It seems that basic web sites made by uploading html and other files are going extinct, in favor of web apps like CMSs and blogs. As a result, the majority of the functionality provided by web servers like Apache is becoming unnecessary.
As an example, any web app which interfaces with Apache via Rack [rubyforge.org]middleware needs only the enabling of mod_rack. Other than that, you don't need to touch apache2.conf. Apache basically just handles the sockets; the rest of its functionality goes unused.
Just wait, it will come back. The wheel of computing just goes around and around, now we are reinventing thin clients via netbooks used only to use webapps. In another 5-10 years people will want thick clients again and websites that are actually usable and informative.
The wheel of computing - I 've seen this idea referred to here many a time - but when I google the term or similar like 'wheel of reinvention' etc I can't find any definitive article with examples.
I was explaining this to a colleague the other day in terms of how graphics processors keep chopping and changing what they do integrated, not integrated, now we are using the GPU as a massive co-processor, and give it time and it will be rolled back into the main CPU.
"Wheel of reincarnation" is the entry in the Jargon File; term "coined in a paper by T.H. Myer and I.E. Sutherland On the Design of Display Processors, Comm. ACM, Vol. 11, no. 6, June 1968"
People want websites that are actually usable and informative today. I'm not sure what that has to do with thin or fat clients through. Could you elaborate?
Thank you--I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates shortscreen.
And while we're at it, can we bring back high-PPI monitors? I'll only give up my 19" 1600x1200 screen for a 21" 2048x1536 screen; anything else, and you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.
The day of the static web page is indeed drawing to a close. With Facebook rewriting PHP into HipHop, other middleware products becoming capable of also serving content, and the general transition to "Web 2.0", the largely static Web of the '90's is nearer than ever to its eventual end.
Apache 1 has been an absolutely fantastic tool over the years, and even though it's well past its "sell-by" date, the fact that many have continued to use it says a lot about the overall quality and robustness. Thanks to
What you're heralding is nothing short of the eradication of a publicly accessible information pool. The registered-users-only part of Web 2.0 is basically opaque to external search engines. Links are nondescript blobs - short, short-lived and with at least one redirection through a slow third party server. If Web 1.0 was a library, Web 2.0 is a shopping mall. Banter and business, but hardly any real information.
I've recently shown a friend how to set up a web page the old fashioned way, i.e. write HTML wit
What? Using passwords is not new to web apps. Apache itself supports passwords.
And using a CMS does not mean breaking linkability. Any RESTful CMS (like wikipedia) will provide links to data. Static pages have no monopoly on this.
Wikipedia is the moral equivalent of an old-school hyperlinked body of text, though, not really a dynamic website. It happens to be served dynamically, and can be edited by users, but at any instant in time there is a static snapshot of hypertext. In fact, it could've been implemented that way--- as a bunch of static HTML files that get edited. That's in contrast to AJAXy webapps, which don't really make sense to think of as hypertext.
The day of the static web page is indeed drawing to a close. With Facebook rewriting PHP into HipHop, other middleware products becoming capable of also serving content, and the general transition to "Web 2.0", the largely static Web of the '90's is nearer than ever to its eventual end.
But some content may well be better static, such as a web version of a textbook.
Third party mods are not part of Apache proper. The other stuff really should be done by the app, where it can be altered without HUPing any processes.
It seems that basic web sites made by uploading html and other files are going extinct, in favor of web apps like CMSs and blogs. As a result, the majority of the functionality provided by web servers like Apache is becoming unnecessary.
Not so. Apache is a general-purpose HTTP server. It has a lot more power and capability than what 99% of websites use it for, which is serving static content and CGI script output. There are loads of web servers that are capable of these menial tasks and they use a fraction
Apache's popularity is due to it being the swiss army knife of HTTP servers in that you can do almost anything with it. In an enterprise environment you have cookie cutter applications and then there are applications shoved down your throat that just apache handles much better. Every time I went to Apache Con I would attend the mod_rewrite lectures because its interesting to see how you can handle different unique situations with just that module.
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy."
-- Dr. Emilio Lizardo
web servers to app servers (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that basic web sites made by uploading html and other files are going extinct, in favor of web apps like CMSs and blogs. As a result, the majority of the functionality provided by web servers like Apache is becoming unnecessary.
As an example, any web app which interfaces with Apache via Rack [rubyforge.org]middleware needs only the enabling of mod_rack. Other than that, you don't need to touch apache2.conf. Apache basically just handles the sockets; the rest of its functionality goes unused.
Re:web servers to app servers (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wait, it will come back. The wheel of computing just goes around and around, now we are reinventing thin clients via netbooks used only to use webapps. In another 5-10 years people will want thick clients again and websites that are actually usable and informative.
Re: (Score:2)
I was explaining this to a colleague the other day in terms of how graphics processors keep chopping and changing what they do integrated, not integrated, now we are using the GPU as a massive co-processor, and give it time and it will be rolled back into the main CPU.
Anyway can someone point to a researched arti
Re:web servers to app servers (Score:4, Informative)
"Wheel of reincarnation" is the entry in the Jargon File; term "coined in a paper by T.H. Myer and I.E. Sutherland On the Design of Display Processors, Comm. ACM, Vol. 11, no. 6, June 1968"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping the wheel of computing will do away with shortscreen monitors sooner rather than later and we can go back to using real monitors...
Re: (Score:0)
Thank you--I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates shortscreen.
And while we're at it, can we bring back high-PPI monitors? I'll only give up my 19" 1600x1200 screen for a 21" 2048x1536 screen; anything else, and you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:web servers to app servers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since you imply that you still have one, I'm assuming that it's not being hosted on Geocities.
Re:web servers to app servers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The PIII means you set it up recently enough that you could've had it running 2.0. Why do you do these things...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What you're heralding is nothing short of the eradication of a publicly accessible information pool. The registered-users-only part of Web 2.0 is basically opaque to external search engines. Links are nondescript blobs - short, short-lived and with at least one redirection through a slow third party server. If Web 1.0 was a library, Web 2.0 is a shopping mall. Banter and business, but hardly any real information.
I've recently shown a friend how to set up a web page the old fashioned way, i.e. write HTML wit
Re: (Score:2)
What? Using passwords is not new to web apps. Apache itself supports passwords.
And using a CMS does not mean breaking linkability. Any RESTful CMS (like wikipedia) will provide links to data. Static pages have no monopoly on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is the moral equivalent of an old-school hyperlinked body of text, though, not really a dynamic website. It happens to be served dynamically, and can be edited by users, but at any instant in time there is a static snapshot of hypertext. In fact, it could've been implemented that way--- as a bunch of static HTML files that get edited. That's in contrast to AJAXy webapps, which don't really make sense to think of as hypertext.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is a web app. This disproves your claim that web apps can't be linked.
Q to the E to the D.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't, though. It's just a bunch of hypertext plus a text editor.
Re: (Score:2)
The day of the static web page is indeed drawing to a close. With Facebook rewriting PHP into HipHop, other middleware products becoming capable of also serving content, and the general transition to "Web 2.0", the largely static Web of the '90's is nearer than ever to its eventual end.
But some content may well be better static, such as a web version of a textbook.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yea who cares about:
- redirects
- URL remapping
- mod_php
- mod_perl
- mod_svn
- web dav
- https
Re: (Score:2)
Third party mods are not part of Apache proper. The other stuff really should be done by the app, where it can be altered without HUPing any processes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so. Apache is a general-purpose HTTP server. It has a lot more power and capability than what 99% of websites use it for, which is serving static content and CGI script output. There are loads of web servers that are capable of these menial tasks and they use a fraction
Re: (Score:2)