There is also a follow up article written by one of the httpd developers about 'What Apache brings to the table.' The article cites community, experience, legal framework, diversity, brand strength, and networking as reasons why developers and companies should consider bringing their projects over to Apache."
Two words why you shouldn't use Apache unless you absolutely need to (and most apache users don't NEED apache): configuration complexity.
Apache's configuration file hasn't changed dramatically since
Yes, Apache (Web server) is somewhat hard to configure. There's a large file with a lot of (documented) features and settings, and a lot of ways to go wrong there. On the other hand, Apache is incredibly flexible: You can use it as a proxy, it does ssl, it fronts for Java Web servers, it rewrites URLs, it authenticates, it slices, it dices and I'm probably just scratching the surface.
Someone who knows his way around the config file - and that's really the only crucial thing to know about Apache - is able to
On the other hand, Apache is incredibly flexible: You can use it as a proxy, it does ssl, it fronts for Java Web servers, it rewrites URLs, it authenticates, it slices, it dices and I'm probably just scratching the surface.
You're exactly right, and your parent poster is exactly wrong. Attention, Please, Everyone:
EASE OF USE DOES NOT INDICATE A BETTER PRODUCT.
Apache is incredibly powerful. There's a reason it's the most popular webserver in use today, by far. And, with most linux distros, it's relatively
Of course ease of use does equate to a better project. All other things being equal, we'd all choose an easy to use product with feature set X over a difficult and awkward one (say with binary configuration files you have to edit with a hex tool) with the exact same feature set. So, yes, ease of use absolutely matters. It's not the only factor in the equation, but pretending it's not and that it's the fault of the user base for not being smart enough to use a particular product isn't a recipe for success.
Ease of use equates to a better product *IF* the two products are otherwise equal, like you said.
If I gave you a webserver, and said, it's incapable of SSL, CGI, and the module API is still in its infancy, but the config file is only 10 lines, would you use it over Apache? No, of course not.
Ease of use is a checkmark to put in the plus column. However, just because a program is easy to use, does not mean that we should throw out all the harder to use programs, even if they're better from a security / technology / scalability / whatever aspect.
If you like tomcat, and don't use apache, BRAVO! That's what choice is all about - that's the spirit of open source software! I happen to have no clue how to use tomcat, so I use apache! But, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Tomcat sucks because I can't master it in five minutes. I'm sure tomcat is an excellent program. It's just not for me. And if my origional post's grandparent post had said "I don't like apache - I find the config file too confusing, so I choose to use something else", everyone would have said "Bravo!". But, instead, he chose to find the flaw in the software, not in his understanding of it.
And I'm furthermore not saying that the apache complainers aren't smart enough. I'd say that most people, even the aforementioned ancestor post, who read slashdot are at least moderately intelligent. My problem is only when people say "I can't understand it, so it must suck". To me, that's either lazy or stupid. If you can't understand it, you have two choices - change your gameplan (find a different webserver), or study it until you understand. I have no respect for complainers. If you are complaining because you don't want to switch to a new gameplan, you're stupid. If you're complaining because you don't want to put the work into learning, you're lazy. I don't have room for either of those people.
configuring apache #1 complaint, still unaddressed (Score:2, Interesting)
Two words why you shouldn't use Apache unless you absolutely need to (and most apache users don't NEED apache): configuration complexity.
Apache's configuration file hasn't changed dramatically since
Configuration complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Apache is incredibly flexible: You can use it as a proxy, it does ssl, it fronts for Java Web servers, it rewrites URLs, it authenticates, it slices, it dices and I'm probably just scratching the surface.
Someone who knows his way around the config file - and that's really the only crucial thing to know about Apache - is able to
Re:Configuration complexity (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Apache is incredibly flexible: You can use it as a proxy, it does ssl, it fronts for Java Web servers, it rewrites URLs, it authenticates, it slices, it dices and I'm probably just scratching the surface.
You're exactly right, and your parent poster is exactly wrong. Attention, Please, Everyone:
EASE OF USE DOES NOT INDICATE A BETTER PRODUCT.
Apache is incredibly powerful. There's a reason it's the most popular webserver in use today, by far. And, with most linux distros, it's relatively
Re:Configuration complexity (Score:0)
So, yes, ease of use absolutely matters. It's not the only factor in the equation, but pretending it's not and that it's the fault of the user base for not being smart enough to use a particular product isn't a recipe for success.
As
Re:Configuration complexity (Score:2)
Ease of use equates to a better product *IF* the two products are otherwise equal, like you said.
If I gave you a webserver, and said, it's incapable of SSL, CGI, and the module API is still in its infancy, but the config file is only 10 lines, would you use it over Apache? No, of course not.
Ease of use is a checkmark to put in the plus column. However, just because a program is easy to use, does not mean that we should throw out all the harder to use programs, even if they're better from a security / technology / scalability / whatever aspect.
If you like tomcat, and don't use apache, BRAVO! That's what choice is all about - that's the spirit of open source software! I happen to have no clue how to use tomcat, so I use apache! But, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Tomcat sucks because I can't master it in five minutes. I'm sure tomcat is an excellent program. It's just not for me. And if my origional post's grandparent post had said "I don't like apache - I find the config file too confusing, so I choose to use something else", everyone would have said "Bravo!". But, instead, he chose to find the flaw in the software, not in his understanding of it.
And I'm furthermore not saying that the apache complainers aren't smart enough. I'd say that most people, even the aforementioned ancestor post, who read slashdot are at least moderately intelligent. My problem is only when people say "I can't understand it, so it must suck". To me, that's either lazy or stupid. If you can't understand it, you have two choices - change your gameplan (find a different webserver), or study it until you understand. I have no respect for complainers. If you are complaining because you don't want to switch to a new gameplan, you're stupid. If you're complaining because you don't want to put the work into learning, you're lazy. I don't have room for either of those people.
~W