Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Final Release of Apache HTTP Server 1.3

Posted by timothy on from the people-of-earth-you're-on-your-own dept.

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."

35 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Open Source by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, the "beauty of open source" is that people waste time and energy on an obsolete product. Reminds me of Microsoft.

    2. Re:Open Source by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it's their time to spend as they want. There are people working on a new port of Firefox to Mac OS 9 (Classilla). That's an operating system that hasn't been updated in 10 years. But if people are having fun doing this, that's great. If the product was closed source, there would simply be no option.

    3. Re:Open Source by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Open Source by AsmCoder8088 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    5. Re:Open Source by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    6. Re:Open Source by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Funny

      HTML5 Porn.

    7. Re:Open Source by yuhong · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Open Source by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it forces people to upgrade to a better alternative, then maybe it is. Think IE6 - would it be better to maintain that ongoing (considering that many of the things the Slashdot groupthink wants to fix with IE6 are the explicit reasons why some companies are keeping it around) or kill it dead and have people upgrade?

  2. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have stopped at version 1.3.37

    1. Re:Too late by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Funny

      1.3.37 is reserved for the OpenBSD fork.

  3. web servers to app servers by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:web servers to app servers by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just wait, it will come back. The wheel of computing just goes around and around, now we are reinventing thin clients via netbooks used only to use webapps. In another 5-10 years people will want thick clients again and websites that are actually usable and informative.

    2. Re:web servers to app servers by jgreco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:web servers to app servers by mirix · · Score: 4, Funny

      They can take my static web page from my cold dead hands.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:web servers to app servers by SEE · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Wheel of reincarnation" is the entry in the Jargon File; term "coined in a paper by T.H. Myer and I.E. Sutherland On the Design of Display Processors, Comm. ACM, Vol. 11, no. 6, June 1968"

    5. Re:web servers to app servers by Voyager529 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since you imply that you still have one, I'm assuming that it's not being hosted on Geocities.

    6. Re:web servers to app servers by Eil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Not so. Apache is a general-purpose HTTP server. It has a lot more power and capability than what 99% of websites use it for, which is serving static content and CGI script output. There are loads of web servers that are capable of these menial tasks and they use a fraction of the resources that Apache does. Apache is only as popular as it is because it's what most web hosting companies, documentation, and sysadmins default to.

      The reason you see CMSs and blogs adopting alternative HTTP daemons is because they want to reduce the complexity of their software stack and configuration. Apache is big and somewhat unwieldy. It's like using a 30-volt industrial electric screwdriver change a video card.

      Apache's popularity might wane as lighter, more application-focused HTTP daemons become more common but it will never go away until HTTP does. It's just too darn flexible, even if it can't (usually) scale to millions of hits per second like newer servers can.

    7. Re:web servers to app servers by mirix · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    8. Re:web servers to app servers by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The PIII means you set it up recently enough that you could've had it running 2.0. Why do you do these things...

    9. Re:web servers to app servers by mirix · · Score: 2, Informative

      OpenBSD shipped with 1.x when I installed it (still does, I think), and that's what I'm running.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  4. Misleading Summary by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 5, Informative

    A lot of commentors seem to think that this is the final release of Apache. It is not. This is the final release of Apache 1.3... Apache HTTP Servers 2.0 and 2.2 are still being maintained.

    (As an aside, can somebody explain to me how I ended up with 15 mod points? I've never seen this before)

    1. Re:Misleading Summary by jopsen · · Score: 3, Funny

      (As an aside, can somebody explain to me how I ended up with 15 mod points? I've never seen this before)

      You probably deserve them for being as kind as to point out that the apache HTTP server isn't finished... :)

    2. Re:Misleading Summary by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2, Funny

      I regularly get either 5 or 15, usually 15.

      I think it's because I tend to comment in bursts - nothing for a week, then 2 or 3 at a time, and then only when I have something useful to say. Except for the odd sarcastic or joking comment, or if I'm heavily medicated.

      Plus I don't log in all that much, so when I do I have like 3 comments all at +5, or something like that, and bingo 15 mods.

      Posting anon, but if you want to look for patterns in my comments my username is b4dc0d3r. I tend to get in to conversations late so most are un-moderated (+1 for logged in, with karma bonus). So it only takes 3 people willing to waste points on me to get +5.

    3. Re:Misleading Summary by Yossarian45793 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nice try posting anon.

    4. Re:Misleading Summary by Eil · · Score: 3, Funny

      (As an aside, can somebody explain to me how I ended up with 15 mod points? I've never seen this before)

      Those are to be used for moderating all of my last month's comments +1 Insightful. CmdrTaco told me himself, so you can trust me.

  5. Will Slashdot Upgrade? by swajr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if slashdot is actually going to upgrade now...

    1. Re:Will Slashdot Upgrade? by Nimey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dear god, I hoped you were joking.

      Slashdot's running on 1.3.41.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:Will Slashdot Upgrade? by joe_bruin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear god, I hoped you were joking.

      Slashdot's running on 1.3.41.

      This was obviously a joke. Slashdot is still run by a mess of perl scripts. They've yet to drag themselves into early last decade.

    3. Re:Will Slashdot Upgrade? by hardwarefreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dear god, I hoped you were joking.

      Slashdot's running on 1.3.41.

      This was obviously a joke. Slashdot is still run by a mess of perl scripts. They've yet to drag themselves into early last decade.

      It seems you are both correct, slashdot is hosted by Apache 1.3.41 and perl:

      [12:33:43][me@me]/$ telnet www.slashdot.org 80
      Trying 216.34.181.48...
      Connected to www.slashdot.org.
      Escape character is '^]'.
      HEAD / HTTP/1.0

      HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
      Server: Apache/1.3.41 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31-rc4
      Location: http://slashdot.org/
      Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
      Content-Length: 297
      Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:35:42 GMT
      X-Varnish: 785915486 785915484
      Age: 0
      Connection: close

  6. But..... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    the real question is: Has Netcraft confirmed it?

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  7. 1.3 by jjohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:How could they! by suso · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know you're joking, but actually Apache 2.0 was released 10 years ago next month. I remember sitting in the audience at ApacheCon 2000 when they released it. Anyone who is still on 1.3 has been sitting on it for far too long.

  9. Re:We already have. Right away from Apache, even. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  10. Re:How could they! by coolgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really, when you consider they only got mod_perl for 2.x into a production release about 2-3 years ago.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig