Apache - Windows vs Linux

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Wed Jan 25 14:46:54 MST 2006


On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 12:23 -0700, Sasha Pachev wrote:
> Ryan:
> 
> Of all the services I've run on Linux, Apache has been one of the most stable 
> components. I have never had a problem with it that did not come from a user 
> error, namely me or somebody else putting something funny in httpd.conf or using 
> the defaults inappropriately. It is the piece that I always suspect last when 
> troubleshooting.
> 
> Now some conceptual philosophy. Apache was originally written on Unix. Apache 
> port to Windows is an afterthought. Add to that that Linux user base for Apache 
> is much larger than Windows. Thus it is reasonable to expect that Unix Apache 
> will always stay ahead of Windows Apache, or at least will so until something 
> drastic happens, such as Microsoft going open-source.
> 
> To use a culinary analogy Apache tastes much better with Linux than it does with 
> Windows.

While I'm sure there are still unixisms in Apache, but to say that
Windows support was added to Apache as an afterthought in version 2.0 is
incorrect.  Apache 2 was designed from the group up to run on a portable
runtime that supports a variety of underlying threading models, and was
designed be able have first-class support for Windows as well as Linux
and any other unix.  Windows support for the APR (and hence Apache 2.0)
was hardly an afterthought.  And as far as technology goes (but not
necessarily performance), unix Apache2 will not ever be significantly
different from win32 Apache2.  That's the beauty of a well-written
runtime layer.  It's portable and to a certain extent, the OS doesn't
matter anymore.  I think this is a good thing.

Michael
  

> 
> 




More information about the PLUG mailing list