Re: Apache 2.0

But it works really good for plain old html pages!  :-D

There are also those that think that Apache2.x sucks because nobody uses 
it. However, there are those that hold that Apache2 sucks, thus nobody 
uses it. Let me just say that both are true.

Why Red Hat choose to bundle apache2 with a finux/gnu distro that gets 
huge exposure is weird. Why Apache2's api is still changing is uncool. 
Maybe it will start a chain reaction where more people bitch about lack 
of support for their favorite modules, and thus more people get their 
modules and 3rd party libraries to play nice with the new Apache2 API.

I've heard some people say they want to learn apache2 and be ready for 
it when it is the common place httpd. However, if you think about it; 
unless apache2 gets a much more rich set of directives, or the 
server-side scripting modules change dramatically, you will never 
notice. For the most part php4 is the same on apache2 and the scripting 
hasn't change much if any due to Apache2. However I'm sure under the 
hood things look alot different, and mod_mp3 is certainly no exception. 
There are not many reasons to stop using apache1.3, and a few reasons to 
not move to apache2.

As I recall, Apache2 works perfectly well for Slash! I can remember that 
at one point, maybe still, the server that delivers images for a big 
slash site ran Apache2? Then again, you don't need mod_perl to render 
images ;)

Anyways, if you need mod_mp3, just install apache1.3 w/mod_mp3, and 
configure it to use nonprivledged ports. It is possible for the two 
servers to coexist.


-Jon



Brian Aker wrote:

>On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:33, Tim Wunder wrote:
>  
>
>> Anyway, I digress.
>>I'll not bother the list with talk of Apache 2.0 in the future ;-)
>>    
>>
>Its on topic, its just not my priority. It really shouldn't be too much
>work for someone to do. Should be quite possible to keep the two
>versions supported.
>
>	-Brian
>  
>