The Final Release of Apache HTTP Server 1.3

Kyle Hamilton writes "The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache HTTP Server Project are pleased to announce the release of version 1.3.42 of the Apache HTTP Server ('Apache'). This release is intended as the final release of version 1.3 of the Apache HTTP Server, which has reached end of life status There will be no more full releases of Apache HTTP Server 1.3. However, critical security updates may be made available."

Comments

Open Source

[Chris Lawrence]

This is the beauty of open source. Apache 1.3 is still widely used, and many products are still based on it. If the Apache Foundation no longer wants to maintain it, others are free to pick it up and carry on. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened sooner rather than later.

Re:Open Source

[jellomizer]

So after a project dies it forks off into a slew a Legacy systems all needed independent modifications and changes. That is the Ugly side of Open Source to me. A more beauty side is if the tools that did need to work on 1.3 once apache stopped 1.3 support went and modified their apps to work on newer web browsers.

Forking code to keep your project going is not the way, it is just a bad idea.

Re:Open Source

[AsmCoder8088]

Actually, Mac OS 9 is very secure. Even the US Army still uses it for secure web hosting.

Re:Open Source

[Sir_Lewk]

Yeah, because a project dying and all the people that still use it being left out in the cold is really an attractive alternative.

Not.

Re:Open Source

[yuhong]

Not exactly, one fundamental advantage is that it used Pascal strings mostly, avoiding the problems of C strings. I once read a old Slashdot comment on the security advantages, and it made me even more sad about the failure of the Copland project, which would have been probably much more secure than Mac OS X ended up being.

web servers to app servers

[Lord Ender]

It seems that basic web sites made by uploading html and other files are going extinct, in favor of web apps like CMSs and blogs. As a result, the majority of the functionality provided by web servers like Apache is becoming unnecessary.

As an example, any web app which interfaces with Apache via Rackmiddleware needs only the enabling of mod_rack. Other than that, you don't need to touch apache2.conf. Apache basically just handles the sockets; the rest of its functionality goes unused.

Re:web servers to app servers

[jgreco]

The day of the static web page is indeed drawing to a close. With Facebook rewriting PHP into HipHop, other middleware products becoming capable of also serving content, and the general transition to "Web 2.0", the largely static Web of the '90's is nearer than ever to its eventual end. Apache 1 has been an absolutely fantastic tool over the years, and even though it's well past its "sell-by" date, the fact that many have continued to use it says a lot about the overall quality and robustness. Thanks to every Apache author, contributor, bug-fixer, administrator, and even user who has made this one rockin' Web server. It's been amazing to watch, NCSA httpd becoming Apache, and constantly evolving... i

Re:web servers to app servers

[mirix]

It's on an old PIII board, sitting in the closet, running Apache 1.3, oddly enough ;)

1.3

[jjohn]

For my money, apache 1.3 is the only apache. It's extremely stable and most of the security issues have been patched. Solid, solid code and a breeze to compile.

But remember: I am a grumpy old man.

Re:Will Slashdot Upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with that? The 2.x series started off badly with security vulns every other day. Even now, there's no compelling business case for sites running stable software like apache 1.3 to upgrade.

Furthermore, the sensible upgrade path is to dedicated app servers behind a light weight reverse proxy (varnish, nginx etc).

Re:We already have. Right away from Apache, even.

[dgatwood]

Don't forget shell-script-based servers. It has a much smaller memory footprint than Apache, and it even runs PHP/Perl scripts. :-D