> you could count the clients/users who did so on one hand.
without having to resort to using fingers.
Not true at all. Saying that suggests that not being in the position of selling the OpenACS.
If Apache and IIS were supported many more people take a look at deploying hte OpenACS.
The scalability issue seems to be red herring. What kind of sites are running OpenACS that are having scalability problems that aren't in the application code? All scalability problems seem to be in the database layer, not at the web/app server level. That could be an indication that AOLserver solves a really hard problem very well, or it solves a particular problem that other servers solve just as well. Evidence suggests the latter
Furthermore, if we're talking just adoption, there are very few OpenACS/.lrn sites out there that need such massive scalability. Most OpenACS/.lrn sites will not have even 1K users and as such they won't need to worry about the kind of traffic AOLserver is ideally suited for.
Finally, Apache is used in a much flexible manner than AOLserver ever can. The modular interface with all of the different mods means that an infrastructure can be built such that Apache can interface java, php, perl etc applications. In addition, if someone builds a complex system with many redirects and virtual hosts using Apache's idiosyncratic solutions it will be a massive expensive to switch to another web app server entirely.
talli
