Jeffrey Burgoyne wrote:
Not trying to poo poo 2.0, I think it is great and required in the marketplace. I always suspected adoption would be slow, especially from the generic masses who use a stock out of the package installation. I've seen nothing to convince me that will not be the case moving forward...
I think the key thing is that Apache v1.3 works, and works very well. If it "aint broken" a lot of people are unwilling to "fix it".
I have switched to v2.0, and now switched to v2.1 bleeding edge, but the driver of this is subversion and an actual working set of LDAP modules. Once people have concrete advantage to a switch they will do it, but until then "just because it's new" isn't a compelling enough reason to upgrade.
There are plenty of reasons to upgrade, many people just don't believe they are good enough. This is why commercial companies have marketing departments.
Apache 2 not a technical failure, its a mind share thing. To 'beat' that, you attack with marketing. Just look at Mozilla/Firefox. The reason Firefox is such a big deal in the open source world is the marketing that they have done. A new pretty website helps too.
Doesn't anyone remember before Firefox 1.0? When Mozilla was huge and slow? Sure, they did some neat things on the technical side to make firefox smaller and faster, but in the same sense, so has httpd.
A bigger question is, should 'we' care at all. Does it matter if people don't use apache 2?
Sure, it would be nice if everyone upgraded, but I hack on Apache 2 for myself. Other people using it is just a bonus.
-Paul
