Apache 2.0 - Still Not a Contender?

Apache 2.0 has been for a long time coming with respect to its nearest competitor, Microsoft IIS 5.0. The logical question asked by many system administrators to the Apache team is, "what the hell took so long?" Unfortunately, upon further investigation, it's quite simple to see exactly the problem behind Apache's delayed release. Playing catch-up is not the way to do business.

Just ask any of the Lunix developers, like Alan Cocks, who have spent many years implementing rudimentary core operating system features that Windows has had for years, such as simple disk defragmenters. Did you know there is still no viable Restore Wizard for the Lunix operating system much in the way that Windows ME or Windows XP can restore your files?

Apache suffers from the same 'catch-up' syndrome. The team behind Apache has consistently found Apache merely cloning the features that IIS has had for ages, such as Windows NT Domain Authentication and Friendly Error Pages, which Apache still does not have.

Apache drones are quick to point out the features that Apache does have, of which IIS does not. One particular aspect is its support for low-level binary PEARL codes. Using a DLL file called "mod_PEARL.dll," one can use the PEARL language, created over 15 years ago by Floyd Walton, to execute Intel opcodes to speed up the HyperText Teleport Program, the Apache plug-in which translates binary .CHM (Codependent Hypertext Movement) files for human-readable ASCII (American Strict Code for International Information) export to other non-terrorist nations. The MMX rendering device in your Intel processor speeds up the transaction of these approved .CHM documents by over 80% in comparison to non-MMX Asian processors.

Apache 2.0's implementation of PEARL comes with many benefits. While on one hand, enterprises can now harness the power of Intel's MMX microprocessor, at the same time, the bandwidth output by such a system increases twofold, as Apache must send the .CHM over the raw HTML protocol, which sometimes can increase the download time for modem users by twice as much.

This is where Microsoft IIS reigns supreme. Rather than implement Open Sauce PEARL codecs, Microsoft implemented their own binary parsing application, called ASP - Assembled Site Pages. These pages can contain any form of scripting language recognizable to Windows Scripting Host to designate output to the HTML protocol. ASP has caught on in the business world, and now, over 86% of the Fortune 500 companies are using implementations of Assembled Site Pages to not only maximize the potential of MMX Xeon processors, but also minimize the download times for their .CHM files.

Also lacking in the realm of Apache usability is an easy to use configuration tool for your server. With Microsoft IIS 5.0, you can easily manage your site from the Control Panel of Windows. Unfortunately, there exists no such Control Panel in Lunix unless you use one of the renegade Windows clones such as KDE or Gnome. Even then, you must still MANUALLY edit the Apache sauce codes and change the httpd.conf "directives." This is often time-consuming and bug-prone, as the server itself is not guaranteed to start after any revisions are made.

Where Apache really falls short, as does every Open Sores product, is in the adherence to the law. For many years, Microsoft has implemented RSAC (Rate of Site Appropriateness and Content), which is a content locking mechanism to prevent the prevalence of child pornography on the internet. Apache, like its DeCess Open Sores brethren, refuses to implement simple FBI controls which would prevent this type of obscene, illegal and immoral behavior. Not even a simple inclusion or a "mod_RSAC.dll" codec is included to block child porn websites from the internet. This is more than a glaring oversight - this is a blind slap in the face of the law.

While there is no way to reliably tell which websites are powered by commercial servers and which are powered by Communist clones, many experts in the field claim that IIS holds a large majority share of Fortune 500 companies - businesses in which the satisfaction of customers is tantamount. This is, of course, the opposite scenario from the hacker scene, where illegally modified Apache versions without the Content Rating system allow for the quick and easy transfer of viruses, pornography and terrorist documents.

For any server administrator contemplating upgrading their servers to Apache 2.0, I urge you to step back and think about your actions. Microsoft IIS has a proven track record for the latest patches and security fixes, while Apache drones holler and scream "RTFM" and "COMPILE THIS" in their own little hacker Google Groups. Unless you're a child pornography dealer, you have absolutely no reason to be using Apache at all. Any of the vile, malignant scum perusing the benefits of the 'Apache' distribution mechanism should stop, take a look in the mirror, and turn their life around. There is more to life than the sexual exploitation of children. Get a grip on reality, pervert.

Microsoft IIS is packaged free with all editions of Windows 2000.

	Oh god, no. (4.00 / 1) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 07:56:56 AM PST

	Please, adequate editors, Yoshi is an idiot who think's he's "funny" in making up lies. Of the most glaring errors: HTML stands for "Hooray! The Monkey's Lactating!", not "HyperText Movement Language" Floyd Walton is the little robot in Planetfall, not the inventor of Pearl. .CHM stands for "Crack Here, Moderators!" and is only available on Slashdot. I could go on, but made-up acronyms are even less funny than joke haiku. They don't impress anyone.

	Don't you get it? (0.00 / 2) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:47:21 AM PST

	All the adequacy editors are idiots who think they are funny. Now, Yoshi actually managed to get to much bullshit into this article that it's almost funny to read even when you know their motivation. It's impressive how much bullshit they take the time to create out of thin air to discredit something they don't even understand.

	bullocks (none / 0) (#41)
	by Yoshi on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 01:47:04 PM PST

	That's insane. Your own "information" doesn't even have to do with the MSHTML protocol. If you want to start making up bogus facts to try to prove your point, there are other sites devoted for wankers just like yourself. Please, go frolick along on your merry way. No one needs your crap here.

	heh (1.00 / 1) (#45)
	by PotatoError on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 03:53:17 PM PST

	What in fucks name is a mshtml protocol? Go write science fiction elsewhere. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Actually (5.00 / 3) (#52)
	by detikon on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 04:37:00 PM PST

	What is the Micorosft Hypertext Markup Language? It's actually a proprietary protocol that Microsoft tried to implement so many years ago. They tried to implement it into their server software. Then if/when they got approval they could cut off every non-Windows user from the Internet. Of course none of their corporate client remotely liked the idea. Sure it would be nice to unify the computer world under one platform but MS still hadn't really even enter the server market when they first proposed it. The idea is still considered idiotic even today, long after MS dropped plans for it. It's changed names quite a few time (mhtml, msml, whtml, winhtml). Another reason that protocol failed is because MS is known for it's crappy implementations of standard protocols. Could that be the reason for all those extensions and not the idea of being proprietary jerkoffs? Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	free! (none / 0) (#3)
	by because it isnt on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:01:35 AM PST

	Microsoft IIS is packaged free with all editions of Windows 2000. In much the same way that you get a free toy in every McDonald's Happy Meal. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I see (none / 0) (#6)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:26:29 AM PST

	It's something that looks interesting for a few seconds, if you're attentive, and is then cast aside in favour of something else entirely, yes?

	Er, no. (none / 0) (#11)
	by because it isnt on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:41:21 AM PST

	More that you get an nice surprise with your nutritious meal. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	hmm (none / 0) (#12)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:44:35 AM PST

	using the word "nutritious" in relation to McDonalds. Quite an oxymoron, really. I mean the food may taste pleasant, but it's definitely not good for you.

	Psst! Hey buddy... (2.50 / 2) (#14)
	by because it isnt on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:48:20 AM PST

	there's something you should know. It would help a lot if you knew. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I'm sorry but... (none / 0) (#30)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 12:12:28 PM PST

	...to many clues have been wasted on the clueless.

	In deference (2.00 / 1) (#43)
	by jvance on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 01:53:42 PM PST

	to seventypercent's comments attached to this story, I am unhiding Mr. Isn't's comment. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Follow the links. (none / 0) (#27)
	by jvance on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 11:33:14 AM PST

	They're provided for a reason. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Oh, do excuse me (3.00 / 2) (#5)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:23:51 AM PST

	After supplying the IP address (66.180.229.40) to netcraft's "What's that site running?" tool, it would appear that Adequacy is running Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) with mod_perl/1.26, under FreeBSD. Do forgive me for not doing this earlier.

	Hmm (none / 0) (#4)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:16:57 AM PST

	Adequacy are child pornography dealers? I also notice that netcraft have been asked not to show what HTTP server program is being used on this site... This article is just funny, to be honest. I don't believe you have any real knowledge of computers, you're just stringing together little factoids into garbled and incorrect sentences.

	Hypocrisy? (none / 0) (#8)
	by because it isnt on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:30:37 AM PST

	Your accusation of hypocrisy does not hold. Yoshi isn't even in charge of the coffee machine, never mind the precious Adequacy web-server. Anything that raving lunatic says should not be considered as the definitive opinion of Adequacy.org adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I know... (none / 0) (#10)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 08:39:11 AM PST

	Anything that raving lunatic says should not be considered as the definitive opinion of Adequacy.org ...But it's inevitable that this issue would come up somewhere along the way, so I just decided to get it over and done with.

	I cant speak for the server admins, (none / 0) (#18)
	by JoePain on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 09:09:02 AM PST

	but i will forever believe that link was probably designed specifically to make this site look bad. There is NO WAY this site would endorse communism.

	Fine. (none / 0) (#23)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 10:45:27 AM PST

	Just perform a reverse DNS query on www.adequacy.org, and that's the IP that'll pop up. Then stick it into the Netcraft tool and that software is what'll pop up. You don't have to believe me. I'm right whatever you think.

	No (none / 0) (#40)
	by Yoshi on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 01:41:49 PM PST

	Extracting IP token information is a criminal offense and such hacker attacks against Adequacy.org are not tolerated. Just a little heads-up when you're writing your affidavit.

	Ah yes.... (none / 0) (#44)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 03:44:44 PM PST

	...the old IP tokens. Just remind me never to let you near a vital business or scientific network.

	In reality (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 04:01:43 PM PST

	If they their software was made so 'adequacy.org' showed up as running apache, wouldn't they be able to do the same thing with the IP?

	Eh? (none / 0) (#51)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 04:33:38 PM PST

	What? Whose software? and do what the same with the IP? Do you mean that adequacy.org would spoof their IP, or what?

	Get a clue. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
	by tkatchev on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 12:24:03 AM PST

	Spoofing your IP is illegal in most cases, and most likely prohibited by their provider. (If their provider still has a conscience.) -- Peace and much love...

	I know that (none / 0) (#69)
	by budlite on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 10:28:02 AM PST

	I was trying to work out exactly what that guy was asking.

	Maybe illegal, (none / 0) (#72)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 11:54:06 AM PST

	...but still way too useful to waive. Take away SNAT and DNAT targets from iptables, and I'll go after you.[1] [1] Though more likely I will ignore you and just take the source and reimplement them.

	[1] You'll do neither. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 02:43:17 PM PST

	'Cause you cant.

	Are you sure? (none / 0) (#78)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 03:42:41 PM PST

	'Cause you cant. I have the source code. I have the compiler. I have the knowledge. The only two missing components are the desire (because it is there already) and the time (which becomes available when the desire is high enough). Therefore I can.

	you can't (none / 0) (#81)
	by detikon on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 08:57:38 PM PST

	Why? Because Adequacy.org is protected by their own proprietary, uh um wait Microsoft IIS on Windows 5000, no um it was FreeBSD but it was so heavily modified that it's not anymore... Oh crap can I start over? Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

	No (5.00 / 1) (#85)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 02:28:43 AM PST

	Oh crap can I start over? What was wrong with NAWL?

	prove it (5.00 / 1) (#84)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 02:27:02 AM PST

	I have the knowledge. Only programmers have The Knowledge, which they demonstrate by linking to their tc/pipi codes and trinkets on pretend capitalist networks like OSDN. According to your previous admissions, you're a resentful tech-support flunkie who likes to polish guns and plot vengeance against The Lusers. Forgive me if I dont immediately swoon.

	Doing so. (none / 0) (#88)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 07:23:25 AM PST

	Only programmers have The Knowledge, which they demonstrate by linking to their tc/pipi codes and trinkets on pretend capitalist networks like OSDN. I am one of The Illuminati, of The Programmers. OSDN is pretending capitalism? I always thought it is here for sharing knowledge and code, not for pretending anything? According to your previous admissions, you're a resentful tech-support flunkie who likes to polish guns and plot vengeance against The Lusers. Resentful, yes, mostly when awakened after two hours of sleep. Techsupport, for now yes, in addition to my normal duties, which explains the resentfulness. Flunkie, I doubt so - can a flunkie do job of three people? My techsupport days are going to their end - the company grew under my feet from 10 to 50 people and what was a matter of a phonecall here and there became sorta second job. You know that tale about a frog and boiling water. The application for new techsupport person was admitted and my new right hand is getting hired in 1-3 weeks; I picked one certain person and now I am waiting until his employer will release him. Then the total IT staff will double, so there will be two people who know what a RJ45 is and where to stick it, and I will be able to do my beloved programming full-time again. Is this enough of a proof for you?

	So surfing to adequacy is illegal (none / 0) (#115)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 09:13:25 AM PST

	So every time I enter 'adequacy.org' in my browser and pressing [enter], I'm commiting a criminal offense because my browser then performs a reverse DNS lookup? I don't know, but of some strange reason it seem to be a good thing if browsers knew the address of a site before trying to contact it.

	I am sorry (none / 0) (#39)
	by Yoshi on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 01:38:34 PM PST

	Unfortunately, in this day in age, we can't hold computers to unfettered 100% reliability. Any of you Lunix hacks should know this by now. Such is the case with this "Netcraft" operation, which consistently misreports Adequacy.org as being powered by such un-American products as the Apache or FreeLSD. I am going to ask you cease misrepresenting Adequacy.org's backend statistics, as, quite frankly, it is none of your concern nor business what it does run. I can assure you that it is, however, powered by the latest Microsoft Windows .NET release with IIS 6.0.