<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_12_1359206</id>
	<title>Apache May Stop 1.3, 2.0 Series Releases</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263309360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dan Jones writes <i>"The Apache Software Foundation may <a href="http://www.techworld.com.au/article/332190/apache\_mulls\_end\_1\_3\_2\_0\_releases">stop releasing new versions of the older 1.3 and 2.0 series</a> of its flagship Web server product with most development now focused on the 2.2 series. Nothing is final yet, but messages to the Apache httpd developer mailing list recommend the formal deprecation of the 1.3.x branch, with most citing a lack of development activity. The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projects and has become an integral part of the technology stack for thousands of Web and SaaS applications. The first generation of Apache was released in 1995, and the 2.0 series <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/02/04/06/0216250/Apache-20-Goes-Gold">began in 2002</a>. Apache httpd 2.2 <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/05/12/02/0124224/Apache-220-Released">began in 2005</a>, with the latest release (October 2009) being 2.2.14. However, the most recent releases of the 1.3 and 2.0 series servers were back in January 2008. With the combined total of active 1.3 and 2.0 series Apache Web servers well into the millions, any decision to end-of-life either product will be watched closely."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan Jones writes " The Apache Software Foundation may stop releasing new versions of the older 1.3 and 2.0 series of its flagship Web server product with most development now focused on the 2.2 series .
Nothing is final yet , but messages to the Apache httpd developer mailing list recommend the formal deprecation of the 1.3.x branch , with most citing a lack of development activity .
The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projects and has become an integral part of the technology stack for thousands of Web and SaaS applications .
The first generation of Apache was released in 1995 , and the 2.0 series began in 2002 .
Apache httpd 2.2 began in 2005 , with the latest release ( October 2009 ) being 2.2.14 .
However , the most recent releases of the 1.3 and 2.0 series servers were back in January 2008 .
With the combined total of active 1.3 and 2.0 series Apache Web servers well into the millions , any decision to end-of-life either product will be watched closely .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan Jones writes "The Apache Software Foundation may stop releasing new versions of the older 1.3 and 2.0 series of its flagship Web server product with most development now focused on the 2.2 series.
Nothing is final yet, but messages to the Apache httpd developer mailing list recommend the formal deprecation of the 1.3.x branch, with most citing a lack of development activity.
The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projects and has become an integral part of the technology stack for thousands of Web and SaaS applications.
The first generation of Apache was released in 1995, and the 2.0 series began in 2002.
Apache httpd 2.2 began in 2005, with the latest release (October 2009) being 2.2.14.
However, the most recent releases of the 1.3 and 2.0 series servers were back in January 2008.
With the combined total of active 1.3 and 2.0 series Apache Web servers well into the millions, any decision to end-of-life either product will be watched closely.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740596</id>
	<title>Re:Fully backwards compatible, or dead end.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263324420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no way I can subscribe to the notion that Apache developers (or anyone, really) has an ethical obligation to keep maintaining a 10 year old codebase with any kind of implied guarantee. If there was a contract in place requiring that, then sure; but there isn't such a thing here.</p><p>Any people using Apache 1.3 should have really see this coming, and there's absolutely no excuse not to. It's the standard way of doing things in this industry, and if anything, the term was already waaay longer than is common.</p><p>Furthermore, the options are also fairly obvious:</p><p>1. Upgrade your environment to 2.2 (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).</p><p>2. Keep maintaining 1.3 on your own (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).</p><p>3. Migrate to a different server (or pay... you get the idea).</p><p>Now you also say that:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves</p></div><p>to which I can only reply, "too bad, they should have engaged their brains at some point in the past - they had 10 years to do so". If they're screwed, they have absolutely no-one to blame by themselves.</p><p>Of course, in reality, when they realize that the FOSS white knight in shining armor won't save their ass by keeping to provide them quality software for free this time, you can bet the funds will suddenly be found. Furthermore, I suspect that vast majority of those people would actually go with option #1, and just upgrade to 2.2 (and also learn their lesson to keep up with the update curve to a reasonable extent to minimize "late upgrade" expenses).</p><p>Or maybe, if there are really that many 1.3 users who absolutely won't move to 2.2, and each one has so little money they can't pay anyone to get them to move to anything else, either (where are they hosting? in the basement?), then, well, the beauty of FOSS is that they can also come together, form some sort of non-profit funded by all of them - with minimal amount of contribution from each - that would hire people to fork and maintain 1.3 for the benefit of all.</p><p>Or maybe they can just donate to OpenBSD.</p><p>In any case, if people "don't have the means or resources" (which ultimately means "money") to do their business, then they shouldn't stay in that business - it really is as simple as that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no way I can subscribe to the notion that Apache developers ( or anyone , really ) has an ethical obligation to keep maintaining a 10 year old codebase with any kind of implied guarantee .
If there was a contract in place requiring that , then sure ; but there is n't such a thing here.Any people using Apache 1.3 should have really see this coming , and there 's absolutely no excuse not to .
It 's the standard way of doing things in this industry , and if anything , the term was already waaay longer than is common.Furthermore , the options are also fairly obvious : 1 .
Upgrade your environment to 2.2 ( or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility ) .2 .
Keep maintaining 1.3 on your own ( or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility ) .3 .
Migrate to a different server ( or pay... you get the idea ) .Now you also say that : they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselvesto which I can only reply , " too bad , they should have engaged their brains at some point in the past - they had 10 years to do so " .
If they 're screwed , they have absolutely no-one to blame by themselves.Of course , in reality , when they realize that the FOSS white knight in shining armor wo n't save their ass by keeping to provide them quality software for free this time , you can bet the funds will suddenly be found .
Furthermore , I suspect that vast majority of those people would actually go with option # 1 , and just upgrade to 2.2 ( and also learn their lesson to keep up with the update curve to a reasonable extent to minimize " late upgrade " expenses ) .Or maybe , if there are really that many 1.3 users who absolutely wo n't move to 2.2 , and each one has so little money they ca n't pay anyone to get them to move to anything else , either ( where are they hosting ?
in the basement ?
) , then , well , the beauty of FOSS is that they can also come together , form some sort of non-profit funded by all of them - with minimal amount of contribution from each - that would hire people to fork and maintain 1.3 for the benefit of all.Or maybe they can just donate to OpenBSD.In any case , if people " do n't have the means or resources " ( which ultimately means " money " ) to do their business , then they should n't stay in that business - it really is as simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no way I can subscribe to the notion that Apache developers (or anyone, really) has an ethical obligation to keep maintaining a 10 year old codebase with any kind of implied guarantee.
If there was a contract in place requiring that, then sure; but there isn't such a thing here.Any people using Apache 1.3 should have really see this coming, and there's absolutely no excuse not to.
It's the standard way of doing things in this industry, and if anything, the term was already waaay longer than is common.Furthermore, the options are also fairly obvious:1.
Upgrade your environment to 2.2 (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).2.
Keep maintaining 1.3 on your own (or pay someone to do so for you and accept responsibility).3.
Migrate to a different server (or pay... you get the idea).Now you also say that:they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselvesto which I can only reply, "too bad, they should have engaged their brains at some point in the past - they had 10 years to do so".
If they're screwed, they have absolutely no-one to blame by themselves.Of course, in reality, when they realize that the FOSS white knight in shining armor won't save their ass by keeping to provide them quality software for free this time, you can bet the funds will suddenly be found.
Furthermore, I suspect that vast majority of those people would actually go with option #1, and just upgrade to 2.2 (and also learn their lesson to keep up with the update curve to a reasonable extent to minimize "late upgrade" expenses).Or maybe, if there are really that many 1.3 users who absolutely won't move to 2.2, and each one has so little money they can't pay anyone to get them to move to anything else, either (where are they hosting?
in the basement?
), then, well, the beauty of FOSS is that they can also come together, form some sort of non-profit funded by all of them - with minimal amount of contribution from each - that would hire people to fork and maintain 1.3 for the benefit of all.Or maybe they can just donate to OpenBSD.In any case, if people "don't have the means or resources" (which ultimately means "money") to do their business, then they shouldn't stay in that business - it really is as simple as that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594</id>
	<title>Surly this is just a formality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surly this is just a formality. If there have not been updates for two years they are pretty-much dead projects anyway. Conversely if you have been running on an old system for two years without problems then its likely to be pretty stable, so you can just stick with it on the understanding that there will be no fixes or enhancements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surly this is just a formality .
If there have not been updates for two years they are pretty-much dead projects anyway .
Conversely if you have been running on an old system for two years without problems then its likely to be pretty stable , so you can just stick with it on the understanding that there will be no fixes or enhancements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surly this is just a formality.
If there have not been updates for two years they are pretty-much dead projects anyway.
Conversely if you have been running on an old system for two years without problems then its likely to be pretty stable, so you can just stick with it on the understanding that there will be no fixes or enhancements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741578</id>
	<title>What about my httpd v1.0 pre-alpha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263328320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still using httpd v1.0 pre-alpha -- are you telling me I'm not going to get future updates now?<br>
&nbsp; <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>// but seriously, I migrated my servers from 1.3 to 2.0 and then to 2.2 and it's no biggy.  In fact, it gets better when you migrate up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still using httpd v1.0 pre-alpha -- are you telling me I 'm not going to get future updates now ?
  // but seriously , I migrated my servers from 1.3 to 2.0 and then to 2.2 and it 's no biggy .
In fact , it gets better when you migrate up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still using httpd v1.0 pre-alpha -- are you telling me I'm not going to get future updates now?
   // but seriously, I migrated my servers from 1.3 to 2.0 and then to 2.2 and it's no biggy.
In fact, it gets better when you migrate up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737608</id>
	<title>about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to upgrade, this isn't 1995 anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to upgrade , this is n't 1995 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to upgrade, this isn't 1995 anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738026</id>
	<title>Re:Surly this is just a formality</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1263315420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well you have to define the term stable.  There's a big difference between "doesn't need new features" and "is bug free" and "has no security issues"...  There's also different methods to deal with the deprecation.  I'd HATE to see them stop support entirely on those branches simply because there's little activity.  So many sites rely on them that upgrading would be a non-trivial act.  What I would rather see is a "staged" deprecation.  Basically reduce 2.0 and 1.3 to "security and mission critical bug fixes only".  That way if a major security issue is found, it can be fixed (same with a major bug, but at this point what's the chance of that)...  After a set amount of time in that phase, support would be dropped entirely.  So say the security support for a branch lasts 3 years.  That way it gives admins a chance to upgrade the software without putting themselves at undue risk... <br> <br>
Just my $0.02...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you have to define the term stable .
There 's a big difference between " does n't need new features " and " is bug free " and " has no security issues " ... There 's also different methods to deal with the deprecation .
I 'd HATE to see them stop support entirely on those branches simply because there 's little activity .
So many sites rely on them that upgrading would be a non-trivial act .
What I would rather see is a " staged " deprecation .
Basically reduce 2.0 and 1.3 to " security and mission critical bug fixes only " .
That way if a major security issue is found , it can be fixed ( same with a major bug , but at this point what 's the chance of that ) ... After a set amount of time in that phase , support would be dropped entirely .
So say the security support for a branch lasts 3 years .
That way it gives admins a chance to upgrade the software without putting themselves at undue risk.. . Just my $ 0.02.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you have to define the term stable.
There's a big difference between "doesn't need new features" and "is bug free" and "has no security issues"...  There's also different methods to deal with the deprecation.
I'd HATE to see them stop support entirely on those branches simply because there's little activity.
So many sites rely on them that upgrading would be a non-trivial act.
What I would rather see is a "staged" deprecation.
Basically reduce 2.0 and 1.3 to "security and mission critical bug fixes only".
That way if a major security issue is found, it can be fixed (same with a major bug, but at this point what's the chance of that)...  After a set amount of time in that phase, support would be dropped entirely.
So say the security support for a branch lasts 3 years.
That way it gives admins a chance to upgrade the software without putting themselves at undue risk...  
Just my $0.02...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738314</id>
	<title>From someone with only cursory knowledge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how does the statement "We will stop releasing new versions of version 1.3 and 2.0 and continue to release new versions of version 2.2" make sense?</p><p>Have we abandoned the straightforward Arrow of Versionity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how does the statement " We will stop releasing new versions of version 1.3 and 2.0 and continue to release new versions of version 2.2 " make sense ? Have we abandoned the straightforward Arrow of Versionity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how does the statement "We will stop releasing new versions of version 1.3 and 2.0 and continue to release new versions of version 2.2" make sense?Have we abandoned the straightforward Arrow of Versionity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741882</id>
	<title>Re:Security Patches</title>
	<author>onebuttonmouse</author>
	<datestamp>1263329760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenBSD still won't include 2.0 or 2.2 in the distribution because the licence is not acceptable to them.  I imagine they will continue take an interest in the 1.3 branch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenBSD still wo n't include 2.0 or 2.2 in the distribution because the licence is not acceptable to them .
I imagine they will continue take an interest in the 1.3 branch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenBSD still won't include 2.0 or 2.2 in the distribution because the licence is not acceptable to them.
I imagine they will continue take an interest in the 1.3 branch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737672</id>
	<title>You can not kill FOSS!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1263314100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All kidding aside anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it.  You can not really EOL a FOSS program if anybody wants to keep it alive.  That being said there are other light weight web servers that can do what people are using 1.3 for. Now Apache 2.0 may be a bit harder to replace since the migration isn't automatic from what I hear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All kidding aside anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it .
You can not really EOL a FOSS program if anybody wants to keep it alive .
That being said there are other light weight web servers that can do what people are using 1.3 for .
Now Apache 2.0 may be a bit harder to replace since the migration is n't automatic from what I hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All kidding aside anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it.
You can not really EOL a FOSS program if anybody wants to keep it alive.
That being said there are other light weight web servers that can do what people are using 1.3 for.
Now Apache 2.0 may be a bit harder to replace since the migration isn't automatic from what I hear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737620</id>
	<title>go for it</title>
	<author>resfilter</author>
	<datestamp>1263313860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>of course, tons of servers still run the 1.3 and 2.0 branches<br> <br>

these people don't care if they're in active development - and almost all of them are running them because upgrading isn't worth it for their application.<br> <br>

all these people care about are security patches.  as long as that keeps happening, depreciate them all you want<br> <br>

it's just like people running 2.2.x kernels on high uptime servers.  they don't want new features - if they were willing to install a new version of something every time a new feature came out, they'd be running 2.6.x now anyway.  but they'll keep using it as long as reliability and security fixes keep rolling out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , tons of servers still run the 1.3 and 2.0 branches these people do n't care if they 're in active development - and almost all of them are running them because upgrading is n't worth it for their application .
all these people care about are security patches .
as long as that keeps happening , depreciate them all you want it 's just like people running 2.2.x kernels on high uptime servers .
they do n't want new features - if they were willing to install a new version of something every time a new feature came out , they 'd be running 2.6.x now anyway .
but they 'll keep using it as long as reliability and security fixes keep rolling out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, tons of servers still run the 1.3 and 2.0 branches 

these people don't care if they're in active development - and almost all of them are running them because upgrading isn't worth it for their application.
all these people care about are security patches.
as long as that keeps happening, depreciate them all you want 

it's just like people running 2.2.x kernels on high uptime servers.
they don't want new features - if they were willing to install a new version of something every time a new feature came out, they'd be running 2.6.x now anyway.
but they'll keep using it as long as reliability and security fixes keep rolling out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30742416</id>
	<title>Re:Fully backwards compatible, or dead end.</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1263289260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many years do you expect 1.x to be supported? 2.x is a bit over 8 years old right now, and as OP notes, it might not run on modern OSs. At some point, people will have to make the change (staying still is for the Amish - not everyone needs to be an early adopter, but doing anything on 1.x is getting very curmudgeonly at this point. You're not going to see a lot of support for ancient software in open *or* closed source environments.</p><p>Also, you're not the people if you're thinking this way, you're a business. Like in all business, someday your business model will need to be revised or will become obsolete as technology shifts happen. It's a basic fact of life - we may want things to be reasonable when you're reasonable (even if you're on the conservative end of reasonable), offering reasonably long support, but it will not last forever. Eventually you look around and find you're the last buggy on the road, surrounded by cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many years do you expect 1.x to be supported ?
2.x is a bit over 8 years old right now , and as OP notes , it might not run on modern OSs .
At some point , people will have to make the change ( staying still is for the Amish - not everyone needs to be an early adopter , but doing anything on 1.x is getting very curmudgeonly at this point .
You 're not going to see a lot of support for ancient software in open * or * closed source environments.Also , you 're not the people if you 're thinking this way , you 're a business .
Like in all business , someday your business model will need to be revised or will become obsolete as technology shifts happen .
It 's a basic fact of life - we may want things to be reasonable when you 're reasonable ( even if you 're on the conservative end of reasonable ) , offering reasonably long support , but it will not last forever .
Eventually you look around and find you 're the last buggy on the road , surrounded by cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many years do you expect 1.x to be supported?
2.x is a bit over 8 years old right now, and as OP notes, it might not run on modern OSs.
At some point, people will have to make the change (staying still is for the Amish - not everyone needs to be an early adopter, but doing anything on 1.x is getting very curmudgeonly at this point.
You're not going to see a lot of support for ancient software in open *or* closed source environments.Also, you're not the people if you're thinking this way, you're a business.
Like in all business, someday your business model will need to be revised or will become obsolete as technology shifts happen.
It's a basic fact of life - we may want things to be reasonable when you're reasonable (even if you're on the conservative end of reasonable), offering reasonably long support, but it will not last forever.
Eventually you look around and find you're the last buggy on the road, surrounded by cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737960</id>
	<title>Putting closure on a software project is important</title>
	<author>MaraDNS</author>
	<datestamp>1263315180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Putting closure on a software product is important.
</p><p>
Professional software usually has an EOL schedule.  For example, RedHat Enterprise Linux and Windows XP both have EOLs for early 2014.  This allows people using the software to plan upgrades and know when they need to be making a transition.
</p><p>
This is equally as important for open-source software.  It looks really bad when this is not done.  For example, Dan Bernstein's DjbDNS software package has <a href="http://www.maradns.org/advocacy.html#djbdns" title="maradns.org">three unpatched security holes</a> [maradns.org].  People using this software have to know about these holes and apply third-party patches.
</p><p>
In addition, when the maker of an open-source program says "OK, I'm done with this program.", it allows maintainers to step forward and take over the project.  For example, when I <a href="http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/07/obhack-eol-announcment.html" title="blogspot.com">announced I would no longer work on a Doom random map generator</a> [blogspot.com] I had been hacking on for a while, someone expressed interest in maintaining the software, and <a href="http://maradns.blogspot.com/search/label/ObHack" title="blogspot.com">subsequent updates have since been done</a> [blogspot.com].
</p><p>
I think the Apache foundation should either say "OK, we'll still fix security bugs on this program" or "We're no longer maintaining this release".  This way, the users of these programs know whether to upgrade, form their own group applying security patches, or just know they're OK from a security prospective if they're current.
</p><p>
I have <a href="http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/09/rant-putting-closure-on-project.html" title="blogspot.com">blogged about putting closure on open-source projects</a> [blogspot.com] and have <a href="http://maradns.org/download.html" title="maradns.org">well defined EOL dates for older releases of my own MaraDNS</a> [maradns.org].
</p><p>
A lot of open-source projects just languish when the developers lose interest; I feel this is irresponsible and feel EOL dates and putting closure is important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting closure on a software product is important .
Professional software usually has an EOL schedule .
For example , RedHat Enterprise Linux and Windows XP both have EOLs for early 2014 .
This allows people using the software to plan upgrades and know when they need to be making a transition .
This is equally as important for open-source software .
It looks really bad when this is not done .
For example , Dan Bernstein 's DjbDNS software package has three unpatched security holes [ maradns.org ] .
People using this software have to know about these holes and apply third-party patches .
In addition , when the maker of an open-source program says " OK , I 'm done with this program .
" , it allows maintainers to step forward and take over the project .
For example , when I announced I would no longer work on a Doom random map generator [ blogspot.com ] I had been hacking on for a while , someone expressed interest in maintaining the software , and subsequent updates have since been done [ blogspot.com ] .
I think the Apache foundation should either say " OK , we 'll still fix security bugs on this program " or " We 're no longer maintaining this release " .
This way , the users of these programs know whether to upgrade , form their own group applying security patches , or just know they 're OK from a security prospective if they 're current .
I have blogged about putting closure on open-source projects [ blogspot.com ] and have well defined EOL dates for older releases of my own MaraDNS [ maradns.org ] .
A lot of open-source projects just languish when the developers lose interest ; I feel this is irresponsible and feel EOL dates and putting closure is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Putting closure on a software product is important.
Professional software usually has an EOL schedule.
For example, RedHat Enterprise Linux and Windows XP both have EOLs for early 2014.
This allows people using the software to plan upgrades and know when they need to be making a transition.
This is equally as important for open-source software.
It looks really bad when this is not done.
For example, Dan Bernstein's DjbDNS software package has three unpatched security holes [maradns.org].
People using this software have to know about these holes and apply third-party patches.
In addition, when the maker of an open-source program says "OK, I'm done with this program.
", it allows maintainers to step forward and take over the project.
For example, when I announced I would no longer work on a Doom random map generator [blogspot.com] I had been hacking on for a while, someone expressed interest in maintaining the software, and subsequent updates have since been done [blogspot.com].
I think the Apache foundation should either say "OK, we'll still fix security bugs on this program" or "We're no longer maintaining this release".
This way, the users of these programs know whether to upgrade, form their own group applying security patches, or just know they're OK from a security prospective if they're current.
I have blogged about putting closure on open-source projects [blogspot.com] and have well defined EOL dates for older releases of my own MaraDNS [maradns.org].
A lot of open-source projects just languish when the developers lose interest; I feel this is irresponsible and feel EOL dates and putting closure is important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738336</id>
	<title>Re:go for it</title>
	<author>dingman</author>
	<datestamp>1263316440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2.0 is still supported in several Linux distros, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, which is still in support. If you truly need 2.0.x, Red Hat (and I assume other distro maintainers) can be expected to continue providing basic security fix updates to the 2.0 series as long as RHEL4 is still in support. I don't see much reason to expect an upstream project like Apache.org to do that.</p><p>[Yes, I work for Red Hat. But I only represent myself, not my employer nor my colleagues.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2.0 is still supported in several Linux distros , including Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 , which is still in support .
If you truly need 2.0.x , Red Hat ( and I assume other distro maintainers ) can be expected to continue providing basic security fix updates to the 2.0 series as long as RHEL4 is still in support .
I do n't see much reason to expect an upstream project like Apache.org to do that .
[ Yes , I work for Red Hat .
But I only represent myself , not my employer nor my colleagues .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.0 is still supported in several Linux distros, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, which is still in support.
If you truly need 2.0.x, Red Hat (and I assume other distro maintainers) can be expected to continue providing basic security fix updates to the 2.0 series as long as RHEL4 is still in support.
I don't see much reason to expect an upstream project like Apache.org to do that.
[Yes, I work for Red Hat.
But I only represent myself, not my employer nor my colleagues.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741492</id>
	<title>Number 1!</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263327960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projects</p></div><p>One of them? Is there any other OS project that even comes close to Apache's impact?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projectsOne of them ?
Is there any other OS project that even comes close to Apache 's impact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apache HTTP server project is one of the most successful and popular open source projectsOne of them?
Is there any other OS project that even comes close to Apache's impact?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737438</id>
	<title>oh noes....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for all those mac osx server goons who think they are server admins cause they run mac osx server....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for all those mac osx server goons who think they are server admins cause they run mac osx server... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for all those mac osx server goons who think they are server admins cause they run mac osx server....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737910</id>
	<title>Re:Surly this is just a formality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who you calling surly?</p><p>And what does this mean exactly? Obviously, no new features for 1.3 and 2.0 - what about bugfixes? They say: "we'll be distributing security updates by other means" - what are these other means?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who you calling surly ? And what does this mean exactly ?
Obviously , no new features for 1.3 and 2.0 - what about bugfixes ?
They say : " we 'll be distributing security updates by other means " - what are these other means ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who you calling surly?And what does this mean exactly?
Obviously, no new features for 1.3 and 2.0 - what about bugfixes?
They say: "we'll be distributing security updates by other means" - what are these other means?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738532</id>
	<title>I would like to see 1.3 stay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263317160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I make thorough use of it on many platforms, for the reasons that it has a notably smaller memory footprint, runs swifter, and is a bit more manageable than both of the 2.x branches. I recognize the extended, native feature set of the 2.x branches; but I simply don't need any of them; they are not apt replacements for what 1.3 offers. I also recognize the problem with the 1.3 branch not quite receiving the attention it could do with regarding updates (although 1.3.41 has no known security issues at the moment), but I still prefer 1.3 over the 2.x branches. Eventually stagnation of 1.3 will force me to move to 2.2, but I will wait patiently. THTTPD is not a good substitute today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I make thorough use of it on many platforms , for the reasons that it has a notably smaller memory footprint , runs swifter , and is a bit more manageable than both of the 2.x branches .
I recognize the extended , native feature set of the 2.x branches ; but I simply do n't need any of them ; they are not apt replacements for what 1.3 offers .
I also recognize the problem with the 1.3 branch not quite receiving the attention it could do with regarding updates ( although 1.3.41 has no known security issues at the moment ) , but I still prefer 1.3 over the 2.x branches .
Eventually stagnation of 1.3 will force me to move to 2.2 , but I will wait patiently .
THTTPD is not a good substitute today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make thorough use of it on many platforms, for the reasons that it has a notably smaller memory footprint, runs swifter, and is a bit more manageable than both of the 2.x branches.
I recognize the extended, native feature set of the 2.x branches; but I simply don't need any of them; they are not apt replacements for what 1.3 offers.
I also recognize the problem with the 1.3 branch not quite receiving the attention it could do with regarding updates (although 1.3.41 has no known security issues at the moment), but I still prefer 1.3 over the 2.x branches.
Eventually stagnation of 1.3 will force me to move to 2.2, but I will wait patiently.
THTTPD is not a good substitute today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30743198</id>
	<title>Re:Fully backwards compatible, or dead end.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263293160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3.</p> </div><p>I'm not sure if you are in the ghetto end of the web hosting business or what, but 1.3 hasn't been in the norm in years. In the real world of webhosting, we can afford keyboards with a working shift key too. Tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>im in web hosting and web development business , and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3 .
I 'm not sure if you are in the ghetto end of the web hosting business or what , but 1.3 has n't been in the norm in years .
In the real world of webhosting , we can afford keyboards with a working shift key too .
Tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3.
I'm not sure if you are in the ghetto end of the web hosting business or what, but 1.3 hasn't been in the norm in years.
In the real world of webhosting, we can afford keyboards with a working shift key too.
Tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30752800</id>
	<title>Re:Netcraft confirms...</title>
	<author>hardwarefreak</author>
	<datestamp>1263406920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Apache 1.3.x is dying</p></div><p>Has been for a looong time.  Thus, I switched to Lighttpd.  Apache2 is too bloated for me, sucks too much memory by default, and is too difficult to configure for small simple sites (last I tried anyway, which was a looong time ago).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Apache 1.3.x is dyingHas been for a looong time .
Thus , I switched to Lighttpd .
Apache2 is too bloated for me , sucks too much memory by default , and is too difficult to configure for small simple sites ( last I tried anyway , which was a looong time ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Apache 1.3.x is dyingHas been for a looong time.
Thus, I switched to Lighttpd.
Apache2 is too bloated for me, sucks too much memory by default, and is too difficult to configure for small simple sites (last I tried anyway, which was a looong time ago).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740170</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263322920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and supporting x86 is a branch of computer-necrophilia. So what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and supporting x86 is a branch of computer-necrophilia .
So what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and supporting x86 is a branch of computer-necrophilia.
So what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384</id>
	<title>Fully backwards compatible, or dead end.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263319980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry.</p><p>im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3. innumerable scripts, modules, software were coded for 1.3, and there are innumerable websites that still need those stuff. even the clients which start with newer versions are sometimes having to go back to 1.3 because they need some module or software that is uncommon but vital in their line of business.</p><p>'obsolete','old','development ceased','not supported' etc do not count. this is about business. small businesses and individuals, who constitute the majority of the web dont have the funds or time to get all their setups ported to a wholly new webserver. they just wont. because they cant. its just like the xp -&gt; vista -&gt; 7 thing, but much more serious in that, they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves.</p><p>2.0 didnt get hold at all in the broad web. there are 'edgy' people using it, and edgy web hosts offering it, but majority of the hosts just offer 1.3 because of the software support for it. just like windows and its broad software support base.</p><p>this is a practical issue. people wont just roll over to 2.0 or 2.2 just because smart programmers made them, and they work better. there are more pragmatic issues at stake here. if you dont take backwards compatibility into FULL account, people wont use your new version and just go with the old. as long as there are charitable people (in or outside the apache developer base) that fixes any security issues that are found out, they will just stay on 1.3. this WONT be good for either apache, or open source software in general.</p><p>i implore you, please do not be elitist or self righteous and try to force anything on the people. for, this is 'the people', leave aside not liking being forced (and hating self righteous behavior), this time they dont have the means and resources to do what they are forced either.</p><p>remember, software didnt build the web - people did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry.im in web hosting and web development business , and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3. innumerable scripts , modules , software were coded for 1.3 , and there are innumerable websites that still need those stuff .
even the clients which start with newer versions are sometimes having to go back to 1.3 because they need some module or software that is uncommon but vital in their line of business .
'obsolete','old','development ceased','not supported ' etc do not count .
this is about business .
small businesses and individuals , who constitute the majority of the web dont have the funds or time to get all their setups ported to a wholly new webserver .
they just wont .
because they cant .
its just like the xp - &gt; vista - &gt; 7 thing , but much more serious in that , they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves.2.0 didnt get hold at all in the broad web .
there are 'edgy ' people using it , and edgy web hosts offering it , but majority of the hosts just offer 1.3 because of the software support for it .
just like windows and its broad software support base.this is a practical issue .
people wont just roll over to 2.0 or 2.2 just because smart programmers made them , and they work better .
there are more pragmatic issues at stake here .
if you dont take backwards compatibility into FULL account , people wont use your new version and just go with the old .
as long as there are charitable people ( in or outside the apache developer base ) that fixes any security issues that are found out , they will just stay on 1.3. this WONT be good for either apache , or open source software in general.i implore you , please do not be elitist or self righteous and try to force anything on the people .
for , this is 'the people ' , leave aside not liking being forced ( and hating self righteous behavior ) , this time they dont have the means and resources to do what they are forced either.remember , software didnt build the web - people did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry.im in web hosting and web development business, and i can easily say that majority of the web still runs on 1.3. innumerable scripts, modules, software were coded for 1.3, and there are innumerable websites that still need those stuff.
even the clients which start with newer versions are sometimes having to go back to 1.3 because they need some module or software that is uncommon but vital in their line of business.
'obsolete','old','development ceased','not supported' etc do not count.
this is about business.
small businesses and individuals, who constitute the majority of the web dont have the funds or time to get all their setups ported to a wholly new webserver.
they just wont.
because they cant.
its just like the xp -&gt; vista -&gt; 7 thing, but much more serious in that, they dont have the funds or possibility to upgrade by themselves.2.0 didnt get hold at all in the broad web.
there are 'edgy' people using it, and edgy web hosts offering it, but majority of the hosts just offer 1.3 because of the software support for it.
just like windows and its broad software support base.this is a practical issue.
people wont just roll over to 2.0 or 2.2 just because smart programmers made them, and they work better.
there are more pragmatic issues at stake here.
if you dont take backwards compatibility into FULL account, people wont use your new version and just go with the old.
as long as there are charitable people (in or outside the apache developer base) that fixes any security issues that are found out, they will just stay on 1.3. this WONT be good for either apache, or open source software in general.i implore you, please do not be elitist or self righteous and try to force anything on the people.
for, this is 'the people', leave aside not liking being forced (and hating self righteous behavior), this time they dont have the means and resources to do what they are forced either.remember, software didnt build the web - people did it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741994</id>
	<title>Re:Putting closure on a software project is import</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1263287100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong,   it is irresponsible of *YOU* to use software which is not activity patched and maintained.  Pretty easy to not commit that sin if you stay with high-level distro's maintained packages.  But otherwise it's on your head. No one has to maintain software you like just because you wish they would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong , it is irresponsible of * YOU * to use software which is not activity patched and maintained .
Pretty easy to not commit that sin if you stay with high-level distro 's maintained packages .
But otherwise it 's on your head .
No one has to maintain software you like just because you wish they would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong,   it is irresponsible of *YOU* to use software which is not activity patched and maintained.
Pretty easy to not commit that sin if you stay with high-level distro's maintained packages.
But otherwise it's on your head.
No one has to maintain software you like just because you wish they would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30745316</id>
	<title>Re:go for it</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1263303960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>of course, tons of servers still run the 1.3 and 2.0 branches</p><p>these people don't care if they're in active development - and almost all of them are running them because upgrading isn't worth it for their application.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the real reason they don't upgrade is because they don't know which version of Apache they're using, and/or don't care.</p><p>I work for a web hosting company and lots of our customers are still running 1.3 and 2.0 because that's what they were originally set up with. If we asked them to upgrade to 2.2, almost all of them would say, "What for? My site runs perfectly fine, don't touch it." As a courtesy, we offer to migrate our customers' data from their old web host if they sign up with us, and a lot of our competitors are really fly-by-night operations running a stock version of cPanel from 5 years ago. Working in web hosting, you come to realize that for every web site maintained by a competent administrator, there are 100 more that are just slapped on a server by some Dreamweaver amateur and not touched for years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , tons of servers still run the 1.3 and 2.0 branchesthese people do n't care if they 're in active development - and almost all of them are running them because upgrading is n't worth it for their application.I 'm going to go out on a limb here and say the real reason they do n't upgrade is because they do n't know which version of Apache they 're using , and/or do n't care.I work for a web hosting company and lots of our customers are still running 1.3 and 2.0 because that 's what they were originally set up with .
If we asked them to upgrade to 2.2 , almost all of them would say , " What for ?
My site runs perfectly fine , do n't touch it .
" As a courtesy , we offer to migrate our customers ' data from their old web host if they sign up with us , and a lot of our competitors are really fly-by-night operations running a stock version of cPanel from 5 years ago .
Working in web hosting , you come to realize that for every web site maintained by a competent administrator , there are 100 more that are just slapped on a server by some Dreamweaver amateur and not touched for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, tons of servers still run the 1.3 and 2.0 branchesthese people don't care if they're in active development - and almost all of them are running them because upgrading isn't worth it for their application.I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the real reason they don't upgrade is because they don't know which version of Apache they're using, and/or don't care.I work for a web hosting company and lots of our customers are still running 1.3 and 2.0 because that's what they were originally set up with.
If we asked them to upgrade to 2.2, almost all of them would say, "What for?
My site runs perfectly fine, don't touch it.
" As a courtesy, we offer to migrate our customers' data from their old web host if they sign up with us, and a lot of our competitors are really fly-by-night operations running a stock version of cPanel from 5 years ago.
Working in web hosting, you come to realize that for every web site maintained by a competent administrator, there are 100 more that are just slapped on a server by some Dreamweaver amateur and not touched for years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737626</id>
	<title>Security Patches</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1263313860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of impact will this have on security patches for remaining security flaws (if any) for 1.3 and 2.0?  TFA states that security updates would be provided by "some other means" but I'm not sure what those are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of impact will this have on security patches for remaining security flaws ( if any ) for 1.3 and 2.0 ?
TFA states that security updates would be provided by " some other means " but I 'm not sure what those are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of impact will this have on security patches for remaining security flaws (if any) for 1.3 and 2.0?
TFA states that security updates would be provided by "some other means" but I'm not sure what those are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738380</id>
	<title>What for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apache 2.x has never been a credible replacement for Apache 1.3 unless you happen to be using Microsoft Windows.  Apache 1.3 is stable and does what people want, how difficult is it to maintain really?  Are Microsoft paying the Apache Foundation, or are they just about to surrender the web server market on a voluntary basis?  It'll take me a few weeks to upgrade every server and port rewrite rules to nginx, or we can easily maintain a fork of 1.3.</p><p>*shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apache 2.x has never been a credible replacement for Apache 1.3 unless you happen to be using Microsoft Windows .
Apache 1.3 is stable and does what people want , how difficult is it to maintain really ?
Are Microsoft paying the Apache Foundation , or are they just about to surrender the web server market on a voluntary basis ?
It 'll take me a few weeks to upgrade every server and port rewrite rules to nginx , or we can easily maintain a fork of 1.3 .
* shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apache 2.x has never been a credible replacement for Apache 1.3 unless you happen to be using Microsoft Windows.
Apache 1.3 is stable and does what people want, how difficult is it to maintain really?
Are Microsoft paying the Apache Foundation, or are they just about to surrender the web server market on a voluntary basis?
It'll take me a few weeks to upgrade every server and port rewrite rules to nginx, or we can easily maintain a fork of 1.3.
*shrug*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740576</id>
	<title>Re:Surly this is just a formality</title>
	<author>ndogg</author>
	<datestamp>1263324360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, I don't think that word <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=define\%3Asurly&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=l1" title="google.com">means what you think it means</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , I do n't think that word means what you think it means [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, I don't think that word means what you think it means [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30746374</id>
	<title>Re:You can not kill FOSS!</title>
	<author>zekele2</author>
	<datestamp>1263311280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All kidding aside anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it.  You can not really EOL a FOSS program if anybody wants to keep it alive.</p></div><p>OpenBSD's forked version of Apache 1.3.29 already fulfills this role.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All kidding aside anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it .
You can not really EOL a FOSS program if anybody wants to keep it alive.OpenBSD 's forked version of Apache 1.3.29 already fulfills this role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All kidding aside anybody with the skills and resources can now take over 1.3 and keep updating it.
You can not really EOL a FOSS program if anybody wants to keep it alive.OpenBSD's forked version of Apache 1.3.29 already fulfills this role.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738262</id>
	<title>Re:Surly this is just a formality</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263316200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly. But if you found a really, really nasty security bug, does Apache go "OMG we must fix this" and release a vulnerability alert and a new point release even though it's been two years, or do they say that "that one's out of any kind of support, even extended security-only support, go upgrade because we won't even look at it". That is an important cutoff, even though nothing much happens with any product 3+ years after its release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly .
But if you found a really , really nasty security bug , does Apache go " OMG we must fix this " and release a vulnerability alert and a new point release even though it 's been two years , or do they say that " that one 's out of any kind of support , even extended security-only support , go upgrade because we wo n't even look at it " .
That is an important cutoff , even though nothing much happens with any product 3 + years after its release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly.
But if you found a really, really nasty security bug, does Apache go "OMG we must fix this" and release a vulnerability alert and a new point release even though it's been two years, or do they say that "that one's out of any kind of support, even extended security-only support, go upgrade because we won't even look at it".
That is an important cutoff, even though nothing much happens with any product 3+ years after its release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739378</id>
	<title>Is Solaris shipping 2.2 yet?</title>
	<author>Geeky</author>
	<datestamp>1263319980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last install I did of Solaris 10 included Apache 2.0 (.58, IIRC), so there are still new installations going in with 2.0. Since Sun started shipping Apache with the OS, we tend to use it rather than create our own packages or use the Sun freeware versions - theoretically, Sun will support the OS supplied version (never needed support on it, so couldn't say).</p><p>
&nbsp; I believe the cooltools versions use 2.2, but not sure if the latest 10 releases include it as standard.</p><p>Our production estate includes everything from 1.3 up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last install I did of Solaris 10 included Apache 2.0 ( .58 , IIRC ) , so there are still new installations going in with 2.0 .
Since Sun started shipping Apache with the OS , we tend to use it rather than create our own packages or use the Sun freeware versions - theoretically , Sun will support the OS supplied version ( never needed support on it , so could n't say ) .
  I believe the cooltools versions use 2.2 , but not sure if the latest 10 releases include it as standard.Our production estate includes everything from 1.3 up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last install I did of Solaris 10 included Apache 2.0 (.58, IIRC), so there are still new installations going in with 2.0.
Since Sun started shipping Apache with the OS, we tend to use it rather than create our own packages or use the Sun freeware versions - theoretically, Sun will support the OS supplied version (never needed support on it, so couldn't say).
  I believe the cooltools versions use 2.2, but not sure if the latest 10 releases include it as standard.Our production estate includes everything from 1.3 up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737596</id>
	<title>Netcraft confirms...</title>
	<author>adnonsense</author>
	<datestamp>1263313740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Apache 1.3.x is dying</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Apache 1.3.x is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Apache 1.3.x is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741136</id>
	<title>Answer Was Above</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1263326520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Found this answer posted higher up on this story:<p><div class="quote"><p>As per <a href="http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/README" title="apache.org">http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/README</a> [apache.org] the proposal (Full disclosure: I'm colm@apache.org - the proposer), was that we would start distributing security patches via;

    <a href="http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/" title="apache.org">http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/</a> [apache.org]</p> </div><p>Thanks, colmmacc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Found this answer posted higher up on this story : As per http : //svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/README [ apache.org ] the proposal ( Full disclosure : I 'm colm @ apache.org - the proposer ) , was that we would start distributing security patches via ; http : //www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/ [ apache.org ] Thanks , colmmacc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found this answer posted higher up on this story:As per http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/README [apache.org] the proposal (Full disclosure: I'm colm@apache.org - the proposer), was that we would start distributing security patches via;

    http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/ [apache.org] Thanks, colmmacc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738018</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supporting Apache 1.3 is like Microsoft supporting Windows 98. Apache 1.x is almost 15 years and Apache 2.x has been out for 10 years. People have had plenty of time to upgrade. It's time to move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supporting Apache 1.3 is like Microsoft supporting Windows 98 .
Apache 1.x is almost 15 years and Apache 2.x has been out for 10 years .
People have had plenty of time to upgrade .
It 's time to move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supporting Apache 1.3 is like Microsoft supporting Windows 98.
Apache 1.x is almost 15 years and Apache 2.x has been out for 10 years.
People have had plenty of time to upgrade.
It's time to move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30745316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30752800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30743198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30746374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30742416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1359206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30739384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30742416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30743198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30746374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30745316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30738018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30740170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30752800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1359206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30737626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1359206.30741136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
