My 2c! 2018-04-18 19:21 GMT+02:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > IMO, this boils down to 2 things: > > > > 1. nginx, particularly, does a LOT of promoting, marketing, PR, etc... > > We don't. They get to promote their FUD all the time and remain > > pretty much unchallenged. > > Launched a thread on one aspect we don't have right, and not limited > to nginx. Another aspect we probably won't solve-for is the tendency > for new server/proxy solutions to be linux-only, or linux/windows. So > long as we can abstract it, we don't have any reason to jettison other > active platform communities which offer enough features. > > > Personally, I'd like to see the the PMC take a more active and > > direct role in addressing #1, maybe w/ monthly blog posts > > coordinated w/ Sally. It would also be cool to reboot Apache Week > > (I know it was an external, 3rd party effort) in in conjunction > > w/ the blog posts or instead of it. > > That's a great idea! But the readers are almost exclusively httpd's > adopters, rarely those who are adopters of other technology. > Would it help retention of existing admins? Sure, somewhat. > Before joining the httpd project as contributor I struggled to find good technical sources about how the httpd internals work, especially when it comes to important bits like mpm-event and how its architecture can be compared with other products. One of my first tasks was to improve the mpm-event's documentation page, and it took me a ton of time to understand a very high level overview of it (plus a lot of people patiently tried to explain to me how things were working). Without good "authoritative" references a lot of people can write whatever they want on httpd, because there are too few people that can scan the web and discuss inaccuracies ( https://xkcd.com/386). I keep struggling with internals in these days, even if I check httpd's code daily, so I can't imagine somebody not involved in the project that tries to make a comparison between httpd and product X, when the latter has a ton of good explanation about how it works in detail (most of the times with a lot of really explicative graphics attached). My point is: blogging is fine, but before even starting that I'd focus on dumping everybody's knowledge in sections of the docs like http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer. It is boring and less fun than writing C code for sure, but I bet that a ton of people would enjoy details about how things work. It will be easier for people to spot "liars" in the web that focus their marketing strategy only on how httpd is "old" and not performant too.. > Until we shake this notion of "2.6/3.0 considered harmful", the httpd > project is effectively concluded/no more than a couple tinkerers' > patch collection. > Don't really want to comment on other subjects but only pointing that the statement, in my opinion, is not true. I saw a lot of people recently pushing for 2.6, and I believe that everybody's agree that it needs to be done. We are still trying to find a balance between eagerness of improve how 2.4 works and its limits, but I am pretty sure we'll find a way soon. Luca
