From: "Stipe Tolj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:46 AM
> I have seen src/os/util_win32.c contains some code on that. I suppose it is possible
>to use that
> for Cygwin too?!?!
Help 'yrself :-)
> > I'd like to change your comment slightly, to suggest something like
> >
> > "The Win32 port of Apache is built on it's own, custom code within Apache to assure
> > compliance with the Windows operating systems. While it is considered release
>quality,
> > it is slower and less thoroughly tested than the Unix ports. The Cygwin
>alternative
> > uses the well tested unix code, but may suffer from gaps in security or reliability
> > due to the interaction of the Cygwin compatibility layer to the native Windows API,
> > and is therefore considered beta quality at present. The Cygwin port is provided
> > particularly to assist developers from Unix, or targeting Unix, by offering a
> > near-identical implementation of the Unix Apache server. The Win32 port is
> > recommended for all production sites on Windows NT and Windows 2000 servers."
> >
> > Could you live with that summary?
>
> basiclly yes, but I would like to consider the Cygwin port -- if the security hole
>is fixed --
> as an true aternative to Win32 and not simply a Unix-like feature.
We actually waited on the Win32 port until we had a significant userland user base that
was using the code before we made that leap. Since the vast majority of folks working
with
the Apache/Windows code base have focused on the Win32 layer, that port is, at this
point,
considerably better vetted today.
Secondly, with the exception of folks with the Unix background, I believe your
assertion would
cause some confusion amoung novice users, and I'd be -1 on 'recommending' Cygwin to
that class
of users [find build tools... install build tools... etc, etc.] But this is a
seperate and
distinct argument, and I'll shut up and let some other people chime in their thoughts
now.
Let me see if this language helps;
"The Win32 port of Apache is built on its own, custom code within Apache to assure
interoperability with the Windows operating systems. While it is considered release
quality, it is slower and less thoroughly tested than the Unix ports. The Cygwin
alternative uses the well tested unix code by using the Cygwin portability layer for
Unix emulation. The Cygwin port may suffer from gaps in security or reliability due
to the interaction of the Cygwin compatibility layer to the native Windows API."
"The Win32 port will be more familiar to most Windows users. The Cygwin port will be
more
familiar to Unix admins and developers, including the Apache/Unix build environment.
Due to
these two different code bases, the security and reliability of the two ports are
unrelated
to each other. The Win32 port should be considered the more secure of the two at this
time.
The Win32 port is recommended for most Windows users, however the Cygwin port offers
an
extra layer of compatibility for Unix developers."
Bill
