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.
1.3.x isn't being updated. It's in bug fix mode, which means only bugs and security problems are fixed no active development is being done. I think one of the main reason for sticking with 1.3.x for now is that mod_perl for 2.0 isn't considered stable yet. We find it breaks a lot of our mod_perl server management stuff too. 2.0 hasn't been out that long really. How many people out there still run Windows NT4?
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)