Quoting Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There are not many left now Just those mod_perl guys, and they are
> at 1.99.9.
He, he, nice try :-) It's actually 2.0.0-RC4.
http://perl.apache.org/download/index.html
--
Bojan
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Perhaps another plan is to add a section giving real reasons why to
> upgrade to Apache 2, and potentially publicise that. "We have MPMs" means
> nothing to the webmaster. "Apache 2 can run XXX% faster under Solaris
> using worker" is far more useful i
Wayne S. Frazee said:
> As I sat reading the responses to the new development thread on acceptance
> of Apache 2 and some users' regression to 1.3, it struck me when someone
> mentioned that they believed part of the problem to be marketing. Mozilla
> advertised firefox with a large one-time inve
Paul Querna wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>> Also I would start discussing with some of the other 1.3-only module
>> writers out there on how to port their stuff to 2.0, or port it for them.
>
>
> There are not many left now Just those mod_perl guys, and they are
> at 1.99.9.
I think
At 03:30 PM 3/1/2005, Ian Holsman wrote:
>The biggest hurdle 2.0 has had to face IMO is:
>- 1.3 isn't broken
>- we run 1.3 already
>- module XYZ only runs on 1.3
>- 2.0 doesn't do anything that 1.3 doesn't do anyway
>
>What I would suggest for your marketing campaign would be to write and submit
>
Ian Holsman wrote:
Also I would start discussing with some of the other 1.3-only module
writers out there on how to port their stuff to 2.0, or port it for them.
There are not many left now Just those mod_perl guys, and they are
at 1.99.9. Are there any other modules you were thinking o
Ian Holsman writes:
Also I would start discussing with some of the other 1.3-only module
writers out there on how to port their stuff to 2.0, or port it for them.
Ian, your note on apache promotion via whitepaper is well taken. Is anyone
aware of existing papers on the subject (specifically, a
The biggest hurdle 2.0 has had to face IMO is:
- 1.3 isn't broken
- we run 1.3 already
- module XYZ only runs on 1.3
- 2.0 doesn't do anything that 1.3 doesn't do anyway
What I would suggest for your marketing campaign would be to write and
submit several technical articles about apache2 and how i
Paul Querna wrote:
Andrà Malo wrote:
I personally believe, that there is actually no problem to solve.
While we are free to write the software we like, people are free to
use the software they like. I have no desire to "force" someone to use
either version.
But that's my very humble opinion ;-)
---
I wouldn't want to do it, but brainwashing (err) marketing does work. Ask
Microsoft!
regards,
tt
-Original Message-
From: Wayne S. Frazee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:06 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Actively Promoting Apache
Andrà Malo wrote:
I personally believe, that there is actually no problem to solve. While we
are free to write the software we like, people are free to use the software
they like. I have no desire to "force" someone to use either version.
But that's my very humble opinion ;-)
Marketing isn't abou
* Wayne S. Frazee wrote:
> As I sat reading the responses to the new development thread on
> acceptance of Apache 2 and some users' regression to 1.3, it struck me
> when someone mentioned that they believed part of the problem to be
> marketing. Mozilla advertised firefox with a large one-time i
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 08:05:30PM +, Wayne S. Frazee wrote:
> Looking for feedback, legal, devils advocate, et al on the concept, if not
> the execution.
I don't think professional, competent Webserver administrators generally
respond well to marketing. In my experience, they (we!) prefer a
I entreat each potential responder to this email to please read it all the
way through and THEN respond rather than knee-jerk something based on only
the first paragraph or two...
As I sat reading the responses to the new development thread on acceptance
of Apache 2 and some users' regression
14 matches
Mail list logo
