On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:59, Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Greg Stein wrote: >> Apache remains the broad solution, but for narrow requirements, people >> will select something that is easier to handle for their particular >> situation. >> >> I wouldn't say "wrong", but more along the lines of "not as well-suited" > > I partially agree, but we have to take into account that some of those > httpd's, like lighttpd, are > replacing Apache plain and simple. Don't get me wrong. I love Apache. I've > written tons of articles > about it since the very early days. And I haven't released any mod_openpgp > code for any other thing > other than Apache for a reason: i love it.
Yeah... I think we're in agreement. I'm just trying to say those aren't necessarily *better* than Apache, but that they are *better-suited* to their admin's scenarios. As the swiss army knife of web servers, Apache is very heavy in the pocket. In many scenarios, one little blade is all you need, and it is much easier to use and maintain. I'm not sure that is a solvable problem for us, unfortunately. We would need a drastic overhaul of how we approach configuration. (not to mention setup/building and module loading/handling) In essence, I think the project has concentrated on backwards-compat rather than an overhaul for usability. Cheers, -g
