Why we don’t like PHP / PHP’s anti-Apache2 FUD View as Markdown

Wez Furlong wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4117711.stm

Not exactly a ringing endorsement ;-)

lol. not at all surprising (I'm familiar with their code). but the point
stands that php5 also gets unproductive coverage, and both camps working
together make a much greater force against any FUD.

completely off-topic: I just love the way you can write php that reads
like english (as apposed to javascript's martian or perl's aramaic, I
give away a little about my level of compentance their ;-) - dont ever
change that!

rgds,
Jochem

Pretty Happy Place.

--Wez.

phpbb (if nothing else, a well known app in php-land) state in their
changelog:

"running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported at http://www.phpbb.com.";

not exactly a ringing endorsement. I have gotten a similar vibe in other
places.

Daniel Convissor wrote:

"running phpBB 2.0.x with PHP5 is not supported at http://www.phpbb.com.";

Of course, that's because they're too lazy to make it work under PHP 5,
let alone be secure in the first place.

Of cause this has nothing to do with Apache2 issues, but phpbb like a
lot of very popular packages does have a very restricted range of
extensions that it will work with, many by design, others for much the
same reason that support for Apache2/PHP is not as good - The old system
works so why change it.

Security is a very good reason for changing, and I know that is not
relevant in this discussion, but a better culture OF updating systems
where potential risks are fixed should be the norm, rather than "It
works leave it alone" ;)

( Why do I have so much trouble getting connections to the php news
groups. I've had to post these messages three or four time before they
go through, and getting new messages from the list is very hit and miss
:( )

--
Lester Caine

L.S.Caine Electronic Services

Derick Rethans wrote:

Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the
current version provides us with all we need?

Because more and more people want to run Apache 2 for different reasons?

According to your argument PHP would only need to support one single OS
and Webserver because "it provides all we need".

At some point you'll have to face it: Apache 2 is becoming a popular
"platform". It's obviously up to you at what point you'll consider this
important enough to spend time on it but a reality check every so often
is never a bad thing.

• Chris

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:19:50 +0100 (CET), in php.internals
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:

Why would we (as PHP developers) invest time in something while the
current version provides us with all we need?

To sum the current webpages up (under the unix-install-page):

"Installation under Apache1? Okay, note that.."
"Installation under fhttpd? Okay, note that.."
"Installation under Caudium? Okay, note that.."
"Installation under Sun Java System Web Server? Okay, note that.."
"Installation under Sun ONE Web Server? Okay, note that.."
"Installation under iPlanet? Okay, note that.."
"Installation under Netscape server? Okay, note that.."
.. but
"Installation under Apache2? NOT IN PRODUCTION!"

I suppose the question is rather why we ask people not to use Apache
2.0.x and PHP in a production environment (as mentioned at
http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.unix.apache2.php ), instead of
just recommending using Apache2-prefork, if people really want to use
Apache2.

After all, the page with the warning is about is how a Apache2-user
installs PHP, not "What webserver do you recommend".

If that really was the case, why don't we have the same disclaimer at
the fhttpd-page, the Caudium-page and the Sun, iPlanet and
Netscape-page (all mentioned at
http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.unix.php )?

I haven't Netcrafted for the numbers, but I reckon there are more
Apache2-prefork with PHP out there in production than Caudium-servers
running PHP. If this is the case, how can we discourage people from
running one specific webserver, but not all the other webservers? As
the FAQ mentions, Apache2 is a complete rewrite and might as such be
considered as a whole different webserver than Apache, just as
Caudium, fhttpd, et cetera.

I don't think it makes any sense to discourage Apache2 just because
the reason is that the developers have more experience with Apache1.
Just think of Apache2 as "Yet another webserver" (where the
installation-notes would just mention that it has to run in
prefork-mode)

[a bit offtopic: I really miss the ProxyPreserveHost directive in
Apache1, but I suppose that I and other developers just use some
/etc/hosts-workaround if multiple domains has to be proxypassed to the
same internal webserver. Not all administrators are able to perform
these kind of stunts, though, so I guess that this just doesn't seem
as much of a problem for those people with full root access to the
entire system]

--

• Peter Brodersen

Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:

If I am in the minority I don't mind suggesting people use Apache2, but we
need a bunch of PHP developers to stand up and say they are using
Apache2-prefork in large production systems.

I've never used anything else on all my sites, along with PHP5 starting
pre-release, because I did not want to have both 4 and 5 in the field,
and the first release was then due any day. I've never seen a problem
which could be blamed on Apache or PHP. (now windows and terminal server
is another matter ;) )

It has never been a matter
of not liking Apache2 or having some irrational bias against it, it is
purely a matter of what we use and what we know. If someone reports a
problem with PHP running under Apache1 we know how to fix that. For other
servers, including Apache2, the pool of people familiar enough with it to
provide decent support is much smaller. The documentation should probably
be changed to better reflect that and make it sound less negative towards
Apache2.

Personally that is all I am after. When I tell a customer that we are
running Apache2 and PHP THEY comment on that every time. Fortunately
they are also knowledgeable enough to know that we would not want to run
Apache1 on their windows machines :) Unfortunately the knowledgeable
ones aren't able to convince their bosses that Linux on the servers
would be much better anyway.

My personal view is that the bucket brigade API in Apache2 is
unneccesarily complex and quirky and we mostly have to defeat it anyway
with PHP so it doesn't add anything for us. It just gets in the way.
There are a few exceptions to that, but not enough for me to be worth the
complexity and the overhead.

So we need to hassle the Apache people for some more support so that the
FUD can at least be reduced. I totally understand the motivation to stay
with something that is working, and the hyped follow ons - I'm still
running W98SE on the display controllers because there is no need for
anything slower, and they will not let me run Linux. Newer in many cases
is most definitely not better (Anybody actually use XP ;) ). Some people
are no doubt saying PHP5 is not better than PHP4? But unfortunately
while people are dropping support for the 'good' versions and moving the
goal posts, we have to try and keep up with the target :(

The question was "What problems?" - is the answer - "Don't really know?".
Perhaps some of those who keep complaining that Apache2/PHP does not
work could start listing where it breaks for them, so at least those of
us who are not having problems at present know where else to avoid?

--
Lester Caine

L.S.Caine Electronic Services