On 02 Dec 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > The idea is that being a project with a long, long history, > httpd has the unfortunate reputation of being old, slow, > and basically, not the new hotness. So even though the > project has been around, 2.4 is vastly different, and > really should be seen and considered as a whole new > web server.
I suspect there will always be a “new hotness” around that competes with attention, while projects like the Linux kernel and httpd endure. For me, httpd is a tank. In production it plows through everything, and just doesn’t break, no matter how much punishment you put it under. When a need comes up to perform a task, that functionality is probably already there, meaning there is no need to switch software stacks or go without. In addition, httpd’s technical documentation was and still is one of the best examples of “properly done” documentation in any project anywhere. I put a lot of effort last year closing the last protocol violations that Co-Advisor was reporting for httpd trunk, so HTTP protocol weirdness is less likely to be encountered. People obsess about speed until their first outage, then with the honeymoon over they switch to reliability as a focus. As long as httpd maintains it’s reliability, I don’t think we’ll be going anywhere any time soon. Regards, Graham —
