X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <443238E8.41057298@dessent.net> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 02:14:16 -0700 From: Brian Dessent MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: apache2-2.2.0-1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com zzapper wrote: > Are people actually moving to Apache 2.x yet?, I was scared off in the > early days by talk that it didn't yet support PHP etc. That is mostly FUD. PHP itself has been thread-safe for years. The problem is that PHP typically links against a large number of external libraries, and not all of them can guarantee thread safety, nor do the PHP developers have any desire to go mucking about in other people's code to try to find and solve tricky bugs. So they spread this "we can't recommend threaded apache" FUD instead. However the whole issue is moot, because you can still use the prefork MPM in apache 2.x which works exactly as 1.3 does, without any threads. Anyone that tries to convince you that 1.3 is better than 2.x is just saying so out of irrational fear, not for any technical reason. 1.3 has been frozen in stone with no new features for probably half a decade now, so it's like saying, "my carbeaurated chevy from the 60s still gets me to work and I don't want any of this fancy pants modern car stuff like fuel injection." Sure, don't change what works, whatever. For some people that's more important than anything else. But the technical arguments presented are essentially unfounded. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/