Apache Gets Booted From OpenBSD Base Over Being Too Bloated

[Cthulhux]

if you look at that page 1.4.28 was in 2010.

So?

What's missing?

[Nobu]

Linux killed your bsd shit. You have to live with that. It doesn't matter if openbsd or some other bsd chooses to drop something, because it won't affect market share at all.

Look, my market share is longer than yours!

I used to use Cherokee for a personal server a while back, worked and was fairly nice to configure.

[brad0]

Linux killed your bsd shit. You have to live with that. It doesn't matter if openbsd or some other bsd chooses to drop something, because it won't affect market share at all.

Actually it didn't, thank god. You know there are a lot of people on this earth that use things for other reasons than simply it is the latest fad or it has a lot of market share. Those are lame reasons to do so. Lame idiotic posers like you and mark45 would do that.

[Delgarde]

It's still available on OpenBSD, even the version they were used (heavily enhanced Apache 1.3). It's just that now you need to get it from Packages or Ports rather than it being included as part of the system from the get-go.

Personally, I don't see a need for a web server to be part of the default installation for *any* OS or distro. It should be simple to install, sure, but there's no need to have it installed out-of-the-box. You're going to have to install a bunch of updates before using it anyway, so why not just keep the core install small?

[brad0]

Personally, I don't see a need for a web server to be part of the default installation for *any* OS or distro. It should be simple to install, sure, but there's no need to have it installed out-of-the-box. You're going to have to install a bunch of updates before using it anyway, so why not just keep the core install small?

There are a lot of OpenBSD users that think otherwise. For an OS that is frequently targeted towards servers / appliances it makes a lot of sense coming out of the box. I don't have to install updates when it is already up to date.

Why are Linux based OS's so damn big and bloated? Why do they include the kitchen sink and most of the time 2-3 times over? So why not just keep the core install small?

[Delgarde]

There are a lot of OpenBSD users that think otherwise. For an OS that is frequently targeted towards servers / appliances it makes a lot of sense coming out of the box. I don't have to install updates when it is already up to date.

Why are Linux based OS's so damn big and bloated? Why do they include the kitchen sink and most of the time 2-3 times over? So why not just keep the core install small?

Hang on, are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? First paragraph, you're advocating putting extra stuff into the base install - second paragraph, you're in favour of keeping the base install small...

[brad0]

Hang on, are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? First paragraph, you're advocating putting extra stuff into the base install - second paragraph, you're in favour of keeping the base install small...

Everything isn't so black and white. I think there are definitely things that should go in the base OS. I've worked with OS's that were super stripped down to the point of being extremely annoying and almost useless to work with.

The second part was me poking fun at your idea of the base install being small. Most mainstream Linux OS's wouldn't know what small is if it smacked the developers across their faces. They're bloated as hell.

[Sergio]

It's a dead cow.

Heh, you wanna know what IS a dead cow? Your depressing blog (http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/).

Loser.

[brad0]

Heh, you wanna know what IS a dead cow? Your depressing blog (http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/).

Loser.

Wow, whoever's blog that is it is pathetic.

[Guest]

A lot of people came from Linux to BSD as they noticed its flaws.
Including me.

Actually, World switched from BSD to Linux when it noticed its faults. Btw. I wonder what 'faults' did you notice?