> Ok. There were some additional reasons mentioned, but licensing is > enough on its own. I found the old announcement now that I know what to > look for: > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2004-06/0448.html > > Apache 1.3.29 is decent enough and has the functionality, name brand > recognition and familiarity needed. But without updates, it seems a > dead end and not a good idea for new activities.
That is 1 persons opinion, and I think you will find yourself isolated. It's just a bloody web server. It's easy. > I'm also not finding > reference to IPv6 in the documentation for Apache 1.3.x either online or > in the man pages and that was my main reason for even looking at Apache2. There are diffs coming that add v6 support. There have been reasons not to add it in the past. > A fork does not seem like a good return on investment, so v 1.3.29 will > probably go away sooner than later once the Apache Foundation drops > maintenance on the 1.3 series. When we started work on OpenSSH, there were people just like you saying that it did not seem like a good return on investment. Investment. Who are you to tell us how we should spend our time, and what we should do? If you don't LIKE IT, then do whatever you want. > Gregg proposed, nginx ( http://nginx.net/ ), which seems to be just > getting started. It's under a 'BSD-like' license. It might work, but > seems new. Huh? We've already GOT a completely working fixed one in our tree. It's fine. And we have zero interest in swapping to some other piece of shit when this piece of shit will do. > Would something like this be appropriate at the tail end of the httpd > man page for v 1.3.29? > > Due to licensing changes, the version of Apache shipped with > OpenBSD will stay at version 1.3.29. Bugfixes will be provided, > but no further updates. Alternatively, Lighttpd is available > via OpenBSD's packages. No.
