Personally, I have seen some hosting providers which I have talked to (and worked with) hold back because existing client's htaccess scripts sometimes experience quirks under 2.0.
In one case I have been privvy to, a test implementation was done with a server that was practically a replica of a running client hosting environment (as it was created from a backup), then upgraded the underlying apache from 1.3 to 2.0 with a configuration of modules as close to the old one as possible. In that case, several client sites with dynamic applications started throwing up errors due to configuration changes (and perhaps misconfigurations) in a combination of scripts and htaccess files. In one particular case, a <files> block was being used to force processing of anything called in a certain directory as a PHP script in order to provide a "true" path-info address for a dynamic script. (instead of blah/this.php/that/that its blah/this/that/that ). I am not sure if this is still the case or not... Also, I know that in some cases, adoption of Apache 2 was delayed by integration with tools that provide some level of automated administration. In most installations, this has already been solved but it certainly hindered the initial adoption rate. -- -------------------- Wayne S. Frazee "Any sufficiently developed bug is indistinguishable from a feature." On Thursday 18 November 2004 12:43, Graham Leggett wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been keen to do some digging for reasons why someone might need to > install httpd v1.3 instead of v2.0 or later.
pgpWXkrMGnDJa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
