People will move Apache 1.x to this platform because there is virtually NO
migration cost (i.e. recoding modules etc) and they get a performance boost
and while replacing an aging infrastructure.
12 million user on the move - make it easy for them, buy a cheap AMD Opteron
and optimize and improve
: consider reopening 1.3
People will move Apache 1.x to this platform because there is virtually NO
migration cost (i.e. recoding modules etc) and they get a performance boost
and while replacing an aging infrastructure.
12 million user on the move - make it easy for them, buy a cheap AMD
Opteron
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available
for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at
ftp://ftp.kame.net/pub/kame/misc/
they
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it available
for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
The KAME project has IPv6 patches for 1.3.* at
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support)
with all the Windows
specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with
Apache 1.3 modules would
probably see rapid uptake. I can't
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit
support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source
compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would
probably see
Glenn wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit
support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source
compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would
On Nov 17, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:01:46AM -0700, Peter J. Cranstone wrote:
Oh yes - forgot about v6... that's a must have for Apache. Is it
available
for 1.x? If not that would be the first feature to add.
The KAME project has
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit
support) with all the Windows specific code stripped out and source
compatability (to
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64 bit support) with all the Windows
specific code stripped out and source compatability (to the extent possible) with Apache 1.3 modules would
probably see rapid
On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be
generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in
IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return on that
investment. Making the jump to Apache 2.0
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 17, 2003, at 2:22 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
In this economic environment (and perhaps this will turn out to be
generally true from now on), companies are not making investments in
IT unless they can get a proven and almost immediate return
* Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively
that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in
the world.
*shrug*
Big or not, if it's the only one, it can develop the stuff it needs itself. I
On Nov 17, 2003, at 3:17 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
As someone working in a company like that, I can tell you definitively
that this is not true. At least not here at the biggest web company in
the world.
-Rasmus
Well, I can certainly say that with respect to many, many of
the clients I've
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Look at the impact of not having 2.0 modules severely
limited the acceptance of 2.0. Not having 1.4 modules
will most certainly do the same*. If 1.4 == 1.3,
binary-wise, then it's a non-issue; if not, it's
a *major* issue.
* Yes, part of the delay was due to porting, which
: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antw: RE: consider reopening 1.3
Glenn wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:31:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Apache 1.4, an APR'ized version of Apache 1.3 (to pick up IPV6 and 64
16 matches
Mail list logo
