On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Res wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: >>>> Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these >>>> products, a big +1 on that proposal. >>>> >>> Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :( >> >> I agree, however if it is EOL'd (yes Jeff, I agree this is likely more >> of an appropriate term :) ) you more or less can advise the requestor >> they are using a very old and unsupported version and that they should >> use the current stable version 2.2.xx > > These questions aren't a bother on an established 1.3 server, we all have > to support legacy systems. > > What is frightening is the number of users who are clearly deploying their > httpd server with 1.3, for the first time, and trying to learn that. Almost > want to suggest to them that they go take a community college class on COBOL > while they are at it, since they are clearly trying to improve their technical > knowledge. Heh >
You could just put a anti troll like system where you ask a question only someone who's used 1.3 for a long time would know before letting them download. New users wouldn't be able to answer it and would be pointed to 2.2 branch ;) </sarc> It's understandable that you can't just magicly update a legacy 1.3 to a 2.x series without breaking a whole lot of stuff. But's sadly as you say, a lot users seem to be new to httpd and still grab 1.3 for some insane reason! Maybe adding some form of color coding (for the non-colorblind) on the download page, green -> current, orange/yellow -> old stable, red -> EOL Then again that would probably not have a big effect :( I also think punch cards > COBAL course! That will teach em to proof read there code before hitting compile ;) /me off to more studying Jorge
