Branches
Releases
|
Version
|
Focus
|
Date
|
|
2.1RC3
|
Major feature enhancements |
31-Aug-2005 14:15 |
|
2.1RC2
|
Major feature enhancements |
25-Jul-2005 23:34 |
|
2.1RC1
|
Major feature enhancements |
16-May-2005 13:47 |
|
2.0RC3
|
Major feature enhancements |
03-Nov-2004 08:49 |
|
2.0RC2
|
Major feature enhancements |
21-Sep-2004 12:30 |
|
2.0RC1
|
Major feature enhancements |
23-Aug-2004 10:39 |
|
1.5RC4
|
Major feature enhancements |
03-Jun-2004 13:24 |
|
1.5RC3
|
Major feature enhancements |
24-May-2004 20:32 |
|
1.5RC2
|
Major feature enhancements |
28-Apr-2004 09:57 |
|
1.5RC1
|
Major feature enhancements |
20-Apr-2004 11:44 |
Comments
[»]
chroot
by phr3ak - Sep 27th 2007 11:07:26
chroot is really working?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Dmg
by Jpn - Mar 7th 2006 01:16:53
where's the .Dmg for Mac OSX?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Great Job
by johnnymason - May 16th 2005 14:41:47
Excellent results so far. Looking forward to future improvements!
--
Free Ringtones
[reply]
[top]
[»]
one of the best servers out there!
by Mario Micklisch - Aug 23rd 2004 09:32:33
using it now for more than a year and deploying it on more servers :)
switched from apache to it and not only the administration is foolproof ..
it's really more robust & much faster than apache and most of the other
webserver-projects :-)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Great webserver
by eisman - Aug 14th 2004 01:31:24
This is a great webserver, I liked it so much that I wrote a
review/howto on it.
It is easy in use, easy to handle and fast.
--
Greetings,
S. R. Eissens
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Updated Benchmark vs. Apache and TUX
by LiteSpeed Technologies - Jul 15th 2003 10:47:48
Please see our updated benchmark page http://litespeedtech.com/benchmark.html.
New benchmark includes throttling, LiteSpeed Pro vs. TUX with faster CPU.
--
LiteSpeed Web Server
Faster, Easier and Safer!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
License of "Freeware" isn't very free
by Nevyn - Jul 9th 2003 13:16:24
IMO it'd be better for the project to remove the "Freeware" moniker on
the license and just stick with "Other/Proprietary License with Free
Trial" given that you can't get the source.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License of "Freeware" isn't very free
by LiteSpeed Technologies - Jul 9th 2003 13:53:52
Freeware does not mean the source code has to be published, we did not
claim it is G(L)PL or BSD license. There are planty Freeware projects
published on freshmeat.net do not publish their source code. We do not see
any problem with our license claim as our Standard Edition is absolutely
FREE for any purposes of use, even commercial.
--
LiteSpeed Web Server
Faster, Easier and Safer!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License of "Freeware" isn't very free
by LiteSpeed Technologies - Jul 15th 2003 11:33:13
Our goal is to provide an easy to use, secure and high performance web
server product with the best value for all level of users instead of a so
so open source project. Close source is easier for us to maintain the
quality, performance and security.
However, we do consider releasing some libraries, like our lightweight
STL replacement, under LGPL or BSD license in the near further. If you
really want to help, please help us test the web server.
Thank you for showing your interest in our product and sorry if you feel
that you had been allured by the “Freeware” license.
--
LiteSpeed Web Server
Faster, Easier and Safer!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: License of "Freeware" isn't very free
by Greg A. Woods - May 2nd 2007 22:00:29
I also really dislike the idea of binary-only BLOBs being labeled as
"freeware" on Freshmeat. It definitely goes against the spirit of
anything I would expect to find labeled as "freeware". I expect freeware
to have source available.
> Our goal is to provide an easy to use,
> secure and high performance web server
> product with the best value for all
> level of users instead of a so so open
> source project. Close source is easier
> for us to maintain the quality,
> performance and security.
That sounds like a pile of VERY poor excuses.
Closed source software is NOT actually easier to maintain, and in fact
it's likely going to be of much lower quality and performance, and have
less security too, than if you published your source code.
You simply cannot hope to attain the highest levels of quality,
performance, and security without having far more eyes than just your own
looking at your code.
Note that just because your code is open sourced doesn't mean you have to
accept changes back or even allow for redistribution, and you can
definitely restrict redistribution of modified copies (though that's
beginning to go against the spirit of open source). I.e. you don't have
to follow common open source development practices just because you
publish your source code for everyone to examine, fix, change, and build
for themselves.
I for one would never ever have looked at your product in the first place
if I had known the source was unavailable.
--
Greg A. Woods
[reply]
[top]
|
