William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Fascinating reading (see the bottom two tables of these pages:
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/srvch.html?server=Apache&revision=Apache%2F1.3.33
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/srvch.html?server=Apache&revision=Apache%2F2.0.52
What is notable is that the number of users adopting 1.3.33 in place of 2.0 far
outweighs the number moving from 1.3 to 2.0.
One could argue that we aren't pushing 2.x releases out fast enough.
I'd argue the opposite, we aren't refining 2.x sufficiently for folks to garner
an advantage over using 1.3. It simply isn't more effective for them to use
2.0 (having tried both.)
Consider this as we prepare to announce to the world 2.1-beta. Are folks going
to be more impressed with 2.1-beta (in spite of it's wrinkles that a beta
always introduces) than what they used before?
For anyone who wants to argue that this is a PHP-caused anomaly, note also
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200501/apachemods.html
And in sunny news, about 9.6% of domains are hosted on Apache/2[...],
with another 14.24% of Apache users not revealing their version
(1.x vs 2.x).
FWIW, I have yet to run 2.x in anger. Not sure why you find this puzzling.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
