not the people.
Cheers,
Peter
_
Peter J. Cranstone
5o9, Inc.
Boulder, CO USA
Mobile: 303.809.7342 | GMT -7
Skype: Cranstone
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://petercranstone.blogspot.com
Making Web Services Contextually Aware
Web site
So might I make a humble suggestion.
Ask your 65 million customers what they would like in Apache 3.0 - this time
around let someone else tell you what they want.
It's the only way to build something.
Peter J. Cranstone
5o9, Inc.
303.809.7342 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Making Web Applications
Something else you all need to consider which currently no one is talking
about. Root trust and chain of trust from the PC - through the OS - to the
application and on to the customer (client)
The issue is simple - how do I know I can trust the machine let alone the
applications running on the
: Paul A Houle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:07 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: pgp trust for https?
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Currently Windows, Linux and Unix only use two levels of privilege - Ring 3
and Ring 0. Everybody and there uncle's code want
.
Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Cranstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:12 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: pgp trust for https?
No problem - Itanium has the architecture you need. You can isolate all the
physical memory
Bill,
You're no fun ;-)
But seriously though, Apache now has 70% of the Internet web servers running
it's software. The single most important thing on IT minds is web services
followed by security.
Apache needs to think about what it's going to do to make the server more
secure. If you don't
Ron,
Who is trying to serve up 2GB files?
Peter J. Cranstone
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Park [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:24 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Multi-threaded proxy? was Re: re-do of proxy request
bodyhandling - ready
Of course. Apache 1.3 is an old, legacy application, and vastly less
capable than current versions.
But millions and millions of users rely on it everyday. What might help
migration is a simple chart showcasing the differences between 2.x and 1.x
I'm no power user of Apache but I still can't
Can you provide the name of the site?
Thanks,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Nick Kew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Aborting a filter.
I have a problem with mod_deflate's inflate filter (the one I wrote
What about trying mod_gzip with Apache 2.x
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mod_deflate vs mod_gzip
Hi to all,
One of my customers is trying to use to an Apache 2.0.47 using mod_deflate.
1. What was the CPU utilization during the tests
2. What size of file was being benched?
Regards,
Peter
From: Jean-Jacques Clar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.0.48 worker mpm on RH3
Bill,
Here is an interesting link to a problem someone encountered running Apache
on Windows. If he's right there is little hope for Apache to ever run
properly on newer versions of Windows.
http://grumet.net/weblog/archives/2003/11/18/questions_about_windows_apache.
html
Regards,
Peter
Message-
From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 6:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: consider reopening 1.3
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
In today's environment it's all about 2 words - price/performance. Show me
that Apache 2.x can outperform 1.x
modules etc) and they get a performance boost
and while replacing an aging infrastructure.
12 million user on the move - make it easy for them, buy a cheap AMD Opteron
and optimize and improve Apache 1.4 on that box.
Regards,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Cranstone [mailto:[EMAIL
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available
for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Andre Schild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Antw: RE:
then *what* is the driver for 1.4 over 2.x??
Right now I think it's unknown - but with some reasoned debate I think a
path will emerge.
One other thought - Apache needs an enemy - and I mean this in the nicest
possible terms. Having been on the receiving end of the forums venom before
I know
What would 1.4 have or be for that to happen?
You have 12 million users - shouldn't be hard to simply ask them what they
would like to see.
Give the customer what he wants and he will be back for more. HTTP ain't
finished yet, plenty of room for some serious improvement.
And I'd also be
Bill,
Thanks for the great link. Here's one for you:
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/server_graph.html?type=httpdomaindir=
month=200310servbase=YToxOntpOjA7czoxMzoiQXBhY2hlLzEuMy4yNyI7fQ==serv1=QX
BhY2hlLzIuMC40Nw==
It's the historical market share of all servers overlaid with 2.0.47
Good response - ask the customer what he wants and then help him achieve it.
It all starts with stability - compatibility - performance. The ASF has a
tough job ahead of it, getting millions of users to change.
Not an easy task in today's environment
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Ben
Something else to think about...
What's the differentiator in the market place between 1.x and 2.x?
(hint: it's not a feature list)
If I was to go out and buy Apache (Covalent) apart from some management
tools (features) what's the biggest differentiator between the old version
(public domain
It's not anymore cool to work on Apache.
You nailed it - because no one knows where it's going. Where's the focus,
what does Apache really want to be, whose leading the charge?
I've been following this forum a long, long time and the change in the last
2 years has been the most dramatic - the
live the revolution
Regards,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutions
please
Peter J. Cranstone a écrit :
It's
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutions
please
Peter J. Cranstone a écrit :
There is no flame - just a couple of points and a request for data.
If you want to improve something, you
-
From: Colm MacCarthaigh,,, [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colm
MacCarthaigh
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutions
please
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 06:02:36AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote
And in fine what about mod_deflate to be added by default in
Apache 2.0.44 ?
Here's a reason for this. Content encoding and the ability to send
compressed data is part of the HTTP standard and if Apache 2.x is really
HTTP compliant then it should support it.
Why build and offer a new version
and with a current browser
there is no need to install a client side decoder.
Regards,
Peter J. Cranstone
-Original Message-
From: fabio rohrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mod_blanks
I'm going to develop this topic
Couple of thoughts...
1. What if the content is compressed.
2. What about compressed chunked encoding.
3. What if servers start supporting compressed headers. RFC 1144
Regards,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
Sent:
I stand corrected...
But there's no reason why the HTTP header cannot be compressed either.
This is especially critical when conserving bandwidth in an wireless
environment. 1200 byte headers are not uncommon and it a latency laden
environment every bit saved enhances the consumers experience.
happen without
leadership).
Peter J. Cranstone
-Original Message-
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: whither are we going?
As far as having no responsibility to the people/companies
While we're on the subject of benchmarks any numbers from the Covalent
Apache 2.0 version. I.e. how does it perform against the PD version and
or Apache 1.3.x
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 7:46 AM
To: [EMAIL
All I keep thinking, is that we are trying to spite RC by adding a
different GZ module
Don't worry about it. Let's see if we can make a decision on what is
good for the survival of Apache irrespective of what that means for RC.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL
The absolute best way to stay on top of API changes is to make your
code available to the people making those changes.
Rasmus... We don't want any distractions to the core code until it's
stable. It took 5-6 months to get mod_gzip stable for 1.3.x. I doubt it
will take that long in Apache 2.x
I do not believe that adding new functionality to the server is the
way to get a release out the door.
Ryan, I agree with you on this point. Apache has to get to solid beta
before ANY new functionality is included. I believe I have backed you on
this subject before. It is simply too much to
: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: why not post mod_gzip 2.0? (was: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to
httpd-2.0)
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
I suppose the only thing we can do
After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian... are you a
mod_gz to httpd-2.0
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
After 3-4 years we know exactly how you work.
Oh? Then what is the explanation for Kevin publicly soliciting an
individual to do something that recent discussion has shown the group
considers moot?
Regardless of facts, it is perception
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
Okay, I'll bite.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:46:55PM -0600, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
[Snip: nothing that hasn't been said in this thread before]
If it's not technical, then it's social (you just plain don't like
us... Not a problem
If somebody does find that name as a product anyplace, please let me
know ASAP.
It was on a recent CNET release:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6963955.html
Compaq Computer has signed a deal with Covalent Technology to jointly
develop and market Covalent's Apache Web server software,
] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Conversation is over. I have nothing more to add. This whole
conversation is degenerating into meaningless nonsense.
Someone else can carry the thread.
This clever technique of ducking out of the conversation rather than
answering pointed
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Add mod_gz to httpd-2.0
At 12:42 PM -0600 9/2/01, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
It's an amazing analysis of mod_gzip on HTTP traffic and includes all
Guys,
Whatever you want to do. I don't care. Vote on mod_gz for 2.x and
mod_gzip for 1.3.x (we submitted this to the ASF last October 13 2000)
It's really that simple, you can debate it for evermore. Kevin and I are
focused on mod_gzip 2.x which will be released when 2.x goes solid beta.
This
Hi All,
I think Sander sum it up nicely.
- It is part of the spec. Apache should implement the spec.
- Almost all new browsers support IETF content encoding/transfer
encoding. In testing with MSIE 6.x and Netscape 6.1
compression works fine.
- The biggest users of mod_gzip are
42 matches
Mail list logo
