On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> I don't think we should ever point to third party httpd downloads.
> Let those offering binaries compete in the same way as Ubuntu, Fedora,
> etc.
> I think in general that the Apache-on-Windows user community offers up
> a relatively small amount of sacrifice (contributed effort per size of
> community) at the same time that the platform has a large number of
> technical considerations, and I cannot suggest that we (really, Bill
> and tiny number of others) do more work on their behalf.
I'm not suggesting that Bill do any more on their behalf. I'm suggesting that
we embrace the huge effort that Stefan and the ApacheLounge folks have done,
and direct people there. It seems that everybody stands to benefit if we
improve relations with that community, or, at the very least, acknowledge their
existence.
What would it take, from our side or from Stefan's, to make it ok for us to say
"go here for Windows binaries"? It surely seems that this would be a big win
for both of us.
> For open source on Windows in general, I think changes to make it more
> practical for "normal" users to build open source is what will
> ultimately improve the overall Windows situation (it is an anomaly
> that we have such a discussion of binaries), as it enables a more
> fruitful conversation ("can you try this patch?" vs. getting stuck at
> "you gave me this binary and it fails") and will facilitate the
> involvement of more would-be developers. I understand that MS has
> done a lot of work to make it more feasible to build PHP + extensions
> on Windows. This doesn't help at all the VC6 issue, but it is a big
> improvement for the long term. (I wonder if MinGW support by the
> various projects is viable for random users, or if a lot more effort
> is required to make it smoother.)
That sounds good, I suppose, but doesn't actually help any of our actual
customers today, or any foreseeable tomorrow.
--
Rich Bowen
rbo...@rcbowen.com
