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. 

Jonathan

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. 
>
>
>   Cheers,
>
>   Thomas Krichel                    http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>                                 http://authorclaim.org/profile/pkr1
>                                                skype: thomaskrichel
>
>