"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:57 GMT-5
At 08:10 AM 2/10/2005, Leif W wrote:I'm just trying to understand where the breakdown is. A feature that people want, the lack of which spawns a sloppy slew of incompatible workarounds, but no one around to respond and code it or fix what's available. The strength of Apache was always *nix, so why abandon security on *nix for the sake of portability to Windows?
What gives you the impression that this has anything to do with alternate ports? What gives you the impression that Apache 1.3 "had this right"?
Alternate ports? Oh I don't know, just looking at the timeline, interest in one area dies and grows in another area. Effort spent on making portable versus secure was the initial argument presented to me, and I came here to ask and get a better understanding if that was really the case or not. As I said later, my consideration of the matter was that it might have been just coincidence, and that seems to be more in check with reality. Also, how are things like setuid/setgid and *nix file permissions versus ACLs handled in Windows, versus ACLs in Linux on ext3 versus reiserfs... those kinds of portability questions. If that's all tucked away neatly into the APR, then great. But I just wasn't sure.
Also I'm not talking specifically of 1.3 here. Apache originally came from *nix? And 1.3 had this problem? Then, looking at the group as an entity from the point of view of the outsider, it could have fixed the problem before spreading the problem to other OSes. Looking at it from the interal side, it is a mere coincidence and people are offended if you imply anyone directed anyone to do anything. But being part of a large group, you must acknowledge how the group's actions appear to those outside as well as those inside. At least that is what I am beginning to understand from the discussion, and I had not thought it could have been such different views of the same events.
You hit the nail on the head "A feature that people want" ... ... but apparently not badly enough to solve the puzzle?
My only concern is, if some people solved the puzzle externally, then are there barriers which prevent them from getting the code committed? Would something such as the prevalent attitude that it's not important be an obstacle they have to contend with? It's one thing to say an issue is not vital to you. But that should not preclude the acknowledgement that it may be vital for someone else.
The Apache Software Foundation puts together code that folks want to create, it doesn't put together code that folks want to have created for them. Rather than bemoan the fact that something doesn't exist/is broken/isn't complete enough, they are welcome in any ASF project to offer issue + solution to their own itch. At least, when that solution in in the form of ASF Licensed code.
The Metux web pages (official and unofficial) seem to be works in progress. There is a quote which indicates that at least the guy running the unofficial site would like to see this in Apache some day. Maybe they're still in beta stages or itself abandonned? Seems to be copyright ASL v1.1 as of 2.0.48 patch, so that shouldn't be a problem. But what kind of effort would be involved getting it into Apache? With all these broken MPMs, what's one more? ;-) If only I could facilitate the process somehow, if not technically by virtue of code then financially by siphoning money from the companies and admins who need this module, and get it to the hands of the guys who are motivated to code it but can not do it because they need to choose commercial jobs to have food.
If you are suggesting that "OtherBill should be fixing Perchild to support Linux users and not off supporting Win32 users", well then, bite me :)
Heh, no. Even if Win32 isn't my primary choice, I am very much grateful to be able to use tools like Apache in Win32, which I originally learned to use in Linux, and worked with in FreeBSD. If I got stuck on some other cpu architecture or OS, I'd be happy if Apache and other tools were likewise portable. Eh, just saying, if someone has some solution, I'd just hope it's reviewed and feedback given to help it be committed.
Perchild will be fixed the moment someone wants to invest the time to fix perchild. There is no obstacle, there is also no volunteer. And several folks out there, rather than fix Perchild, have set out to do their own thing instead to create such features. Nothing stopping them from offering their own solution out there, nothing stopping them from contributing here. And so it is as it should be.
Ok.
Well, I think that's all anyone can say about the topic. I'll leave it at that.
Thanks to everyone who responded. Please do not take personal offense at my curiousity or potentially confrontational or unwise way of wording things. I am very grateful to have a tool like Apache and I try my best to volunteer support to others to see them successfully use the software. It's just my way of trying to understand, and I harbor no ill will towards anyone here. Thanks.
Leif
