Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:13467 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70698 invoked by uid 1010); 22 Oct 2004 15:16:12 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70600 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 15:16:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2004 15:16:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9MFGB4E017827 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:16:11 -0400 Received: from radish.cambridge.redhat.com (radish.cambridge.redhat.com [172.16.18.90]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9MFGAr18749 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:16:10 -0400 Received: from radish.cambridge.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by radish.cambridge.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i9MFG9Bs010910 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:16:09 +0100 Received: (from jorton@localhost) by radish.cambridge.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i9MFG929010909 for internals@lists.php.net; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:16:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:16:09 +0100 To: internals@lists.php.net Message-ID: <20041022151609.GA10674@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: internals@lists.php.net References: <20041022062249.GA8983@redhat.com> <200410221259.04475.edink@emini.dk> <20041022113351.GC9117@redhat.com> <200410221426.50509.edink@emini.dk> <20041022134249.GA10577@redhat.com> <41791003.40302@prohost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41791003.40302@prohost.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 considered harmful From: jorton@redhat.com (Joe Orton) On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:49:55AM -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > >Then consider this your official wake-up call :) > > LOL. I use Apache 1.3 and found it to work way better then 2.0. 2.0 does > not offer any useful improvements over the 1.3 base, so why switch? If > anything in my personal experience 1.3 works way better then 2.0 with PHP. Silly old me for daring to point out that a nasty 1.3 bug which is fixed in 2.0 might make it interesting for someone to upgrade, eh? :) I'm glad you can choose 1.3, I'm glad others can choose 2.0. joe