At 06:18 AM 4/6/2002, you wrote: > > From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 06 April 2002 13:53 > > > What bothers me is the statement the "Win32 port of Apache is not as stable > > as the UNIX version". > >This is not in the 2.0 part of the page. This only goes for 1.3. In the >2.0 section: > >"This version of Apache is known to work on many versions of Unix, BeOS, OS/2, > Windows, and Netware. Because of many of the advancements in Apache 2.0, the > initial release of Apache is expected to perform equally well on all > supported > platforms"
Exactly the point. The 1.3 Win32 port is certainly not as stable or robust as Unix... that warning [whenever 1.3 is mentioned] is still needed. > > And on the other hand what is the Win32 port? Is it Windows 95, Windows NT > > 4, 2000, or XP? > >I think that we can safely assume that Apache 2.0 was targetted at Windows >NT 4 and >up. I personally wouldn't want to have to worry about Windows 9x (for obvious >reasons I think). Correct. Win9x has never been 'supported' [surprize] but we have always taken the position, "if it works for you, great". Pre-9x won't work at all, WinNT 4.0 SP5 or later is required for WinSock2 and some other bugs. WinXP has a broken afd.sys that must be patched. Some 3rd party VPN clients are borked. So we can't really say "This Just Works" on every OS... but hopefully the easier query and filing options in Bugzilla will help folks identify specific problems with specific Win9x or even Netware, OS2 and Unix family kernels. Bill Bill
