I think you may find yourself somewhat in the minority in thinking
Apache is bad software. (I certainly have my complaints about it, but in
general I find it more robust, flexible, and bug-free than just about
any other software I work with).
But aside from getting into a war about some particular package: It may
be true that in general popular software does not necessarily equal good
software -- even popular open source software. And doesn't neccesarily
equal the right software solution for your problem. (I could mention
some library-sector-origin open source software I think proves that, but
I won't, and it would just be my opinion anyways, like yours of Apache).
But popular software _does_ mean software that has a much higher chance
of continuing to evolve with the times instead of stagnating, getting
it's bugs and security flaws fixed in a timely manner, and having a much
larger base of question-answering and support available for it (both
free and paid).
Which is one important criteria for evaluating open source software. But
nobody was suggesting it should be the _only_ criteria used for
evaluating open source software, or even neccesarily the most important.
It depends on your situation.
Jonathan
Thomas Krichel wrote:
Nicole Engard writes
That's why I added in 'user' to the community.
No matter how many people use Apache based web sites, it
does not make it Apache software better.
Telling people to use what others are using is just simple
propaganda to stifle competition.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
http://authorclaim.org/profile/pkr1
skype: thomaskrichel
