// I am not sure what the term General Availability means
This should help:
Mail from Greg Stein (chairman ASF), officially releaseing Apache 2.0
for *production environments*. This was sent to Apache week and announced on
all Apache mailing lists...
<snip>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:07:04 -0800
From: Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Official Release: Apache 2.0.35 is now GA
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's my pleasure to announce that the Apache Software Foundation's Apache
HTTP Server, version 2.0.35, has now been released for General Availability.
The Apache 2.0 project has been in-the-works for nearly three years. It has
been a long and sometimes arduous process to reach this point. Many, many
people have contributed their time and effort to bring us to this point.
The HTTPD Project signed off today on the 2.0.35 release, and recommends it
for use on production websites. 2.0.35 is now considered our best release
and should be used in preference to all older versions (including the 1.3
series).
</snip>
// somehow it sounds more like public beta rather than current stable version.
// By
// stable I mean a version which has been deemed suitable for production
// use.
2.0.12, 2.0.16, 2.0.20 (and many before and after) were all "public betas".
And 2.0.35 is a "stable" release "deemed suitable for production use".
This is what I meant by making claims without the right information. You
may be right, and Apache 2.0.35 -may- break everything-only time will tell,
but an unsubstantiated
"It is unstable. It is unsteady and changing too fast." is an insult to all
those people who've been putting in their time and effort into making
Apache 2.0 all these years.
If you have good, concrete evidence of something lacking in an OSS product,
or a bug, please be constructive and wire all your opinions in forums that'll
help improve it. Hosing mailing lists where 99% of the subscribers
understandably lack an opinion (since the product is new and the only concrete
information available is on development mailing lists) with unsubstantiated
criticism simply defames the product.
// I am sure even kernel version 2.5.7 is supposed to run properly
// without crashing. No one will stop you from using it in production. But
// I am sure there would be a very select few people who would like to jump
// up and say that 2.5.7 is the one for production release.
Kernel 2.5.7 is a development release that includes a host of untested,
partially working patches. Apache 2.0.34 is a GA release
recommended by the ASF for use on production servers.
I hope you see the difference between the two.
// Uhh whats the point of that ?? www.apache.org has been running the 2.x
// series for more than 8 months - you dont consider that as a production
// environment ?? It doesnt really mean everyone was supposed to follow
// their path and move their servers from 1.x series to 2.x series.
// I really hope you dont consider a crash as the main criteria for
// determining whether a application should or shouldn't be considered for
// production use.
Nobody's "supposed to follow their path and move their servers from 1.x
seried to 2.x series". The ASF touts it to be its latest and best product and
I fully endorse their opinion based on the evidence and experience
I presented in my previous email. How much ppl need it and whether they change
over is up to htem. The ASF is not going to coercively *force* you into
changing over like some other companies do.
// > Another important thing to observe is that only Apache-httpd has been
// > released so far. The APR, which is a separate project, and forms the basis
// > of most of the "internals" :) of the Apache platform has NOT been released
// > yet. This, to my mind means that (alas!) the release is still not complete
// After you go ahead and recommend it to everyone for production use you
// say it is not complete yet ???
Again. What do you mean by "it is not complete yet??" I said it hasn't been
released. Not "it is not complete, broken at various odd places and will
burn your system". The APR (Apache Runtime Layer) is a separate project that
Apache depends upon. It provides basic platform functionality like sockets
abstraction, memory management, sessions management etc. Apache depends upon
it in much the same way as it does on libc, or any other library that it uses.
The APR that has been packaged with Apache 2.0.35 *is* stable and is part of
the release. Just like all the libc's packaged in your distributions are
all stable. If APR releases with a new spec, there'll be a development beta
in the 2.0 series which'll adapt to it, and then there'll be another GA.
// but no dont
// go ahead and upgrade your production servers right away.
Again, an unsubstantiated baseless claim... unless you can make that
"but no bla bla... right away" *BECAUSE* Apache 2.0.35 has the following fatal
bugs that'll compromise security/crash your system/break your services...
kindly stop misleading people with your random thoughts.
To end this, I still think 2.0.35, and Apache 2.0 in general is a great
product, and although ostensibly it may be lightweight in new features and
functionality, it can raise a host of possibilities once you start using it
with its new architectural base, protocol independence, and I still heartily
recommend it to all. This suggestion is based on my ravings in my previous
email.
Sapan
//
// Mithun
/
================================================
To subscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe in subject header
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header
Archives are available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
=================================================
