I'm not a PHP guy, so I can't be definitive about that, but the two big areas where Apache 2.0 seems to have been un-finished are PHP and mod_perl support. Random poking around on Google suggests anecdotally that this was true at least as recently as July, according to a random blog hit [afongen.com].
You're certainly welcome to try it -- bug testers are always welcome for any open source project -- but last I heard the conventional wisdom was still to avoid Apache2 for any site that needs stable mod_perl or PHP support
As far as I know the problem isn't so much with Apache2 but with the changing API and modules because they haven't been rewritten/debugged to the specs of A2 to take advantage of it's architecture.
Apache 2: Improvements Are Obvious, But Upgrade Choices Aren't [earthweb.com]
Big Changes ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Apache Section's Motto: (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot's Apache Section: For The Apache Admin Who Just Refuses To Get On The Mailing List.
Why Not 2.0? (Score:2)
OK, I'll admit not being on the apache mailing list.
But I'm thinking of installing Apache (and gentoo ) on an unused Athlon box.
Is there any reason not to install the latest Apache 2.0 instead of the 1.3 series?
[I ask because, IIRC, early releases of 2.0 didn't support the latest PHP.]
Re:Why Not 2.0? (Score:2)
I'm not a PHP guy, so I can't be definitive about that, but the two big areas where Apache 2.0 seems to have been un-finished are PHP and mod_perl support. Random poking around on Google suggests anecdotally that this was true at least as recently as July, according to a random blog hit [afongen.com].
You're certainly welcome to try it -- bug testers are always welcome for any open source project -- but last I heard the conventional wisdom was still to avoid Apache2 for any site that needs stable mod_perl or PHP support
Re:Why Not 2.0? (Score:1)