|
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
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.