>>7
Something that's good enough to run the majority of HTTP servers on the net is hardly shit, mate.
Shit is reserved for things like IIS or ye olde HTTP/0.9 daemon someone hacked up in Java. Some perspective please.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 4:12
>>9
Fine it's not shit, it's just braindamaged. The config file syntax is insane and the damn thing spawns too many processes, causing it to bog down in high traffic.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 4:22
The config file syntax is insane
It's quite flexible. How is it insane?
damn thing spawns too many processes, causing it to bog down in high traffic.
There's even a commented paragraph about this in httpd.conf. Pretty hard to miss.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 5:38
The config file syntax is somewhat ugly, provided it's not an INI file, nor an XML file, nor anything established, but a bizarre mix of all. On top of that, it's poorly documented and very messy.
I have no problem with performance though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-01 20:32
On top of that, it's poorly documented
You have got to be shitting me.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 4:46
>>13
Not _little_ documented, just _badly_ documented
Man, it's one thing to say that Apache's config is ugly. You bet it is. It has redundant hair? That too. It's on the touchy side? I understand you!
But badly documented? That is one thing you just can't claim. The only weakness with Apache's documentation is that there aren't enough examples given. Other than that, it's immaculate.
Name:
Anonymous2006-03-02 10:19
>Good job proving you've never run Apache (or know what you're talking about)
good job proving that you don't know what the majority of webservers run - apache 1.1/1.2/1.3, which only has the prefork model.