hmm, on Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:37:26AM +0200, Tomas Bodzar said that > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Siju George <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I ran apache killer on an OpenBSD 4.7 webserver the processor goes > > only up to 36% and there is no problem with its services. > > Where as the same test on Linux raised all the processors to 100% > > within a matter of few seconds. > > Are you really surprised by this? Why?
i dont get it why are people so upbeat about the in-tree apache. it's basically on life-support. it has no place on any publicly facing webserver that handles more than a handful of connections. it's computing history with an awful xml/not-xml bastard configuration language. even the 2.2/2.4 lines are being seriously left in the dust by the newer alternatives. yes, it has local changes but badly architectured software will still have a flawed architecture even after a security audit. it's not like there are no reasonable alternatives. nginx for example has a nice security record and a 2 clause bsd license. but as it's in the ports i personally dont care if it's in base or ports. sendmail and apache are really the only things in openbsd base that baffle me everytime i cross paths with them. they represent everything the openbsd philosophy refuses. the old apache doesn't bother me either btw. but for dog's sake stop talking about it as viable alternative for serving web content in the 21st century. there is no good reason to use apache 1.3, be it the openbsd audited one or any other variant. -f -- 2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do!
