At 6/21/01 08:46 AM +0200, you wrote:
> IMHO, people will not go for fickle, new server software that's not > thoroughly tested for the sake of more transactions per second, > unless they are running something like CNN.com. > Paul Now don't get me wrong. I would love to see a better web server that is quicker to load and lighter on the system overall. However, it's just not there yet. chuck
The right tool for the job, guys: "To the man who has only a hammer, soon everything looks like a nail."
This is a cobalt-users list. That means almost all of us either: (1) run small sites off Qubes or (2) sell Webhosting on RaQs. We need simplicity, modularity, flexibility, and something popular and well-known for which we can easily find help and/or documentation. Meet Apache.
However, betcha there's thousands and thousands of people right now on their knees thanking $DEITY for the arrival of Tux. Not only will it handle greater loads, it will also handle similar loads on lesser hardware. Many is the company who will be able to adapt to Tux or use it for all or even *parts* of their site, saving tens of thousands per year on hardware and more even on TCO.
Tux is not really competition to Apache now; maybe it never will be. Looks to me to be designed to be a niche product at least for this part of its growth cycle, maybe forever. But we *do* know, and should all be grateful for, that any innovations that work for Tux will be evaluated by everyone else and, if appropriate, used there as well. So we will benefit anyway.
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx