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
The original poster does have a point. A very powerful piece of software can still be easy to configure and not lose its power. One way to do this is to have 3 different levels of configuration. Novice that exposes only a few options, medium, and finally advanced which gives you the entire gamut.
If 75% of the people just want to get something up and running then tailor the configuration to show them only the options those people will need. If an administrator needs more power then they can go into more ad
Right, but if I understand you correctly, what you're suggesting is to hide the more complex stuff from the casual user, and I think that's not a bad idea. The target of my aggression, the grandparent poster, wouldn't have wanted that - if you read his posts, he was looking for a way to "configure the minimum amount of stuff for security reasons". Giving him a simple config file, and telling him there were more advanced options somewhere else, wouldn't have helped him, because he wanted to go through and turn off or get rid of everything he didn't need.
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:2, Insightful)
One way to do this is to have 3 different levels of configuration. Novice that exposes only a few options, medium, and finally advanced which gives you the entire gamut.
If 75% of the people just want to get something up and running then tailor the configuration to show them only the options those people will need. If an administrator needs more power then they can go into more ad
Re:Configuration complexity (Score:2)
Right, but if I understand you correctly, what you're suggesting is to hide the more complex stuff from the casual user, and I think that's not a bad idea. The target of my aggression, the grandparent poster, wouldn't have wanted that - if you read his posts, he was looking for a way to "configure the minimum amount of stuff for security reasons". Giving him a simple config file, and telling him there were more advanced options somewhere else, wouldn't have helped him, because he wanted to go through and turn off or get rid of everything he didn't need.
~W