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.
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 every Apache author, contributor, bug-fixer, administrator, and even user who has made this one rockin' Web server. It's been amazing to watch, NCSA httpd becoming Apache, and constantly evolving...
i
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.
"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: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.