 |
 |
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 > >