On 2/7/06, Marcin Wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why change that > It is apache, but with some pathes. But still iti s apache (changing > name may be bad for futurre coders, that wouldl ike to make somep > lugin for OpenBSD http server, & before they will start to make it, > theyw ill have to learn, that httpd in OBSD is just apache 1.3). > > Besides i don't understand why so many people would like to change > current web server, when it's working fine & well & it is enough secure? > Is there any realy nice argument besides the digit ? > I think no, so, why people always ask that....
I think the biggest argument for changing the web server is the fact that the Apache in tree doesn't do IPv6, and Apache 2.x does. And, btw, if you look at early 2.0 releases, you'll see they are still under the Apache 1.1 License or whatever 1.3 was under. The incompatible Apache license wasn't put in until after a few 2.x releases. > > At 22:11 2006-02-07, you wrote: > >Wouldn't it be better then to start a spinoff project (openhttpd or > >something comes to mind) instead of still calling it apache httpd 1.3? > > > >Stuart Henderson wrote: > >>On 2006/02/07 21:23, RedShift wrote: > >>>I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. > >>Well, not exactly. Diff the source trees and you'll see it's not > >>quite the same thing...
