I think you may find yourself somewhat in the minority in thinking
Apache is bad software. (I certainly have my complaints about it, but in
general I find it more robust, flexible, and bug-free than just about
any other software I work with).
But aside from getting into a war about some particular package: It may
be true that in general popular software does not necessarily equal good
software -- even popular open source software. And doesn't neccesarily
equal the right software solution for your problem. (I could mention
some library-sector-origin open source software I think proves that, but
I won't, and it would just be my opinion anyways, like yours of Apache).
But popular software _does_ mean software that has a much higher chance
of continuing to evolve with the times instead of stagnating, getting
it's bugs and security flaws fixed in a timely manner, and having a much
larger base of question-answering and support available for it (both
free and paid).
Which is one important criteria for evaluating open source software. But
nobody was suggesting it should be the _only_ criteria used for
evaluating open source software, or even neccesarily the most important.
It depends on your situation.
Thomas Krichel wrote:
> Nicole Engard writes
>> That's why I added in 'user' to the community.
> No matter how many people use Apache based web sites, it
> does not make it Apache software better.
> Telling people to use what others are using is just simple
> propaganda to stifle competition.
> Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
> skype: thomaskrichel