im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3. innumerable scripts, modules, software were coded for 1.3, and there are innumerable websites that still need those stuff. even the clients which start with newer versions are sometimes having to go back to 1.3 because they need some module or software that is uncommon but vital in their line of business.
'obsolete','old','development ceased','not supported' etc do not count. this is about business. small businesses and individuals, who constitute the majority of the web dont have the funds or time to get all their setups ported to a wholly new webserver. they just wont. because they cant. its just like the xp -> vista -> 7 thing, but much more serious in that, they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves.
2.0 didnt get hold at all in the broad web. there are 'edgy' people using it, and edgy web hosts offering it, but majority of the hosts just offer 1.3 because of the software support for it. just like windows and its broad software support base.
this is a practical issue. people wont just roll over to 2.0 or 2.2 just because smart programmers made them, and they work better. there are more pragmatic issues at stake here. if you dont take backwards compatibility into FULL account, people wont use your new version and just go with the old. as long as there are charitable people (in or outside the apache developer base) that fixes any security issues that are found out, they will just stay on 1.3. this WONT be good for either apache, or open source software in general.
i implore you, please do not be elitist or self righteous and try to force anything on the people. for, this is 'the people', leave aside not liking being forced (and hating self righteous behavior), this time they dont have the means and resources to do what they are forced either.
remember, software didnt build the web - people did it.
There's no way I can subscribe to the notion that Apache developers (or anyone, really) has an ethical obligation to keep maintaining a 10 year old codebase with any kind of implied guarantee. If there was a contract in place requiring that, then sure; but there isn't such a thing here.
Any people using Apache 1.3 should have really see this coming, and there's absolutely no excuse not to. It's the standard way of doing things in this industry, and if anything, the term was already waaay longer than is common.
Furthermore, the options are also fairly obvious:
1. Upgrade your environment to 2.2 (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).
2. Keep maintaining 1.3 on your own (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).
3. Migrate to a different server (or pay... you get the idea).
Now you also say that:
they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves
to which I can only reply, "too bad, they should have engaged their brains at some point in the past - they had 10 years to do so". If they're screwed, they have absolutely no-one to blame by themselves.
Of course, in reality, when they realize that the FOSS white knight in shining armor won't save their ass by keeping to provide them quality software for free this time, you can bet the funds will suddenly be found. Furthermore, I suspect that vast majority of those people would actually go with option #1, and just upgrade to 2.2 (and also learn their lesson to keep up with the update curve to a reasonable extent to minimize "late upgrade" expenses).
Or maybe, if there are really that many 1.3 users who absolutely won't move to 2.2, and each one has so little money they can't pay anyone to get them to move to anything else, either (where are they hosting? in the basement?), then, well, the beauty of FOSS is that they can also come together, form some sort of non-profit funded by all of them - with minimal amount of contribution from each - that would hire people to fork and maintain 1.3 for the benefit of all.
Or maybe they can just donate to OpenBSD.
In any case, if people "don't have the means or resources" (which ultimately means "money") to do their business, then they shouldn't stay in that business - it really is as simple as that.
logical words, rationalizations, and even being right wont change the matter.
the success of a project, and ultimately open source depends on people using it. if the people and businesses using it are left out in the cold like piles of crap, by a major project, even only once, the opinion against open source will change. and the masses which were using that software will switch to other providers. very probably closed source proprietory software, because at least
How many years do you expect 1.x to be supported? 2.x is a bit over 8 years old right now, and as OP notes, it might not run on modern OSs. At some point, people will have to make the change (staying still is for the Amish - not everyone needs to be an early adopter, but doing anything on 1.x is getting very curmudgeonly at this point. You're not going to see a lot of support for ancient software in open *or* closed source environments.
Also, you're not the people if you're thinking this way, you're a busine
small businesses do not have the funds or time to make any kind of migration. this is a matter of life and death for many. 'necessities' of business, or 'technology' do not make any difference in such a situation. especially during a global crisis.
Then they will die. The world is not going to stand still for them. Customers arn't going to keep wanting Apache 1.x. OS's will stop supporting it. They won't be able to keep it secure if they stay behind on old OS's, and eventually won't be able to replace hardware when it wears out because such an old OS won't run on it. Changing tax codes might cause their frozen-in-time accountant's head to burst. Changing legal requirements might cause these in-a-rut businesses to fall apart.
im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3.
I'm not sure if you are in the ghetto end of the web hosting business or what, but 1.3 hasn't been in the norm in years. In the real world of webhosting, we can afford keyboards with a working shift key too. Tool.
Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what
one is talking about nor whether what is said is true.
-- Russell
Fully backwards compatible, or dead end. (Score:1)
sorry.
im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3. innumerable scripts, modules, software were coded for 1.3, and there are innumerable websites that still need those stuff. even the clients which start with newer versions are sometimes having to go back to 1.3 because they need some module or software that is uncommon but vital in their line of business.
'obsolete','old','development ceased','not supported' etc do not count. this is about business. small businesses and individuals, who constitute the majority of the web dont have the funds or time to get all their setups ported to a wholly new webserver. they just wont. because they cant. its just like the xp -> vista -> 7 thing, but much more serious in that, they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves.
2.0 didnt get hold at all in the broad web. there are 'edgy' people using it, and edgy web hosts offering it, but majority of the hosts just offer 1.3 because of the software support for it. just like windows and its broad software support base.
this is a practical issue. people wont just roll over to 2.0 or 2.2 just because smart programmers made them, and they work better. there are more pragmatic issues at stake here. if you dont take backwards compatibility into FULL account, people wont use your new version and just go with the old. as long as there are charitable people (in or outside the apache developer base) that fixes any security issues that are found out, they will just stay on 1.3. this WONT be good for either apache, or open source software in general.
i implore you, please do not be elitist or self righteous and try to force anything on the people. for, this is 'the people', leave aside not liking being forced (and hating self righteous behavior), this time they dont have the means and resources to do what they are forced either.
remember, software didnt build the web - people did it.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
So, do all people in "web development business" lack the SHIFT key or just you?
Re: (Score:0)
Maybe he just likes Mark Twain:
http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/spell.htm
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fully backwards compatible, or dead end. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way I can subscribe to the notion that Apache developers (or anyone, really) has an ethical obligation to keep maintaining a 10 year old codebase with any kind of implied guarantee. If there was a contract in place requiring that, then sure; but there isn't such a thing here.
Any people using Apache 1.3 should have really see this coming, and there's absolutely no excuse not to. It's the standard way of doing things in this industry, and if anything, the term was already waaay longer than is common.
Furthermore, the options are also fairly obvious:
1. Upgrade your environment to 2.2 (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).
2. Keep maintaining 1.3 on your own (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).
3. Migrate to a different server (or pay... you get the idea).
Now you also say that:
they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves
to which I can only reply, "too bad, they should have engaged their brains at some point in the past - they had 10 years to do so". If they're screwed, they have absolutely no-one to blame by themselves.
Of course, in reality, when they realize that the FOSS white knight in shining armor won't save their ass by keeping to provide them quality software for free this time, you can bet the funds will suddenly be found. Furthermore, I suspect that vast majority of those people would actually go with option #1, and just upgrade to 2.2 (and also learn their lesson to keep up with the update curve to a reasonable extent to minimize "late upgrade" expenses).
Or maybe, if there are really that many 1.3 users who absolutely won't move to 2.2, and each one has so little money they can't pay anyone to get them to move to anything else, either (where are they hosting? in the basement?), then, well, the beauty of FOSS is that they can also come together, form some sort of non-profit funded by all of them - with minimal amount of contribution from each - that would hire people to fork and maintain 1.3 for the benefit of all.
Or maybe they can just donate to OpenBSD.
In any case, if people "don't have the means or resources" (which ultimately means "money") to do their business, then they shouldn't stay in that business - it really is as simple as that.
well excuse me, but all of your points are void. (Score:2)
the obligation is not ethical. its practical.
logical words, rationalizations, and even being right wont change the matter.
the success of a project, and ultimately open source depends on people using it. if the people and businesses using it are left out in the cold like piles of crap, by a major project, even only once, the opinion against open source will change. and the masses which were using that software will switch to other providers. very probably closed source proprietory software, because at least
Re: (Score:2)
How many years do you expect 1.x to be supported? 2.x is a bit over 8 years old right now, and as OP notes, it might not run on modern OSs. At some point, people will have to make the change (staying still is for the Amish - not everyone needs to be an early adopter, but doing anything on 1.x is getting very curmudgeonly at this point. You're not going to see a lot of support for ancient software in open *or* closed source environments.
Also, you're not the people if you're thinking this way, you're a busine
Re: (Score:2)
small businesses do not have the funds or time to make any kind of migration. this is a matter of life and death for many. 'necessities' of business, or 'technology' do not make any difference in such a situation. especially during a global crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they will die. The world is not going to stand still for them. Customers arn't going to keep wanting Apache 1.x. OS's will stop supporting it. They won't be able to keep it secure if they stay behind on old OS's, and eventually won't be able to replace hardware when it wears out because such an old OS won't run on it. Changing tax codes might cause their frozen-in-time accountant's head to burst. Changing legal requirements might cause these in-a-rut businesses to fall apart.
Businesses that are so easi
Re: (Score:0)
im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3.
I'm not sure if you are in the ghetto end of the web hosting business or what, but 1.3 hasn't been in the norm in years. In the real world of webhosting, we can afford keyboards with a working shift key too. Tool.