Re: commercial support

On 24 November 2014 at 04:59, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > If you're doing Python web apps it would be cool to "pip install httpd > FRAMEWORK-httpd-wiring" and have a command that wires it up based on > framework settings and a bit of other declarative configuration. (similar > for other ecosystems w

Re: commercial support

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Mark Blackman wrote: > Is Apache 2.4 really just as fast as nginx for response times for an > arbitrary number of concurrent connections? > > Apache is great and it’s now so mature that most enterprises are very > comfortable with it, but where nginx started with

Re: commercial support

Is Apache 2.4 really just as fast as nginx for response times for an arbitrary number of concurrent connections? Apache is great and it’s now so mature that most enterprises are very comfortable with it, but where nginx started with a very simple premise and have kept the scope restricted. For

Re: commercial support

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Victor J. Orlikowski > wrote: > > To my mind, at least on RPM-based distributions, that sounds like a set > of > > prefixed RPM packages, that install into a non-default system location, > and > > that can b

Re: commercial support

On Nov 23, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > > Again, you're focusing on the packages, but not on configuration > changes, which I think is what Jeff was trying to point out to begin > with. I'm pretty sure that there's even a .spec file somewhere that the > project used to maintain, a

Re: commercial support

On Nov 23, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > I'm not sure there's much value in this going forward (as opposed to > say 18 months ago) compared to say the doc or evangelism efforts > advocated in Jeff's other thread. Agreed, though I’d say that the true havoc has been in migrating confi

Re: commercial support

On 11/23/2014 4:53 PM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: > On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick > wrote: >> >> Docker would not be the right solution for someone who wants to use >> httpd over the long haul (future updates to httpd+libs while maintain >> existing config,

Re: commercial support

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: > To my mind, at least on RPM-based distributions, that sounds like a set of > prefixed RPM packages, that install into a non-default system location, and > that can be built from APR-Util/APR/httpd source trees. > > To be a bit more spe

Re: commercial support

On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Docker would not be the right solution for someone who wants to use httpd > over the long haul (future updates to httpd+libs while maintain existing > config, etc.); beyond the complication of container layers to manage this > properly, the

Re: commercial support

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > On 11/21/2014 4:21 PM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick > > wrote: > >> > >> * oh, and make it possible for 90% of the potential user base to be > >> running 2.4.lates

Re: commercial support

On 11/21/2014 4:21 PM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: > On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick > wrote: >> >> * oh, and make it possible for 90% of the potential user base to be >> running 2.4.latest in several minutes without possibly interfering >> with existing softw

Re: commercial support

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Victor J. Orlikowski < victor.j.orlikow...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > * oh, and make it possible for 90% of the potential user base to be > running 2.4.latest in several minutes without possibly interfering wit

Re: commercial support

On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: > > The “deploy X application, according to how the developers spelled it out, > isolated from host OS environment” scenario has been pretty much captured and > owned by the Docker folks; they’ve done a masterful job of it. To build on

Re: commercial support

On Nov 21, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > * oh, and make it possible for 90% of the potential user base to be running > 2.4.latest in several minutes without possibly interfering with existing > software; user guide material (above) must support having the user's own > application d

Re: commercial support

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It's a shame that there isn't a company like Covalent > around anymore that focuses on the Apache httpd web-server. > nginx.com shows kinda clearly that having a motivated > company behind a web-server helps grab market share and > market aw

Re: commercial support

t not find it at make time, yada yada yada. I think one aspect that makes this even worse: The nginx generally available in a lot of version (latest-1), (latest-2) distributions is sufficient, whereas the httpd in that same distribution is not, so more people are trying to build (or just using nginx).

Re: commercial support

ude httpd 2.2 may well have too-old APR and APR-Util as well. AIUI, nginx has fewer dependencies. Commercial support sounds nice. I think firms who'd pay for it would really like to get a commercially-supported web server bundled with their “enterprise” operating system. In that se

commercial support

It's a shame that there isn't a company like Covalent around anymore that focuses on the Apache httpd web-server. nginx.com shows kinda clearly that having a motivated company behind a web-server helps grab market share and market awareness (they can continue to beat the drum about how fast and rel