant? It would make life sooo much easier if it were.
It would be sooo much easier to parse and validate the configuration file if it actually conformed to SOME kind of standard.
For that matter, why not use some limited XSL syntax in order to handle conditions?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
This problem is *everywhere*. Why are we still putting up with differently-designed config files for your webserver, your ftp server, your mailserver, your nameserver and heaven knows what else, all supported by their own pieces of custom code which, like Apache's, each have the possibility of growing up to be subtly wrong?
I know the Windows idea of a centralised registry sucks in too many ways (inscrutable binary is no match for human-readable text files), but there's one thing it's got right: all the apps which access their configuration use a consistent API to do so. Is it an impossible dream to hope that someone gets a bunch of large free software projects to agree on what needs to go into a libconfigparse, then implements it, and provides bindings for major languages? Then we might stand a chance of avoiding weird config file problems cropping up in Apache and everywhere else, slightly differently each time.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
I've seen IIS sites handle a /.ing fine, I've seen Apache dragged to the dirt. Why? Well /.ing kills sites one of two ways:
/.ing isn't at all impressive, it's expected. Any webserver worth it's shit should be able to had out massive amounts of data with little resource usage. It's other processing like PERL scripts, DB requests, SSL, etc that kill it, or simply overtaxing the available bandwidth.
1) Bandwidth. Whatever if being offered is large enough that the line it's on becomes highly over saturated and thus requests are processed very slowly, if at all.
2) CPU load due to dynamic content. Sites that use databases, or scripts to create their pages or something get overwhelemed because they don't have enough CPU to support all the requests.
The webserver itself isn't the problem. Either Apache or IIS can easily saturate a 100mb link with static content, even on a fairly old server.
When I worked for the school paper and we were linked, it was no problem at all. The line was 10mb, and the content was fairly small (say 300-500k total) and all static. Despite being a P2 300 the server didn't even break a sweat, load average was below 1. When the department I now work at was receantly linked for a comet simulator, it killed out webserver, despite the content being about 2k and it being a fiarly fast SPARC machine. The reason was each request required computation, so our load average was about 100.
Apache being able to survive a
Bandwidth is actually fairly common, many servers are run on small lines. I have a couple servers in my closet on my 768k up line. That is plenty for normal usage, people find the sites quite zippy. However Slashdot would easily overwhelm that bandwidth.
This was at an apache conference. He's written documentation for Apache. Chances are he uses it and knows more about it than you ever will. Dumbass.
A good number of OSS zealots (of which a good number are found here) have the need to believe that OSS is always better, in every case, and part of that is not admitting faults. You admit faults, you admit the possibility something else could be done better.
I got in to that some time ago over audio apps in Linux. I mentioned that one of the reasons I run Windows is pro audio work, Linux just doens't have the tools. I was told ya it does, so I asked like what? I mean hey, maybe they know something I don't, I'm always looking for new tools. No, I get pointed to the same ones I've tried. So I talk about what is wrong with them, why I don't like them. In response basically every flaw is downloayed, denied, blamed on me, or declared to be "a better way of doing things".
Zealots, of whatever type, want to believe their product/way of life/whatever is the best there is. Thus when presented with real criticism, they are likely to either ignore it, or try and change the argument to something else.
The attitude that so many have of "If you don't like it, fix it yorself!" That's a very harmful attitude to take, it's very abrasive and turns many people off to OSS.
I mean you have to remember, that most of the people in the world CAN'T, even if they want to, because they aren't coders. The majority of the population, well over 90%, does not know how to program. It's stupid to say they should learn how to. The whole point of specialization of labour is that peopel dont' ahve to do everything. Coders code, other peopel use what they make.
Then, of the few that can code, most don't have the time. It's a serious undertaking to make major changes to make major changes to a codebase, and it's really har dwhen it's not yours. You have to spend a lot of time just in learning what the fuck is going on and hwo it all works, before you can start making changes. Well, most coders can't do that, espically for every product they happen to use. There a fixed amount of time, and most of us have most of it taken up by more important things (like a paying job, family time, housework, etc).
Then, even if you do have the ability and time, it's not always easy. I'd not the guy that gave this presentation is an Apache developer, so he IS putting his money where his mouth is. It's just pretty clear that making tha fixes isn't some little 1 hour coding job, it's some major work that needs to happen.
So really, people who want to push OSS shouldn't take this isntantly hostile "Well fix it yourself!" attitude. Problems should be listend to, and should be fixed when possible. When it's not, the reasons should be explained why, and the person should be helped to figure out how ot work with what they have as best as possible.
Oh, and having configured both IIS and Apache, IIS wins hands down. Easy GUI config, options do what you think they do, plenty of context sensitive documentation. That's not to say it's a better web server, and sure as hell not more secure, but when it comes to configuration, that's just no contest.
First, we have this.
And a quote from the default config file:OK. So I'll define as follows:Then, we have this.
OK, so I have some legacy documents, so I'll just define as follows in <HEAD>:And let's try it out... WTF?? It does not work! My browser thinks it is UTF-8.
Oh wait, it actually works, if I'll define this instead of that above:Brilliant! So if the AddDefaultCharset is defined in httpd.conf, the Content-Type encoding of the actual document must be defined in lowercase, or it'll be ingnored! Now, where the f*** this is documented??! Examples at w3.org specifically uses uppercase. Apache permits uppercase in httpd.conf.
Apache messed it up again.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
As it turns out this isn't the whole truth (there can be heuristics) but what you are doing is rather dicey (read as: may give different results in different browsers or in the future). Make your charsets agree or you might cause yourself problems.