ouch. that was painful to read.
im going to help everyone else to stop the eye strain:
Slashdot Mirror of Text: --- PHP's anti-Apache2 FUD
My biggest objection to PHP is the anti-Apache2 FUD that they spread.
Indeed, they seem to be the ones primarily responsible for the anti-Apache2 FUD.
This is unfortunate, since there are few remaining legitimate reasons for avoiding Apache2, and it's a shame that they feel the need to manufacture one.
So, to quote the PHP docs: Do not use Apache 2.0.x and PHP in a production environment neither on Unix nor on Windows.
This is further clarified in the FAQ with a long description which starts, unfortunately, with a misconception, namely: The major feature that draws people to Apache 2 is threading.
It then goes on to explain why threading is, potentially, a problem with PHP, why this is not, technically, PHP's fault, and so PHP cant fix it.
All very correct, really. And, so, very logically, it concludes that there's no reason to move to Apache 2, and that everyone should stick with Apache 1.3.
This argument suffers from one main flaw. That is, that the initial assumption, from which everything flows, is just plain wrong.
Yes, threading is cool, and is a major shinyness with Apache 2. However, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only, or even the main, reason for moving to Apache 2.0.
There are a *lot* of other much better reasons for moving to Apache 2.0, none of which pose any threat to PHP. I've covered those in my OnLamp article, and so won't repeat them here.
Apache 2.0, running with a prefork MPM, works great with PHP, and gives you all those other benefits.
The additional benefit is a little more subtle. Apache 1.3 is becoming "legacy". Meaning that the real developers are focusing more on 2.0.
The 2.0 docs are better.
2.0 (and 2.1) gets the new features, the documentation improvements, and the newly clarified directives and error messages.
Thus, 1.3 becomes harder and harder to support.
So, increasingly, the PHP questions are coming from folks that are running 1.3, and the solutions offered just don't work, because they are things added in 2.0 to solve exactly the irritations that these folks are having.
So, I entreat the PHP folks to remove this incorrect anti-Apache 2.0 tirade from their documentation, and replace it with a more balanced and correct explanation of the issues involved, and the recommended solution.
Namely, that people go ahead and move to Apache 2.0, but stick with a Prefork MPM. This gives them most of the benefits of Apache 2.0, but removes the irritating threading issues.
Nobody blames PHP for those threading issues (at least, people who have taken the trouble to actually understand the issue don't), so there's no slight on the PHP developers implied here.
I'd be glad to participate in this to any degree that you like. I actually enjoy writing documentation, and I'm increasingly using PHP for my own work.
Please?
from someone who enjoys documentation, that was painful:P
FreeBSD was (as you correctly pointed out) used as the "front end" mail processing part of the service. Sun's Solaris is still used as the "back end" mail processing part of the service. Only the FreeBSD front-end has been replaced with Windows. Microsoft still cannot get Windows 2K to be powerful enough to replace the Solaris UNIX back-end.
Although MS has replaced some of hotmail from bsd to win2k, for other portions, win2k is just not powerful enough to replace the Solaris UNIX back-end.
In the first section of the Preface, I cite the Microsoft-owned Hotmail service as an example of a major production facility that uses FreeBSD. Several reviewers pointed out that after Hotmail was purchased by Microsoft, they commenced a program to eliminate all usage of FreeBSD and replace it with Windows 2000, and that citing Yahoo as being entirely run on FreeBSD (which it is) would be a better cite.
I rejected this purely for political reasons. Most people aren't aware of this, but Microsoft itself extensively used BSD UNIX for years for Internet serving through the Windows NT 3.51 days. This continued well into the Windows NT 4.0 days, although during that time the company began hard efforts to switch away from BSD UNIX to NT. This was not done because NT was technically superior but rather because Microsoft wanted to "eat their own dog food" as the industry line goes.
The upshot of this is present even today. Microsoft uses Conexxion as their principal offsite FTP service to distribute upgrades of Microsoft Internet Explorer and other programs, purely for this reason. It is simply because NT 4.X and even Windows 2000 is not capable of serving such a large volume of files onto the public Internet. Other companies, such as Walnut Creek/BSDi and Sun, have no problems distributing just as large an amount of data because they use UNIX. Microsoft has mandated that this kind of file update only occur over NT/Win2K. As a result, it takes an entire plant stuffed to the gills with NT servers to accomplish the same thing that only a few UNIX servers are needed to do. After all, when the work is continually subdivided, eventually the limits of NT's abilities are reached. Because of having to involve so many NT servers, it turns what would be a simple task under UNIX into a giant task involving hundreds of people. In short, it cannot be done in-house anymore and must be turned over to an entirely separate company that specializes in distributing large quantities of files with Windows platforms. While every other major company that uses UNIX like Solaris or the FreeBSD operating system can distribute large numbers of files over the Internet without a lot of expense and effort, Microsoft--purely for marketing reasons--has to hamstring themselves and spend millions of unnecessary dollars. The fact that they admit this and were unable to redesign Hotmail into an Windows-only service deserves to be made obvious.
The final word on the Hotmail affair is this: FreeBSD is used as the "front end" mail processing part of the service. Sun's Solaris is used as the "back end" mail processing part of the service. Only the FreeBSD front-end has been replaced with Windows. Microsoft still cannot get Windows 2K to be powerful enough to replace the Solaris UNIX back-end.
end quote
Additionally, in their own whitepaper about the bds portion being migrated to win2k, (references here - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_t outs_unix/) they themselves state all sorts of advantages of unix, such as kernel stability, processing ability and complexity of windows.
"What Linux REALLY needs to overthrow Windows, is a multiplatform RAD environment for C++"
Interesting thought. Sounds like you are describing Borland C++ Builder, which has been around for years:)
It is a multiplatform development environment (Windows, Linux or Solaris) for C++
C++ Builder uses the Borland IDE that many consider much better than the other crappy C++ IDEs (like Visual Studio) and from what I gather their compiler is pretty darn good as well.
Don't just grumble, do what I did and send them feedback.
Send a note to zdnet sales@zdnet.com.au ads@zdnet.com.au print sales@zdnet.com.au bigail.baker@zdnet.com.au sally.slarke@zdnet.com.au
CC the author/editor: edit@zdnet.com.au
While you are at it, CC the manager of RMIT IT Test Labs who did the testing: stevet@rmit.edu.au
Or if you want, post zdnet feedback to the article: http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software /talkback. htm?PROCESS=post&AT=39172027-39023769t-1000010 2c
Don't just grumble, do what I did and send them feedback.
Send a note to zdnet
sales@zdnet.com.au
ads@zdnet.com.au or
printsales@zdnet.com.au or
abigail.baker@zdnet.com.au
sally.slarke@zdnet.com.au
CC the author/editor:
edit@zdnet.com.au
While you are at it, CC the manager of RMIT IT Test Labs who did the testing:
stevet@rmit.edu.au
Orif you want, post zdnet feedback to the article:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/talkback. htm?PROCESS=post&AT=39172027-39023769t-1000010 2c
After I posted that last message, I realized that someone is sure to think I meant that we should have a wifi version of the portable satellite radio receiver system, including the car kit etc.
What I was actually thinking was more along the line of a MP3 player with a wifi reciever built in, that could save internet radio tunes to flash media.
Slashdot Mirror
heh
McAfee is still using version 4.3.10 on their boards
I wonder how long it will take someone to get them too.
it would be ironic if a security company like them got hacked with something this easy
from someone who enjoys documentation, that was painful
Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times)
c le?AID=/20041209/REVIEWS/41122004
"The movie is all about behavior, dialogue, star power and wiseass in-jokes. I really sort of liked it."
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti
Netcraft has a tool to show all the current front end servers for any url.
w w.hotmail.com&probe=1
:)
interestingly enough, netcraft says this about hotmail: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=http://w
lol, one of their loadballanced servers is BSD
maybe you missed my main point...
FreeBSD was (as you correctly pointed out) used as the "front end" mail processing part of the service. Sun's Solaris is still used as the "back end" mail processing part of the service. Only the FreeBSD front-end has been replaced with Windows. Microsoft still cannot get Windows 2K to be powerful enough to replace the Solaris UNIX back-end.
errr.. they do have unix boxes:
- 1.html)
t outs_unix/) they themselves state all sorts of advantages of unix, such as kernel stability, processing ability and complexity of windows.
:)
Although MS has replaced some of hotmail from bsd to win2k, for other portions, win2k is just not powerful enough to replace the Solaris UNIX back-end.
Quote:
(from http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/rejrev/pref
In the first section of the Preface, I cite the Microsoft-owned Hotmail service as an example of a major production facility that uses FreeBSD. Several reviewers pointed out that after Hotmail was purchased by Microsoft, they commenced a program to eliminate all usage of FreeBSD and replace it with Windows 2000, and that citing Yahoo as being entirely run on FreeBSD (which it is) would be a better cite.
I rejected this purely for political reasons. Most people aren't aware of this, but Microsoft itself extensively used BSD UNIX for years for Internet serving through the Windows NT 3.51 days. This continued well into the Windows NT 4.0 days, although during that time the company began hard efforts to switch away from BSD UNIX to NT. This was not done because NT was technically superior but rather because Microsoft wanted to "eat their own dog food" as the industry line goes.
The upshot of this is present even today. Microsoft uses Conexxion as their principal offsite FTP service to distribute upgrades of Microsoft Internet Explorer and other programs, purely for this reason. It is simply because NT 4.X and even Windows 2000 is not capable of serving such a large volume of files onto the public Internet. Other companies, such as Walnut Creek/BSDi and Sun, have no problems distributing just as large an amount of data because they use UNIX. Microsoft has mandated that this kind of file update only occur over NT/Win2K. As a result, it takes an entire plant stuffed to the gills with NT servers to accomplish the same thing that only a few UNIX servers are needed to do. After all, when the work is continually subdivided, eventually the limits of NT's abilities are reached. Because of having to involve so many NT servers, it turns what would be a simple task under UNIX into a giant task involving hundreds of people. In short, it cannot be done in-house anymore and must be turned over to an entirely separate company that specializes in distributing large quantities of files with Windows platforms. While every other major company that uses UNIX like Solaris or the FreeBSD operating system can distribute large numbers of files over the Internet without a lot of expense and effort, Microsoft--purely for marketing reasons--has to hamstring themselves and spend millions of unnecessary dollars. The fact that they admit this and were unable to redesign Hotmail into an Windows-only service deserves to be made obvious.
The final word on the Hotmail affair is this: FreeBSD is used as the "front end" mail processing part of the service. Sun's Solaris is used as the "back end" mail processing part of the service. Only the FreeBSD front-end has been replaced with Windows. Microsoft still cannot get Windows 2K to be powerful enough to replace the Solaris UNIX back-end.
end quote
Additionally, in their own whitepaper about the bds portion being migrated to win2k, (references here - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_
a good read
bah... the site has been down all day.
can you lame-Os stop surfing at work so i can visit the main review?
"What Linux REALLY needs to overthrow Windows, is a multiplatform RAD environment for C++"
:)
Interesting thought. Sounds like you are describing Borland C++ Builder, which has been around for years
It is a multiplatform development environment (Windows, Linux or Solaris) for C++
C++ Builder uses the Borland IDE that many consider much better than the other crappy C++ IDEs (like Visual Studio) and from what I gather their compiler is pretty darn good as well.
Here is the main page
The scaled down version is free on their download page
but the fully loaded enterprise version is a bit pricey
sorry for the poor formatting before folks
t sales@zdnet.com.au bigail.baker@zdnet.com.au sally.slarke@zdnet.com.au
e /talkback. htm?PROCESS=post&AT=39172027-39023769t-1000010 2c
Don't just grumble, do what I did and send them feedback.
Send a note to zdnet
sales@zdnet.com.au
ads@zdnet.com.au
prin
CC the author/editor:
edit@zdnet.com.au
While you are at it, CC the manager of RMIT IT Test Labs who did the testing: stevet@rmit.edu.au
Or if you want, post zdnet feedback to the article:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/softwar
Don't just grumble, do what I did and send them feedback. Send a note to zdnet sales@zdnet.com.au ads@zdnet.com.au or printsales@zdnet.com.au or abigail.baker@zdnet.com.au sally.slarke@zdnet.com.au CC the author/editor: edit@zdnet.com.au While you are at it, CC the manager of RMIT IT Test Labs who did the testing: stevet@rmit.edu.au Orif you want, post zdnet feedback to the article: http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/talkback. htm?PROCESS=post&AT=39172027-39023769t-1000010 2c
After I posted that last message, I realized that someone is sure to think I meant that we should have a wifi version of the portable satellite radio receiver system, including the car kit etc.
What I was actually thinking was more along the line of a MP3 player with a wifi reciever built in, that could save internet radio tunes to flash media.
Silly thought but...
How about a wifi enabled version, that tunes into internet radio stations automatically?
That is something that I would consider buying.