Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Apache Newsletter

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the newsflash dept.

Announcements 17

Kyle Hamilton writes "The first Apache Newsletter was released today. The Newsletter is a result of the outgrowth of the 'Jakarta Newsletter' and the newsletter can cover all the projects including infrastructure, incubator et cetera."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6710268)

I have a question, pretty dumb perhaps. I've downloaded this movie off Shareaza, and it's got two files - a .bin and a .que. How do I view the movies in the BIN format? Any special codec?

Thanks.

Re:A question (-1, Offtopic)

shaitand (626655) | more than 11 years ago | (#6710293)

it's .cue, now RTFA like a good AC.

Re:A question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6712191)

your 'movie' can be burned onto a CD, dipshit

What's the point? (3, Insightful)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 11 years ago | (#6710341)

It seems to be a copy of the changelogs of projects, which is what Slashdot, Freshmeat and README files are for.

A newsletter should have content beyone release notes...

Re:What's the point? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6720274)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.

Worst customer support ever (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6710358)

Apache is the least functional and worst-supported software that I have dealt with. I submitted a request for Apache server to support .exe files to compete effectively with IIS [microsoft.com] , but so far I don't see that happening.

Re:Worst customer support ever (1)

Cynicx (96073) | more than 11 years ago | (#6711448)

Two points:

1. Diddums
2. You're honestly saying Apache httpd doesn't compete with IIS?? Me thinks you should put that tin-foil cap back on.

Open Source? More like openly racist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6727674)

Open Source? More like Openly Racist

The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.

Allow me to explain.

Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.

What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.

Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.

More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.

It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.

It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.

Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!

One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in Swahili, nor Ebonics. Obviously this is done to prevent black people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that racism is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly white. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Africa (South Africa mind you, better known as White Africa) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a black person.

Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so racist. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the racist mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Klan rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Negroes) nearly stands up and shouts its racist views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the black man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely white, it is a given.

I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.

Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As African-Americans are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with persons of color.

Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.

Re:Worst customer support ever (1)

atallah (71112) | more than 10 years ago | (#6782818)

Apache HTTPD (running on Windows) does support .exe files - it can run whatever you want as CGI. Obviously you don't understand WTF you are talking about and are a merely a troll.

Its a Wiki (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 11 years ago | (#6711160)

So if you don't like the content you can edit it. Just click "Edit this page"

Rus

Apache wont work? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6713588)


I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front

of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one

directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all

standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up

as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to

say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite

the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at

times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other

faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.

Apache is slow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6714554)


I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.

ApacheWeek no more? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 11 years ago | (#6746516)

I used to read http://www.apacheweek.com/ [apacheweek.com] fairly regularly. Now seems to be not maintained as well.

DeveloperSide.NET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6774372)

http://www.devside.net

Apache, PHP, MySQL, Perl, SSL...

Up-to-date instructions for building for Windows 2000 and XP, and Linux.

Apache problems again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6772775)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons

Hello, I am having some problems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6821248)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.

Re:Hello, I am having some problems. -- LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6836102)

Someone PLEASE mod the parent up as +5 funny. You can't multitask windows on a p200... Now my Linux P200 has no trouble transfering large files from one computer on my internal 100mb network, to another. AND IT STILL WORKS FROM THE OTHER COMPUTERS! I.E. Transfering an ISO Via wget to my burn-box (1ghz WinXP), from my store-box (p200 Lin Apache.), and browsing the store-box contents via Mozilla from the desk-box (800mhz FreeBSD) NOTE: I have shit loads of computer because I like to play with the OS's, I never intended each box for its specified task... It just worked out that way. My BurnBox has a burner and games on it, my store-box sits in a closet and acts as my i.e. gateway, and webserver, and the desk-boxs is a dualhead machine that I use for browsing, developing, and just messing abount (like now).
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?