On 2/8/06, Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 serv
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:09:14 -0500, Jason Crawford proclaimed...
> 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
Thanks there, I'll consider using lighttpd then.
On 2/8/06, Bret Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Felipe Scarel wrote:
> > Well then, I'll take a look at you suggestion, Joachim, seems
> reasonable.
> > Too bad most developers actually *prefer* FTP over ssh, so it's going to
> be
> > difficu
Felipe Scarel wrote:
Well then, I'll take a look at you suggestion, Joachim, seems reasonable.
Too bad most developers actually *prefer* FTP over ssh, so it's going to be
difficult to convince them. Well, looks like I'll just have to implement...
they'll
get used to it anyway =)
Talking about th
Well then, I'll take a look at you suggestion, Joachim, seems reasonable.
Too bad most developers actually *prefer* FTP over ssh, so it's going to be
difficult to convince them. Well, looks like I'll just have to implement...
they'll
get used to it anyway =)
Talking about the Apache2 port, as soon
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 le
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:05:44PM -0200, Felipe Scarel wrote:
> Since it's an open source project in which anyone can commit to the
> repository anytime, it's not possible to add each and every user as a
> system user. Instead, we're using Plone to write user information on
> the htaccess-style f
Hello!
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:26:31PM -0200, Felipe Scarel wrote:
>However, the Subversion versioning control system (which my project uses)
>demands Apache2 in order to do DAV checkouts and commits, better
>authentication and more. So, my only choice was to manually install Apache2
>and compi
> Sure OpenBSD's modified Apache 1.3 is way more secure than most stuff
> out there, and is working great.
>
> However, the Subversion versioning control system (which my project
> uses) demands Apache2 in order to do DAV checkouts and commits, better
> authentication and more. So, my only choice
Siju George wrote:
a lot while ago Henning had said that there was about 4000 lines of
Code difference between the OpenBSD Apache and the one from Apache
Project and Also that Apache2 is a Design Fault.
It is way pass that now. Back in May 2005 it was already at 32,582 lines.
http://marc.theai
On 2/8/06, Siju George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
> > on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
> > additional focus on security for
On 2/8/06, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
> on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
> additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later,
> httpd 1.3 *will be deprecat
lighttpd just fixed a remote hole (case insensitive file systems) in
the CURRENT VERSION!
Does this inspire confidence? I mean for fck sake, the version just
before they fixed %00 append bug! Next thing they will discover
directory traversal. o_O YEAH, yeah I want this FINE PIECE OF
SOFTWARE ru
paul dansing wrote:
lighttpd just fixed a remote hole (case insensitive file systems) in
the CURRENT VERSION!
Does this inspire confidence? I mean for fck sake, the version just
before they fixed %00 append bug! Next thing they will discover
directory traversal. o_O YEAH, yeah I want this FIN
Since it's an open source project in which anyone can commit to the
repository
anytime, it's not possible to add each and every user as a system user.
Instead,
we're using Plone to write user information on the htaccess-style file that
Subversion
reads.
However, I guess I'm going to use your strat
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:26:31PM -0200, Felipe Scarel wrote:
> Sure OpenBSD's modified Apache 1.3 is way more secure than most stuff out
> there, and is working great.
>
> However, the Subversion versioning control system (which my project uses)
> demands Apache2 in order to do DAV checkouts and
On 2/7/06, Joe S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RedShift wrote:
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
> > on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
> > additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later,
> >
On 2/7/06, Joe S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I couldn't find anything in the misc archives, but perhaps I didn't
> really look that hard. But the biggest issue is the Apache 2.0 license.
> I'm not sure what the problem is with the license, but I believe it may
> be that Apache 2 license is more re
Sure OpenBSD's modified Apache 1.3 is way more secure than most stuff out
there, and is working great.
However, the Subversion versioning control system (which my project uses)
demands Apache2 in order to do DAV checkouts and commits, better
authentication and more. So, my only choice was to manua
On 2/7/06, Joe S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RedShift wrote:
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
> > on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
> > additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later,
>
RedShift wrote:
Hi everyone
I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later,
httpd 1.3 *will be deprecated* in favor of newer versions (2.0, 2.2
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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?
No, because that's what it is.
What you're talking about is marketing drivel.
Y
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
No, because that's what it is.
What you're talking about is marketing drivel.
You don't have to keep up with the Joneses, espe
Steven Day wrote:
Well as far as I know, Apache 1.3 is an openBSD modified version and not the
1.3 apache releases but the licensing on apache 2.0 is the reason I see
OpenBSD not packaging it.
http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Also search back into the mailing list archives or the site for
Hello!
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:59:22PM -0500, Steven Day wrote:
>Well as far as I know, Apache 1.3 is an openBSD modified version and not the
>1.3 apache releases but the licensing on apache 2.0 is the reason I see
>OpenBSD not packaging it.
>http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>Also searc
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 a
Well as far as I know, Apache 1.3 is an openBSD modified version and not the
1.3 apache releases but the licensing on apache 2.0 is the reason I see
OpenBSD not packaging it.
http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Also search back into the mailing list archives or the site for more
specific reaso
RedShift wrote:
Hi everyone
I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later,
httpd 1.3 *will be deprecated* in favor of newer versions (2.0, 2.2
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...
I would recommend reading the archives, but I guess a quick answer is no.
Hi everyone
I've noticed OpenBSD still uses Apache httpd 1.3. While it is good that
on the OpenBSD side of things, it is maintained and there's an
additional focus on security for httpd. However, sooner or later,
httpd 1.3 *will be deprecated* in favor of newer versions (2.0, 2.2),
and now certai
32 matches
Mail list logo
