From: "jlwpc1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:01 PM
.From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 3. 9x is gone. >We will finally be able > to tell users to got to XP (at least the home edition) - same cost as > the old 9x, and at _LEAST_ be working on the NT archtecture. Throwing > substantial effort at 9x is an utterly bogus waste of time, as it is > not an adaquate server architecture (as poor, unexpecting embedded-aol > "Browser" users discover.) > .When will "ASF people" announce .no Win9x in Apache 2.0 to the rest .of the world? Existing 9x functionality will be supported for some time to come. The Q on the table is extending that ... and that's what I've suggested be curtailed. There are a number of constructs that require the NT kernel. There maybe some backwards-broken thunks, but nothing new and 'inventive'. IOW... expect about the same from 1.3 to 2.0 on 9x. Expect much bigger changed from 1.3 to 2.0 for NT. Bill
