Apples and Oranges. Dave says, "Frontier is so much more than Apache ever will be, getting content and control to flow over HTTP is a small (but significant) part of what Frontier does, and it does it much more completely than Apache. Our stack goes all the way up to Manila. I still can't believe that Apache left all that territory open. My theory about this is that they were fat and happy and blissfully unaware of what the competition was up to."
I've worked with Apache for many years, and have been deeply engrossed with UserLand software for the past few months. I think they're both excellent products, but I'd never compare them to one another. It's only coincidental that they address some of the same problems. It wasn't a matter of leaving something open--Apache didn't consider content management part of the charter. The Apache authors merely wanted to build the best web server possible. And they did. If you want to compare Apache, look at IIS. For Frontier competitors, look at Interwoven and StoryServer.
[Source: Scripting News]
Posted Saturday, December 29, 2001 9:05:12 PM