| 1 |
On 1/18/22 11:24 AM, Anatoly Laskaris wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm sorry for not answering to the question directly, but why use apache2? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
- Because Apache is already installed and listening on the port in |
| 5 |
question. |
| 6 |
- Because that's what the OP asked about. |
| 7 |
- Because it might be IBM / Oracle HTTP Server which are re-rolls of |
| 8 |
Apache HTTP Server. |
| 9 |
- $REASONS |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> There are modern alternatives ... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Age of something doesn't mean a lot. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
- TCP/IP is from the 80s and yet we are still using it. |
| 16 |
- OSI is newer than IPv4. |
| 17 |
- IPv6 is newer than IPv4 and OSI. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yet we are still talking about the venerable IPv4. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> And something completely different like Traefik |
| 22 |
> (https://doc.traefik.io/traefik/getting-started/quick-start/) which is |
| 23 |
> geared towards modern cloud native infrastructure with containers and |
| 24 |
> workload orchestrators like Nomad or Kubernetes. |
| 25 |
> Usually you don't configure Traefik with static config file, but with |
| 26 |
> metadata and annotations in K8S and Consul so it is dynamic and reactive. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I view adding /additional/ software / daemons as poor form, especially |
| 29 |
when the /existing/ software can do the task at hand. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Don't overlook the port conflict. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Or you can use nginx (which is already considered pretty old and clunky, |
| 34 |
> but it is much easier than apache still). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Why start the email asking why something old is used and then finish the |
| 37 |
email suggesting the possibility of using something else old? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Grant. . . . |
| 43 |
unix || die |
Archives