[nycbug-talk] Re: apache stability

[a nice bug]

Jim Brown:
> * Pete Wright <pete at finn.nomadlogic.org> [2005-01-23 21:51]:
> > On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 07:15:06PM -0500, Jim Brown wrote:
> > > * lists at genoverly.net <lists at genoverly.net> [2005-01-23 08:04]:
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:55:37 -0500
> > > > "steve" <steve at n2sw.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In your opinion is apache2 ready for production use, am looking at a 
> > > > > setup that includes php, perl, and ssl. 
> > > > 
> > > > As already stated, people run both for different reasons.  I tried 2 a
> > > > while back but had problems with PHP.  I have not re-tried in over a
> > > > year, so things may have changed.  1.3 is rock solid and tested, and
> > > > has been scrutinized by the security conscience for a long time.   If
> > > > it is OpenBSD you will run 1.3.  
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > More specifically, it's 1.3.29 and frozen there.  See the slashdot
> > > story at http://apache.slashdot.org/apache/04/06/07/1621254.shtml?tid=2&tid=7
> > > and the OBSD list discussion at 
> > > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2004-06/0448.html
> > > 
> > > Bummer...
> > > 
> > 
> > depending on which side of the debate you are on this may be a good thing.  i'm 
> > personally leaning towards this being a good move by the openbsd team, as i really
> > do think the new apache lisc. is much less free than the original lisc.  anyway
> > just my 2bits ;)
> > 
> > -p
> > 
> 
> I applaud OpenBSD for taking a stance on free licenses, yes.   But I'm
> disappointed as I watch them get further and further away from production
> releases the rest of the world is using.  
> 
> There is really no good choice here.  OBSD certainly can't spend scarce
> resources to keep Apache (and other good software) up to date in their
> own sources.  But the rest of the world moves on.  Soon, those
> versions will be *way* out of date, and won't work with other software.
> What then?
> 
> I'm feeling this pain right now.  I want to put up a web site on OBSD.
> What server should I use?  Apache 1.3.29?  1.3.31?  thttpd?

1.3.33 :) 
 
All of these problems are eliminated if you were to build your
Apache application platform from source code. 
 
It's a little more work, resulting in a lot more control. For an
application as critical (and as modular) as Apache, why be tied to a
ports tree that brings with it G-- knows what political baggage and
dependency limitations? Wouldn't you want full control of your
complex build of Apache/PHP or mod_perl, or _________? As it
appears, a coreteam/ports tree maintenance decision can put an end
to my platform upgrade path essentially overnight.