October 06, 2002
On ZDNet, "Has Apache peaked?" discusses the slow adoption of Apache 2.0, suggesting that the intended performance benefits in Apache 2.0 just aren't there, pushing many either to other web servers or to remain on Apache 1.3.x.
It's tempting to think that Apache 2.0 missed the boat. The vast majority of Web sites running it are hosted brochureware. The improvements in 2.0 are meaningless to them. Sites with higher-end needs are more likely to be running a higher-performance Apache alternative like IIS or Zeus already. And if an Apache site actually needs the performance improvements they would do well to treat the current version like a beta. This is how we all should think of it for now.
I have a different story. I've been keeping a close eye on Apache 2.0 and am anxious to use some of its new features, but we haven't switched at work because mod_perl and PHP are not yet stable on Apache 2. It's that simple. I suspect that this is why the "vast majority of Web sites running it are hosted brochureware" — not that Apache isn't ready, but that third-party modules commonly used on complex sites aren't ready for production. Until then, Apache 1.3.27 makes me quite happy, thankyouverymuch.
