I cut out what I said, but believe me I have never made an argument that 
Apache was better than AOLserver for anything other than extreme mass hosting 
of cgi style applications. If you eliminate fastcgi, maybe you could consider 
them even, I don't know. But there will always be a difference between  the 
models: AOLserver is single, long running process. Apache can start a new 
process with any uid/gid for every request. So Apache can start up very 
quickly, AOLserver startup has an additive startup time. This is a fact, not 
a criticism. I'm not interested in mass hosting or beating Apache in this 

tom jackson

On Tuesday 07 August 2007 13:24, Jeff Rogers wrote:
> I'm not trying to be super-advocate boy here, but it just seems like
> everyone here is making arguments as to why aolserver really isn't good
> enough compared to apache and it saddens me

AOLserver -

To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: 
field of your email blank.

Reply via email to