My two cents:

IBM will end support for classic;  "when" is irrelevant. According to their 
documentation, "forward-thinking" (IBM's
words) sites will use apache.  To that end, they have made the migration as 
painless as possible (there is a migration
tool in the HTTP admin).  It seems to me that IBM wants to get out of the HTTP 
server business, preferring instead to
leverage the existing apache codebase.  It also fits well with their 
differentiation strategy as a "systems integrator."
Their partnerships with Sun, apache, and open source organizations (eclipse, 
for example) clearly illustrate where IBM
wants to go.

Another thought is the growing body of open source software that supports 
apache. As folks extend the capabilities of
the apache server, Classic users will miss out on new opportunities.  It's the 
same concept as staying locked into IIS.
Forgetting about the major security flaws, if MS chooses a different 
technological direction than where you want to go,
you're stuck.  Apache gives you flexibility to use new and emerging 
technologies without having to wait for IBM to
rewrite it for classic.

Finally, classic is based on the old server model (NSCA?).  Eventually, it will 
approach a level were it can not keep up
with existing technologies, making it increasing more difficult to interface 
other things to it.  The end result is that
the business will be unable to move forward with it's web development efforts 
because the server is incapable of keeping
up with the new browsers.

I have found the working with apache is much easier than classic. The .conf is 
more easily understood and apache has
done a good job documenting the server and providing clear and concise (and 
easily found) information.  The ability to
cut and paste (or copy a text file from the IFS) should not be underestimated.  
Finally, my perception is that there are
many more folks who understand apache administration than classic, making 
hiring requirements much simpler.  I tried
(and had a terrible time with) virtual hosting on classic. With apache, I was 
able to setup both named-based and
ip-based quickly with a lot less pain then classic.  Today, apache serves four 
different ports (with different
codebases) reliably. I never did get classic to perform the same way.

Today, feature for feature, they may be comparable. Tomorrow, the clear choice 
is apache.

dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Stone [mailto:brad@bvstools.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:20 AM
To: web400@midrange.com
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Advantages of Apache


This also can be done with Classic.  Has since V3R2.  I
don't know if you were saying it wasn't, but it is.  :)

Brad
www.bvstools.com


This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].