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
You are correct in many ways, however the usefullness of a product is *entirely* on the documentation *if* it's a complex project.
Example 1: Microsoft Windows API isn't documented well. Does this mean it sucks? No. I've seen some *really* cool stuff out there.
Example 2: Apache is flexible and has allot of documentation. Does this mean Apache is good? No. Their documentation is too complex. But this doesn't mean Apache sucks. It just means that using the more complex parts of it gets difficult.
Example 3: PHP is documented well and is flexible. Does this mean it's good? Heck yeah. You can even leave comments if it forgets something or you think something should be clarified better.
Just some things to think about. Recently I've been working on a guide for getting OpenBSD with Apache/LDAP/PHP/a bunch of common stuff. It's been very tough due to lack of documentation. Especially LDAP, fucking A that's been tough. I even have three books and barely know where I'm going. I feel like a baby... naked.. or something.
The leap to just too difficult sometimes, and this can (and sometimes should) discourage people from using it as a real solution. If a boss finds out you've spent 4 days trying to learn *insert feature of the week here*, he's going to be pissed. The key is _good_ documentation. Good documentation is tough to write though...
I've only gotten Sendmail working once (on Slackware 9.1). After that I went Postfix becuase it was easier and felt beter documented. At the time I was a serious noob at the internet thing (as far as getting services running) so I should probably go back and see if anything has changed or if I'm just better than before?
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:3, Insightful)
Example 1: Microsoft Windows API isn't documented well. Does this mean it sucks? No. I've seen some *really* cool stuff out there.
Example 2: Apache is flexible and has allot of documentation. Does this mean Apache is good? No. Their documentation is too complex. But this doesn't mean Apache sucks. It just means that using the more complex parts of it gets difficult.
Example 3: PHP is documented well and is flexible. Does this mean it's good? Heck yeah. You can even leave comments if it forgets something or you think something should be clarified better.
Just some things to think about.
Recently I've been working on a guide for getting OpenBSD with Apache/LDAP/PHP/a bunch of common stuff. It's been very tough due to lack of documentation. Especially LDAP, fucking A that's been tough. I even have three books and barely know where I'm going. I feel like a baby... naked.. or something.
The leap to just too difficult sometimes, and this can (and sometimes should) discourage people from using it as a real solution. If a boss finds out you've spent 4 days trying to learn *insert feature of the week here*, he's going to be pissed. The key is _good_ documentation. Good documentation is tough to write though...
I've only gotten Sendmail working once (on Slackware 9.1). After that I went Postfix becuase it was easier and felt beter documented. At the time I was a serious noob at the internet thing (as far as getting services running) so I should probably go back and see if anything has changed or if I'm just better than before?