<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2655.72"> <TITLE>RE: Apache 2.0.x on ES 2.1</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Absolutely it applies to all services if that is what you want to do. I don't have any sort of attitude but Apache happens to be particularly important to my operations so that one in particular I compile and support myself. There is a lot of value going from AS2.1 default of Apache 1.3 to Apache 2.0. I don't dispute the value of the Enterprise and your own advice at the bottom of your email should be taken by you as well. How the application applies to your operations weighs far more heavily than whether or not I use a backported version of something that doesn't support the features that I require from an application. Red Hat does not dictate my business model so I have to modify and support applications that I need to support my business. The OP was asking advice on going from 1.3 to 2.0 on AS 2.1. I was giving my advice. He doesn't have to take it. You don't have to like it, but in giving him other advice you don't have to disparage mine. If I gave him inaccurate advice I would understand and expect correction. But I don't want nor appreciate any disparaging remarks from you. You also don't dictate my business model nor do you know anything about it. Drew -----Original Message----- From: Ed Wilts [<A HREF="mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org">mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org</A>] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:21 PM To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list Subject: Re: Apache 2.0.x on ES 2.1 On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:09:55AM -0400, Hamilton, Andrew wrote: > I never use a canned version of apache from Red Hat. I think more important > than trying to use a default version is to figure out what you really want > the web server to do and compile it yourself. With this attitude, the same applies to all services. You may as well throw Red Hat Enterprise Linux away and build your own distribution. Why not throw away the Red Hat kernel, their installer, or even rpm? Heck, with a few dozen tarballs you can do it all yourself, right? Red Hat adds a lot of value to its Enterprise Linux distribution. This value includes support. By building your own version of the application, you've invalidated yourself from Red Hat's support for that application. > That way you get the options that YOU want not what someone else > thinks you want. And you get to support it yourself. If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. If security fixes come out, you get to go get the patches yourself, test and build them. If the fix is in a new version, you may be forced to upgrade and break backwards compatibility. Red Hat will backport the fix to the old version - most developers don't do this for things like Apache. There are tradeoffs involved and your approach should not be taken lightly whether the application is easy to compile or not. -- Ed Wilts, RHCE Mounds View, MN, USA <A HREF="mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org">mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org</A> Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe <A HREF="mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe">mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe</A> <A HREF="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list" TARGET="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list</A> </BODY> </HTML>