Re: [users@httpd] You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Jan Christoph Schatteburg wrote: Hi, i'm quite new to Apache and Servers in general and on my Wamp Server on a Windows 7 System using Apache 2.4.4 i get the following Error when trying to access localhost (from the Server machine of course ;)): -- Forbidden You don't

[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

On 18 Jul 2014, at 11:31 , Good Guy wrote: > Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old one > should still work. I'm pretty happy not being stuck with apache 0.7¹ syntax, myself. ¹ I think that was the initial pre-release "a patchy server" version back in 1995. --

Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Edgar Pettijohn wrote: > "Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old > one should still work" > > I agree 100% > By and large, the developers who bring you Apache httpd for free are willing to maintain compatibility with a certain synt

Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

On 07/18/2014 07:31 PM, Good Guy wrote: > On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor >> wrote: >>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. >> >> What do you mean by the format? >> > > I think what he is talking about is that

Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

"Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old one should still work" I agree 100% On 07/18/2014 12:31 PM, Good Guy wrote: > On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor > > wrote: > >> Biggest problem is with Apache changin

[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor > wrote: >> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. > > What do you mean by the format? > I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache becomes non-compliance w

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

There was one for 2.0->2.2, so having one for 2.2->2.4 makes sense, and should be easy. On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Should add that they even provided a script for renaming: > /usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl > > > > - Y > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM,

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

Should add that they even provided a script for renaming: /usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl - Y On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf >>> suffix, >>> which also meant every conf file had to be rename

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

> > Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf >> suffix, >> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks >> removed >> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. >> > > Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change. > Thi

Re: [users@httpd] Where is the Apache Server Admin Program

Giovanni Bianchini wrote: Dear Group; I just installed the httpd-2.2.25-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8y on my Windows 8 machine. Monitor says "Running All Apache Services" and indeed windows services show them being started and running. I have connected to it via 127.0.0.1 on port 80 and received th

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

Jeff Trawick wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor > wrote: Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor mailto:da...@davidfavor.com>> wrote: Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf

Re: [users@httpd] YOU BROKE MY CODE!

Andy Canfield wrote: Last week, if you went to http://www.andycanfield.com, you would see my web site. Today, if you go there, you will see "Internal Server Error". Apache broke it. Likely you've been hit with what everyone had to recover from... http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrad

Re: [users@httpd] tuning question

Miles Fidelman wrote: Hi Folks, Ever once in a while, a crawler comes along and starts indexing our site - and in the process pushes our server's load average through the roof. Short of blocking the crawlers, can anybody suggest some quick tuning adjustments to make, to reduce load (setting

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor wrote: > Eric Covener wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor >> wrote: >> >>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. >>> >> >> What do you mean by the format? >> > > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgra

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor wrote: Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. What do you mean by the format? http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this... snippet... In this example, all requests are allowed.

Re: [users@httpd] New install of Apache not accepting client certs

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: I just upgraded my Apache from 2.4.7 to 2.4.9 and now my clients' cert give me a "server certificate does NOT include an ID which matches the server name" error and it serves the system cert instead which fails because it doesn't match the domain. Here is an example (sani

Re: [users@httpd] Apache load capacity

Koray Ersin wrote: Hi all, I have an Apache/2.2.15 server running on RHEL 6. There is a single file (150K in size )hosted on this server. The server has 2 x 2.6Ghz quad-core CPU and has 12GB memory. I would like to know/calculate how many concurrent users can download this file. Which conf

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor wrote: > Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. What do you mean by the format? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr.

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??

Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several.

[users@httpd] ~ home virtualhost

Hello Apache "~" symbol can show you how. Example: http://domain.net/ ~ / index.php - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org