In related news, the 2.48 [apache.org] version of apache was also released. Was this a slashdot moment, as well? Did I miss a memo? I'm assuming I have. I recently read the O'Reilly book [oreilly.com]on this topic and two things seemed clear. 1) That the authors of the book really preferred the 1.3.x series of httpd to the 2.x series and that 2) BSD is the way to be for Apache (though Linux is an "okay" substitute.) Which really surprised me because threading in Linux is better than BSD.
I don't think it is the learning curve, per se... I made the change-over to 2.x with few problems, other than some security issues that are outside of apache's control (Mandrake 9.x won't allow apache to run CGI without as-yet-unfound configuration changes).
The main problem is that some things written for apache 1.x do not work under 2.x, or have significant problems. PHP was one of them; other modules have been problematic, too. Once PHP ran acceptably, we switched...
what about 2.0.48? (Score:3, Informative)
In related news, the 2.48 [apache.org] version of apache was also released. Was this a slashdot moment, as well? Did I miss a memo? I'm assuming I have. I recently read the O'Reilly book [oreilly.com]on this topic and two things seemed clear. 1) That the authors of the book really preferred the 1.3.x series of httpd to the 2.x series and that 2) BSD is the way to be for Apache (though Linux is an "okay" substitute.) Which really surprised me because threading in Linux is better than BSD.
So my questions are: If they are updating th
Re:what about 2.0.48? (Score:2, Informative)
The main problem is that some things written for apache 1.x do not work under 2.x, or have significant problems. PHP was one of them; other modules have been problematic, too. Once PHP ran acceptably, we switched...