×

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!

Why I Hate the Apache Web Server

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the feel-the-hate-flow-through-you dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 558

schon writes "Today's the last day of ApacheCon Europe; There was a hilarious presentation entitled 'Why I Hate the Apache Web Server' for anyone who has expressed frustration with the various inconsistencies and nuances of the Internet's favourite config file. And yes, it includes a comparison to Sendmail."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

558 comments

Whoops (4, Insightful)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141090)

I think the subject was supposed to read, "Why I hate PDF files."

Re:Whoops (4, Funny)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141112)

That's funny; I though it was entitled "Why I love xpdf." I wonder what could have given me such a strange notion...

Re:Whoops (4, Informative)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141181)

Ah, what you want is the PDF Download [mozilla.org] firefox extension.

When you click on a pdf it displays a choice of opening it in a new tab, downloading it , or viewing it as HTML (which i think uses google, but i could be wrong because i never use this option)
It really saved me.

Re:Whoops (2, Interesting)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141236)

Nice. I absolutely hate pdfs embedded in web browsers. They ALWAYS lock up the browser and force a ctrl-alt-del to shut it down. Firefox and IE alike. Could writting solid code be that hard for adobe????

Re:Whoops (2, Informative)

jdoire (180945) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141297)

For some reason a copy of acroread.exe remains working even after closing all the PDF documents, and that's the one that locks up the browser.

To recover from that lock, all you need is to open the task manager window, and shut down that faulty acroread.exe.

Re:Whoops (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141368)

I *always* setup my system so that PDF's get started into their own window. If I cannot configure the system, I will download the files first, and then start them up. The way commercial plugins handle firefox and vice versa is indeed far from perfect.

For Windows I used the Foxit reader by the way. Sounds firefoxy too. Small footprint reader, does most of what you want from it, fast. Note that 7.0 of the official adobe reader is pretty good as well. Especially in comparison with 6, which basically just sucked.

YES!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141309)

YES!!! HAAHA!!! Finally I'm not alone.

Why I hate PDFs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141093)

OK, so this is a PDF file that looks like a Powerpoint presentation and it is about how much he hates Apache. *head explodes*

Here is a html version, [samurajdata.se] I doubt it will stay cached for very long though.

Re:Why I hate PDFs (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141184)


...and you're probably reading it with Acrobat under Wine in Linux in a vmware session. Ouch.

Coral Cache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141221)

save the server

here [nyud.net]

w00t? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141096)

Frist Psot?

Those PDF's again... aaargh (3, Insightful)

Soulfarmer (607565) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141097)

Could the on-duty-editor-at-the-moment PLEASE add small note after the links IF TFA is in fact A PDF file. Please? That is NOT too much to ask, I hope. Sorely hope.

And no, I didn't RTFA, which was in fact TFPDF.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141168)

If you're too lazy to look at the URL before clicking on the link, then you are clearly the target demographic for most phishing schemes.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141260)

Er, no. If it was "click here to log into your bank", then sure. But it was "click here to read something about Apache".

And it's URI, not URL. No such thing as a URL.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141171)

Is it really that tough to look at the URL before you click on it?

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (1)

Soulfarmer (607565) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141231)

To this and to the post previous to this, no it is not tough, but should I be required to check the url before clicking on it? I know this topic has been on and off in here many times before, so I won't get excited about it.

I think it is like the "CAREFUL, WET FLOOR IS SLIPPERY"-signs... it is courtesy to announce before hand that some results of going forward might be unwanted.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (1)

N3Roaster (888781) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141215)

It would be easy enough to add a (PDF) after the link to let people know that the article is a PDF, but I suspect most people here are able to position the cursor over the article link and look in the status bar, note the .pdf at the end of the URL, and know that this is a PDF. Now this doesn't work everywhere, but even Lynx gives the helpful message when you try to follow the link, "application/pdf D)ownload, or C)ancel". Sure, it would be nice to have, but it doesn't warrant all those icky caps in PLEASE, IF, or NOT (and it's not insightful either).

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (4, Insightful)

Linus Torvaalds (876626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141282)

I suspect most people here are able to position the cursor over the article link and look in the status bar, note the .pdf at the end of the URL, and know that this is a PDF.

Assuming they are able to do it is one thing. Expecting them to do it every time they follow a link is another thing entirely.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (4, Informative)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141266)

Well, until they feel like adding a PDF warning, you should get the PDF Download [mozilla.org] extension for firefox. It's small, simple, and prevents PDF ambushes from raping your system's resources.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141407)

It's small, simple, and prevents PDF ambushes from raping your system's resources.

As someone who also detests this, my hat is off to you good sir for the way in which you described it. "ambushes"...

Personally, I always turn off the browser integration. At least it opens in an "open/save" dialog that way and if you choose to open, it will be running in a separate process in the proper reader application. Which is nice because it tends to crash often when running in a browser.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141376)

Could the users who care please install The TargetAlert extension for Firefox [bolinfest.com] so they get a PDF icon next to the link? That is not too much to ask, I hope.

Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (5, Informative)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141394)

Put this in your userContent.css:

a[href$=".pdf"]:after {
font-size: smaller;
content: " [pdf]";
}

I also find the following useful:

:link[target="_blank"]:after, :visited[target="_blank"]:after,
:link[target="_new"]:after, :visited[target="_new"]:after
{
font-size: smaller;
content: " [new]";
}

a[href^="javascript:"]:after
{
font-size: smaller;
content: " [shite]";
}

A 666KB PDF... (5, Funny)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141105)

Coincidence? I think not!

Re:A 666KB PDF... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141232)

Only Satan himself would comission such a study, so it's not really surprising.

You might hate Apache but.... (4, Insightful)

chrispyman (710460) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141106)

atleast a decent Apache install can keep on chugging along even when faced with a slashdotting.

Re:You might hate Apache but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141137)

Yes, because that has nothing to do with bandwidth at all.

Re:You might hate Apache but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141379)

Most slashdottings have nothing to do with bandwidth... More server load issues (DB Calls, CGI, Poorly compressed images...)

Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (2, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141116)

- It runs acroread slowly, instead of loading in my already opened browser quickly

- Uses huge ugly fonts

- Has silly graphics that bring nothing to the point

- Acroread requires two clicks to close (one for the document, one for acroread)

- Yes, I want a pony

Re:Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141133)

Personally, I love the PDF format. But like any format, you use it as the right tool for the right job.

is this the internet ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141162)


PDF has no place on the Internet, thats why we use HTML , but that would interfere with Adobes buisness model

Re:is this the internet ? (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141196)

Don't be silly. PDF files are very useful to distribute printable materials, such as books, spec sheets, PR and corporate bullshit (ugh), brochures, etc... Remember that PDF is essentially Postscript wrapped in an Adobe straightjacket.

What does piss me off is:

- People who use PDFs to make read-only documents
- People who use PDFs where html or text is adequat and sufficient.

I don't see why they require me to lauch that hateful Acrobat Reader when a browser does a better job.

Re:is this the internet ? (0, Offtopic)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141205)

...if only I had mod points, the parent would be the first anonymous post I ever modded up. :(

Re:is this the internet ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141229)

Yes, this is the Internet, so you damn
well better be using plain 7-bit ASCII
with hard linebreaks, or shut the fuck
up.

Re:is this the internet ? (2, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141331)

"PDF has no place on the Internet, thats why we use HTML , but that would interfere with Adobes buisness model"

Bullshit. Have you ever tried printing a PDF file?

PDF has its place, but I agree in this case it was silly.

Re:Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (2, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141242)

I'd assume the presentation was originally a talk given with slides. The PDF file is obviously just each individual slide in PDF format.

Really your complaint is the presentation hasn't been translated to a text based format, not about PDF files themself. The Slide show is merely meant to complement the actual talk, and wasn't meant as the main source of information.

Re:Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (1)

aktzin (882293) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141275)

- It runs acroread slowly, instead of loading in my already opened browser quickly

This may be particular to your system. On this P3-800MHz with Windows 2000 Pro I had Adobe Reader 7.0 open in about 2 seconds, with the document loaded. I'm using Firefox 1.0.4 and much prefer having PDFs open in Acrobat reader, leaving the original web page alone in my browser. (the default of opening PDFs in the browser drives me nuts)

- Uses huge ugly fonts

They look fine to me... but I understand that some Linux distros don't have certain fonts.

- Has silly graphics that bring nothing to the point

Fair enough, but it's easy to read the text and ignore the graphics as you go on to the next page.

- Acroread requires two clicks to close (one for the document, one for acroread)

It's been a while since I used Acrobat Reader on Linux, is this 2-click business really required? Why can't you just close the reader itself (as in Windows) with one click, which also closes any PDFs you have open? Or are 2 clicks needed to close if you open PDFs inside the browser?

- Yes, I want a pony

I just hope it doesn't have an "accident" on your carpet...

Comic Sans is..... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141350)

NOT A FONT. ok? Repeat after me, Comic Sans Is Not a Font! In 1995 Microsoft released the font Comic Sans originally designed for comic book style talk bubbles containing informational help text. Since that time the typeface has been used in countless contexts from restaurant signage to college exams to medical information. These widespread abuses of printed type threaten to erode the very foundations upon which centuries of typographic history are built. While we recognize the font may be appropriate in a few specific instances, our position is that the only effective means of ending this epidemic of abuse is to completely ban Comic Sans. http://bancomicsans.com/home.html [bancomicsans.com]

Re:Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (1)

KidSock (150684) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141378)

I think it's time to upgrade that 386 buddy. Ran pretty fast for me and I have no problem with silly fonts or graphics. Give the guy a break - it's very encouraging that he can jest about the weaknesses of his project.

Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (4, Insightful)

sockonafish (228678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141127)

It's not the PDF format that sucks, it's Acrobat Reader. Use Preview or XPDF [foolabs.com] .

Complaining about PDFs is like complaining about HTTP cause you don't like IIS.

Re:Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (4, Funny)

sockonafish (228678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141157)

I rescind my earlier statement. That's a really bad PDF. If PDFs were a food, that PDF would be shit-stewed haggis.

Re:Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141164)

No, it's definitely the PDFs that suck. I don't want to run an external program to view what could be done perfectly well with HTML.

Re:Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141166)

It's not the PDF format that sucks, it's Acrobat Reader.

Indeed Acrobat Reader sucks. But for that type of document, using a 700K file to write something that essentially fits in under 10K for an html page is dumb.

Re:Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141188)

Thanks for that tip. Too late buddy, I already have my browser open PDF files with xpdf, and after 5 minutes of wild spinning, I'm back to /. with a restart.

Tis that particular PDF that sucks, not all.

Re:Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141340)

Or like complaining about .doc files because you don't like...oh wait...nevermind.

Yahoo uses qmail, aol uses aolserver (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141129)

I guess that when performance, and not 'tradition' is your priority, you choose the appropriate tool for the job.

Hilarious? (3, Insightful)

Exitar (809068) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141145)

If the presentation was Hilarious, I assume that in future Apache configuration will be easier.
Otherwise I'd define it "sadly realistic"...

Comic Sans (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141146)

aaargh

wahahahaha (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141160)

MS Comic font

Credibility--

Nice presentation (1)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141172)

But the only thing I'm going to remember is that this guy (gal?) has issues with the configuration of apache (and who doesn't?) or I'll remember the last slide with the pony.

Hehn... pony ... want it ... can't have it ... cute.

presentation, what presentation?

How to fund Apache improvements (4, Interesting)

joelparker (586428) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141175)

I worked at Sun and tried to fund Apache improvements to make it smoother for my team's webmasters. No luck.

Apache is great but it could be *significantly* easier for beginning webmasters. And for companies to fund changes.

Re:How to fund Apache improvements (1)

daeley (126313) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141332)

Apache is great but it could be *significantly* easier for beginning webmasters.

1) Log in to your Mac.
2) Open System Preferences > Sharing
3) Click on the checkbox labeled "Personal Web Sharing"

Et voila! Instant Apache webserver. ;)

The 2G file limit... (3, Insightful)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141182)

Sitting in #apache on freenode is actually fun sometimes. You'll actually see these common things bought up by many people every day. The PDF actually touches on only a few of the "problems" that the conf file has.

However, its the 2G file limit that makes me laugh. Sure, there's LFS (Configure 1.3 with CFLAGS="-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64", enabled by default in 2.0.53 (and higher) and in 2.1), but to be really honest, there are far better ways to send large files. HTTP isn't one of them. There's FTP and there's also torrents; Both of which have the advantage of being designed for files rather than 'hypertext', which by nature is normally text...

NeoThermic

Re:The 2G file limit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141227)

HTTP isn't one of them. There's FTP and there's also torrents; Both of which have the advantage of being designed for files rather than 'hypertext', which by nature is normally text...

Actually I love the fact that one can use HTTP to download files that are gigabytes in size ... and I use that to my advantage ever since our local moron sysadmin thought it was the right time to install a transparent proxy to monitor employee activities (from instructions from his CEO buddy) :D

Rock

Re:The 2G file limit... (4, Insightful)

Burdell (228580) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141255)

HTTP doesn't really have much to do with hypertext. A small percentage of the bits transferred via HTTP are text/html (think images, flash and java, and of course PDFs). In many ways, HTTP is a better file download protocol than FTP:
  • doesn't need a second port for transfers (so no firewall "fun")
  • byte ranges allow a client to only request part of the file (great for file completions)
  • easier to do per site, per directory, or per file authentication (since authentication is per request, not per "session")

Re:The 2G file limit... (1)

mallardtheduck (760315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141310)

1) PASSV "passive" mode fixes that.
2) Modern FTP servers support resume, not sure how.
3) Valid point.

Re:The 2G file limit... (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141399)

1. Well, PASV still could cause a couple of problems. In NAT'ed or firewalled environments, where any connection might idle out, the main ftp connection (at port 21) could hang idle for perhaps several hours while data is transferring over ftp-data port (port 20). When the transfer is complete and commands are sent over port 21, the tcp connection might have been removed from firewalls in either end (smarter firewalls/nat implementations are aware of this problem and might as well change the local ip address sent in the ftp application layer)

2. The resume feature has always been there. The 20 year old RFC959 mentions REST and ftp servers don't have to be very "modern" to support that. Likewise, I can't remember a ftp client that didn't support REST, although they surely exist. Some of the ftp clients built into browsers didn't tend to be that clever regarding downloads.

3. Especially with the virtual host option. It might not be a simple option for a company to put up files for download on a shared server via ftp as no matter what hostname the client uses, there is no way to differenciate between the hosts. HTTP has the Host-header - which could be considered a hack. One of the more loved and useful hacks, though :-)

Re:The 2G file limit... (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141352)

You know, you really should think of better ways to start your post. Granted, the information you provide is true, not to meantion informative and insightful - however:

Let's play Expand the Acronym.

" HyperTextTansferProtocol doens't really have much to do with hypertext."

I wonder if anyone actually read the remainder of your post.

Re:The 2G file limit... (1)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141384)

>HTTP doesn't really have much to do with hypertext.

Well, it does share its name in the first letter (i.e. HyperText Transfer Protocol). When it was first about, you didn't really have anything other than the text. Its only with our media enriched abilities do we add in images, flash, java (shudder), and other binary file formats.

For a webpage, sure, HTTP is good. For many tiny files that only are going to be viewed rather than saved, sure, HTTP is good. But for large downloads (the whole "problem" behind the 2G limit), HTTP really isn't that good of a choice.

>byte ranges allow a client to only request part of the file (great for file completions)

I beileve you can do that with FTP as well, seeing as you can request a start offset in FTP for the ability to resume downloads.

NeoThermic

HTTP are often more practical than FTP (1)

Penguin (4919) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141294)

Come on, that "designed for files" is a too easy shot. For retrieving a specific, known resource, HTTP is pretty great, compared to FTP:

- No login- og directory-walking-overhead, just a simple request and a simple reply
- Just a simple tcp connection (no extra data connection and firewall hell)
- Simple conditional requests (If-Modified-Since) and Range-requests (Range, If-Range)

There really is nothing in the HTTP protocol that argues against HTTP as retrieving a single large resource, and where FTP would be better.

Other relevant conditions could be multiple files, unknown file names (where FTPs directory lists could be of great help) and the like. But for just requesting one big file, FTP doesn't have any advantage or is "more designed" for serving a large file. It isn't "more correct" or "better" to use FTP, just because of the abbreviation.

Re:HTTP are often more practical than FTP (1)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141369)

Well, first you skipped my other suggestion of torrents, of which they have an advantage over HTTP because you're not stressing the main server, and once you get going, the main server can go away and you can still download.

Now, FTP has the ability to resume from a set point in a file, so you can pause your download, or continue one after sudden connection loss (for any reason).

As for a FTP login, well, there's anonymous logins for that very reason.

My justification isn't its abbreviation, its the fact that when you're downloading files of larger than 2G, you don't want to risk anything going wrong with a HTTP download (the major risk of being unable to resume in most cases).

NeoThermic

Re:The 2G file limit... (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141377)

Well, it would be nice if it didn't stop responding when your access log hits 2GB, too...

Re:The 2G file limit... (2, Informative)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141405)

>Well, it would be nice if it didn't stop responding when your access log hits 2GB, too...

One should never let the logs get larger than a few hundred MB. Consider rotating the logs, either monthly or weekly (or even more often if your logs gain size quickly).

See:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/programs/rotatelo gs.html [apache.org] or http://httpd.apache.org/docs/programs/rotatelogs.h tml [apache.org]

NeoThermic

LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141204)

I'm a clueless newbie that's just learning Apache and I hate it sooooooooooo much that I think I'll write a stupid PowerPoint presentation about it and how much I want a pony, fill it with pointless drivel and random images that will make it look like a 7 year old did it, then turn it into a PDF and submit it to /.!

I AM T3H R00L3R 0F T3H W0RLD!!!!!!11

Please, /., no more stupid ranting bullshit links. They make Darth Vader cry.

Re:LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!! (0, Flamebait)

Michalson (638911) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141265)

Ah yes, the response of the prototypical "I'm cool because I promote OSS" fanboy, quick to attack anyone who dares question his beloved OSS software (I'm surprised there wasn't some conspiracy minded anti-Microsoft in there too).

Of course if you're wondering who Rich Bowen is, you can find a little bit about him here [apache.org] (or in plain english, he probably knows more about Apache then the parent and 95% of everyone reading this post - combined)

Re:LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!! (1)

lax-goalie (730970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141375)

You'd think that the bullet point "Yes, I know. I wrote that line in the docs. It's still really irritating" in the presentation might have clued the (grand)parent in that Bowen was on the Apache team...

Wow, beautiful (4, Funny)

legLess (127550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141208)

I love Apache, but in the same way I love my wife: with some trepidation. Fast and stable, flexible and reliable, but make one little syntax error and you can lose your ass.

Re:Wow, beautiful (2, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141251)

"...but make one little syntax error and you can lose your ass."

Like yelling "Oh, (not your wife's name)!" at the wrong moment?

Hey.. (1)

Bartislartfast Simps (896878) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141210)

It's not like you have to learn how to deal with life just to live it
I know Apache can be a bit tricy at times, but reading TFM would actually have solved some of your problems.
But you are free to run any webserver you want. My advice is to take a pick, and then take the time to learn how it works. I mean, none of this stuff comes for free.

Re:Hey.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141336)

Gosh, here's a flash bang, it's made out of obviousness, don't blind yourself.

Do you really think the authors are going to read your comment?

Its hard because.. (1)

TechnicGeek (889610) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141218)

its advanced. If it was simple then it would be limited. If you want it to be simple and limited then move to IIS. (not to mention crash) Computers are very advanced and hard. If you want to use the advanced options you must learn the hard things.

Summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141223)

Here, let me summarize the fugly PDF for everyone:

Slide 1:
BIG OBNOXIOUS COMIC SANS FONT HERE!

Slide 2:
Krazy movie poster here! Ha ha!

Slide 3:
Ho ho! A quirk in Apache! Those darn developers!

And that's about as far as I got before I went back to eating my sandwich and flaming people who dare e-mail me. Oh well. I tried.

Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141264)

I agree, the main problem I have is the freakin 2GB limit. Everything else I have been using for so long it's second nature. But the vhosts could be cleaned up.

mod_rewrite *is* vodoo (1)

JoeF (6782) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141277)

In particular if the regex is completely ignored...
Is it worse than sendmail? I don't know. The last time I touched sendmail was 10 years ago. Nowadays you would have to hold a gun to my head to have me even look at it.

Asbury College? (1)

tolldog (1571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141279)

Wow... that was cool to see the Asbury College logo on the PDF slide show.

Completely unexpected.

My father used to chair the CS dept there...
and I can still remember an incedent where I booted up an apple IIe in the lab and the second drive started to smoke. I left it running while I ran up three flights of stairs to tell my father.

His first question was if I had turned it off.

Turns out things were plugged in incorrectly.

-Tim

Typical responses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141281)

...from the wannabe high priesthood. It's hard but I know it and that makes me l33t so I don't care.

Don't bother addressing the fact that the guy has a number of points. Consistency is generally considered to be a good thing.

Font (1)

cocoamix (560647) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141317)

Tell me why I'm supposed to take ANYTHING seriously from someone who publishes a rant in Comic Sans.
(or a font that looks a lot like it)

Couple of comments (2, Informative)

Linus Torvaalds (876626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141349)

The basic auth logout: yes, people have been asking for it for years, but it's HTTP itself that doesn't provide a mechanism for logging out users, it's not Apache's fault.

The lax syntax: hell no. That sort of thing leads to security holes. If I make a typo, I'm perfectly capable of going back and fixing it, should Apache notify me immediately. But if it misinterprets a typo as meaning something I didn't want, I won't know about it until it bites me in the ass. There is nothing wrong with strict syntax for config files.

The rest are relatively sane complaints and ones I've said myself in the past. Even if they are contained in a godawful PDF.

God help me.... (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141374)

...but I now know all about the threads settings since we moved Novell GroupWise WebAccess to Apache 1.x and the transition wasn't, uhh, smooth, shall we say. ("Can anyone say 'abends'?) A real bitch to troubleshoot.
I was actually thinking longingly of the days of the Netscape Enterprise server for Netware.

PDF (0, Redundant)

Godman (767682) | more than 8 years ago | (#13141395)

Don't complain about the fact that its a PDF...

All you have to do is look at your status bar in the bottom of your browser, and it tells you that its a pdf. hate_apache.pdf, to be specific.

If you click on the link, its your own fault for not checking, especially on /.

huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13141403)

never have i seen anything so not funny in my life

and yes, i am quite familiar with a patch ee

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...