Why I Hate the Apache Web Server 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."
Whoops (Score:4, Insightful)
Those PDF's again... aaargh (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, I didn't RTFA, which was in fact TFPDF.
You might hate Apache but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (Score:2, Insightful)
- 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
Christ, stop complaining about the PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaining about PDFs is like complaining about HTTP cause you don't like IIS.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Hilarious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise I'd define it "sadly realistic"...
Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
The 2G file limit... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:is this the internet ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The 2G file limit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (Score:5, Insightful)
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:is this the internet ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Have you ever tried printing a PDF file?
PDF has its place, but I agree in this case it was silly.
Re:Those PDF's again... aaargh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like it's a HTML page with a lot of process consuming javascript, java-that-requires-a-lot-of-loading-of-the-java-e
Instead you choose to be annoyed. I don't get it.
This is what the open source community needs... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also a big fan of the "Grumpy Editor's Guide" series of articles at Linux Weekly News.
Re:You might hate Apache but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If one user wants mod_perl, one wants php, and one wants mod_ruby, you pretty much have to have different webservers running, which means an administrative hassle and separate IPs.
There are a couple solutions I can think of:
(1) Change unix user permissions after it's selected a vhost, but before running any code or accessing files. Not just for CGIs, either, but modules.
(2) Make it easier to run seperate webservers as if they are one. Basically take the administrative hassle out of running multiple webservers.
Right now ISPs basically just offer PHP and use safe mode. But that doesn't help other languages, and it's basically a php hack.
It would also be nice if problems with one vhost didn't prevent the entire server from reloading the config. It should give a nasty error maybe, but the webserver shouldn't shut down the working vhosts, at worst it should leave it as it was before the reload.
Re:Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The 2G file limit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Couple of comments (Score:5, Insightful)
This one baffled me as well. How could you have a "logout" function in a stateless protocol? Logins don't persist beyond the fulfillment of a single request. The storing of a username and password for HTTP authentication is implemented on the client side, it has nothing to do with the web server or even the protocol. Complain to Microsoft/Mozilla/Opera Software or whoever makes your browser if you don't like it.
Re:Comic Sans is..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the laugh and the PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad to see that someone who works with the project has some of the same frustrations I do:
mod_imap - why does anyone still need this?
http and https needing seperate entries in vhost
vhosting in general
And to those whining about PDFs would you rather to have this posted in a PPT file? Comic Sans probably means Powerpoint is at the root of this. And I'm guessing he didn't need to put the out there, so he picked a format everyone can read without resorting to PowerPoints horrible html conversion. I hate PDFs, and really hate them viewed in the browser, but that's what "save as" is for. And I'll bet you didn't have to go get a viewer just to read this. There is no pleasing the Slashbots who would rather whine about a PDF than take the criticism in stride, and with the humor it was presented in. If you have to whine about the delivery, then you're too childish to pay attention to the message. He may not have OpenOffice installed at his work (there are places who don't allow that), and this may have been the best he could do under reasonable effort.
I'd prefer his effort go into the server than in giving us an HTML page rendered just for us. He could use that time to fix some of the annoyances! Some have better things to do than to please everyone.
And I say we give him a pony!
Re:HTTP are often more practical than FTP (Score:3, Insightful)
I just pointed out that your argument - "there are far better ways to send large files. HTTP isn't one of them." - didn't justify your FTP suggestion at all.
HTTP has the ability to resume as well. I have never had problem resuming HTTP download. Some web browsers might not offer you this possibility for downloading (but might use it itself when requesting images on a page that were only partially downloaded at last visit). But then again, these browsers might not offer you resume download on ftp as well.
Anonymous login still doesn't qualify as "a better way" regarding large files. It's quite irrelevant regarding large files and only introduces more overhead. Not that overhead matters much as when the transfer is underway, the situation is the same whether you use HTTP or FTP.
I really can't find ground for your statement that you should be "unable to resume in most cases". I honestly can't recall this being an issue. I often download and resume large files from different HTTP servers.
If you don't like it, Fork it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to the Open Source nature of apache, anyone who is ready to actually improve apache (in ways that the apache people potentially don't like and won't accept into the code) can fork apache and make their own even-easier-to-configure web browser.
Also remember that functionality comes before user friendliness. It should be no suprise there are warts on the config syntax, just be glad the damn thing works at all! If you want a real taste of ugly, go use IIS or (shudder) Weblogic. You'll run back to apache so fast your legs will fly off.
As apache matures even more, no doubt these warts will eventually get addressed. Maybe some kind of little task force will even form with this goal in mind.
Re:HTTP are often more practical than FTP (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never had a download from an FTP server ever fail. I've had *many* fail from HTTP served downloads that I really do try avoid downloading anything over about 3MB on HTTP.
I've downloaded many, many large files (e.g. ISOs) over HTTP with no problem and have done for years. If you are having problems downloading anything over 3MB, then I would guess that you are misconfiguring these computers. Really - you think the rest of the world is just putting up with flaky downloads?
TCP ensures an error-free connection for both FTP and HTTP. Neither FTP nor HTTP handle that part of the work. When you say "fail", what do you mean, exactly? Dropped connections? Corrupted files?
In any case, your personal experience and my personal experience is unimportant. That's what I was asking for stats. You are the one claiming that HTTP is unsuitable for large downloads; the burden of proof is on you to show that.
You keep skipping over torrents.
I think you are confusing me with somebody else.
Really, are you trying to attack one point by ignoring points you can't argue?
Er, what? I'm arguing that HTTP isn't as bad compared with FTP as you make it seem. BitTorrent doesn't factor into that argument whatsoever.
Or will you acknowledge that torrents can be far better than HTTP for downloads of large files?
I'll acknowledge that all three protocols have advantages and disadvantages. BitTorrent is not a silver bullet, the fact that users have to download and install additional software is a showstopper for many people, as is the fact that it's not simply a client downloading from a server (e.g. you have to open up ports and sacrifice upstream bandwidth to get a decent speed).
All three protocols "can be" far better than the other two. It depends on the circumstances. For large files, it depends on what servers are available, the update schedule, the bandwidth available, and so on. It's wrong to simply call one "far better" than another.
Look you lot, he's not some ignorant ranter. (Score:4, Insightful)
He's just pointing out some of the sillyness to his own teammates that apache has that people that are involved with and use apache get used to. (And, even if it is documented, that doesn't mean it's not silly.)
mod_imap? Why is that still on by default, for example.
As for the PDF complaints, THIS IS A PRESENTATION AT A CONFERENCE. What would you have perferred? A PPS file? Those that complain about the fonts? Get over yourselves.
My Biggest Request (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't apache's configuration file be XML compliant? It would make life sooo much easier if it were.
It would be sooo much easier to parse and validate the configuration file if it actually conformed to SOME kind of standard.
For that matter, why not use some limited XSL syntax in order to handle conditions?
What about this one? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perchild MPM, which lets apache run as the user owning NN vhost has been all-but dropped. [apache.org]
A few other guys have (kind of) picked it back up again, [metux.de] and gotten it to (mostly) work, but it doesn't scale well, yet... (barfs at 256 hosts)
Why can't somebody get this to work? (I would, but I'm not a c coder)
Re:RewriteMap (Score:3, Insightful)
The only sane way to do this with Apache as it is today was:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.* [NC]
RewriteMap www prg:/etc/apache2/conf/rewrite/www.pl
RewriteRule (.*) http:/// [http]{www:%{HTTP_HOST}}$1 [R]
#!/usr/bin/perl
$| = 1;
while () {
$_ =~ s/^www\.//;
print $_;
}
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www(.*) [NC]
RewriteRule (.*) http:||%1$1 [R]
(Pipes instead of slashes for slashcode
(or UseCanonicalName?)
Re:Web-based front-end? (Score:3, Insightful)
And for X-less webservers? Maybe something like the menuconfig frontend to kernel building would be neat.
General-purpose config file parsing (Score:5, Insightful)
This problem is *everywhere*. Why are we still putting up with differently-designed config files for your webserver, your ftp server, your mailserver, your nameserver and heaven knows what else, all supported by their own pieces of custom code which, like Apache's, each have the possibility of growing up to be subtly wrong?
I know the Windows idea of a centralised registry sucks in too many ways (inscrutable binary is no match for human-readable text files), but there's one thing it's got right: all the apps which access their configuration use a consistent API to do so. Is it an impossible dream to hope that someone gets a bunch of large free software projects to agree on what needs to go into a libconfigparse, then implements it, and provides bindings for major languages? Then we might stand a chance of avoiding weird config file problems cropping up in Apache and everywhere else, slightly differently each time.
2GB File limit (Score:2, Insightful)
2 GB file limit
Why, oh why? It's 2005! Makes throwing video around a bit limited. Please, good Apache people, make this a priority!
No supprise (Score:5, Insightful)
I got in to that some time ago over audio apps in Linux. I mentioned that one of the reasons I run Windows is pro audio work, Linux just doens't have the tools. I was told ya it does, so I asked like what? I mean hey, maybe they know something I don't, I'm always looking for new tools. No, I get pointed to the same ones I've tried. So I talk about what is wrong with them, why I don't like them. In response basically every flaw is downloayed, denied, blamed on me, or declared to be "a better way of doing things".
Zealots, of whatever type, want to believe their product/way of life/whatever is the best there is. Thus when presented with real criticism, they are likely to either ignore it, or try and change the argument to something else.
And this is one of the WORST parts of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean you have to remember, that most of the people in the world CAN'T, even if they want to, because they aren't coders. The majority of the population, well over 90%, does not know how to program. It's stupid to say they should learn how to. The whole point of specialization of labour is that peopel dont' ahve to do everything. Coders code, other peopel use what they make.
Then, of the few that can code, most don't have the time. It's a serious undertaking to make major changes to make major changes to a codebase, and it's really har dwhen it's not yours. You have to spend a lot of time just in learning what the fuck is going on and hwo it all works, before you can start making changes. Well, most coders can't do that, espically for every product they happen to use. There a fixed amount of time, and most of us have most of it taken up by more important things (like a paying job, family time, housework, etc).
Then, even if you do have the ability and time, it's not always easy. I'd not the guy that gave this presentation is an Apache developer, so he IS putting his money where his mouth is. It's just pretty clear that making tha fixes isn't some little 1 hour coding job, it's some major work that needs to happen.
So really, people who want to push OSS shouldn't take this isntantly hostile "Well fix it yourself!" attitude. Problems should be listend to, and should be fixed when possible. When it's not, the reasons should be explained why, and the person should be helped to figure out how ot work with what they have as best as possible.
Oh, and having configured both IIS and Apache, IIS wins hands down. Easy GUI config, options do what you think they do, plenty of context sensitive documentation. That's not to say it's a better web server, and sure as hell not more secure, but when it comes to configuration, that's just no contest.
Re:HTTP are often more practical than FTP (Score:3, Insightful)
Torrents are pretty nifty, but they're more complicated to support (need a seeder, etc) and much less reliable over slow connections. Generating SHA1 hashes for a 2GB file takes a while, so you can't just drop a file in the web directory and serve it immediately.
Re:The 2G file limit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why I hate PDFs for a text-based article (Score:3, Insightful)
Reader 7.0 runs okay here. It's no speed monster, but it's noticeably faster than earlier versions of the program.
> Uses huge ugly fonts
Christ. This is not the format's fault! Blame the content creator for being a lousy designer. If you use nice typefaces, PDF will display them just fine. You could go for a nice looking type like Adobe Garamond Pro.
> Has silly graphics that bring nothing to the point
Again a designer problem. You're really bad at this trolling thing, you know.
Re:And this is one of the WORST parts of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean you have to remember, that most of the people in the world CAN'T, even if they want to, because they aren't literate. The majority of the population, well over 90%, does not know how to read. It's stupid to say they should learn how to. The whole point of specialization of labour is that people don't have to do everything. Readers read, and other people use what they hear.
etc
Just because it was once true 90% of most countries were illiterate doesn't mean it's a specialized skill that a select few should know. The same can be said for math, which many people are told has no "real world" use beyond simple arithmetic. Programming/coding is a combination of language, math, and logic to perform tasks. Perhaps if a larger percentage of the world was coders there'd be a lot less people who would accept closed proprietary products; ie, more people would demand to do their own source code modding. There's a reason it's called computer literacy. And there's a reason why taking a course in using Excel isn't it.