When it comes to Apache Web Server, I don't have any suggestions for improvement because we use it in the UAT environment. For production, my company mainly uses NGINX. There is no direct package provided by the product if I want to use WAF. In NGINX, NGINX Plus has the signature update capability, but in Apache, the same feature is not available, making it an area where improvements are required. If WAF can be introduced in Apache Web Server, it would be a good improvement so that its users can implement either the WAF module or ModSecurity, as they choose. For NGINX, I think it has NGINX Management Suite, which is GUI-based and allows you to manage your configuration via the user interface, but Apache fails to offer such capabilities to users. Apache Web Server should provide users with the same capabilities offered under NGINX Management Suite with the help of a simple GUI so that our company doesn't have to do anything on the terminal while directly getting to use the user interface, which can help us with the configuration part.
The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management. Changing ports might be tricky for beginners. Maybe making port numbers easier to understand could be helpful.
In terms of improvement, Apache should work better with modern cloud and proxy systems like Kubernetes. Right now, it is not very compatible with them. Additionally, adding a reverse proxy to Apache Web Server would be a significant improvement.
VP at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2021-01-27T08:52:07Z
Jan 27, 2021
I haven't really gone in deep in utilizing the full functionality of the product just yet. We just use it enough to run our application. There's probably a lot on the solution we haven't even tried. It's good enough to run and deploy our application. Therefore, I can't really speak to anything that is lacking. Things change very fast. We're always on the lookout for better approaches and tools. If the solution falls behind, we may have to switch. Nowadays, the user actually requests to do their own maintenance instead of relying on the vendor. We're looking for something that's easy to understand for the user so that they can do their own maintenance.
Information Security Consultant to the CRO at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees
Real User
2020-01-12T07:22:00Z
Jan 12, 2020
The improvement can be done in the versions. Even though there are newer, stabler versions available, if you are installing from a data center, you have to install the older version. Then, installing the newer version is uncomfortable as it has to be done manually. A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system.
Senior Supervisor of Virtualisation & DevOps at a tech consulting company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2020-01-07T06:28:00Z
Jan 7, 2020
Better integration with other environments is needed. It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need.
Senior Administrator at IMCC ( Tejarat Iran Mall )
Real User
2020-01-07T06:27:00Z
Jan 7, 2020
The Apache Server and the Nginx load balancer are Linux based. This is good for our security. Windows has a lot of security issues. Maybe if we could find a good operator to configure it then it would be even more secure than the solution we use. But because of their support policies, for the intrusion and attacking defenses, cost, and throughput, we are going with the free scenarios, like Apache and Nginx. Maybe Windows is a good solution but we are not familiar with that. For a business that has other services related to Microsoft, it might be good sometimes if they used that. But we do not have other Microsoft services. Apache Server and the Nginx also do not require any licenses, and I think because of this that the support is not so good for us. It does not cost us money so this is a benefit for our budget. The product has a lot of experienced users and they share information. Because of this, it is possible for a company like us to find the information we need and we can use it. But the company does not have any support options in our country. We can find solutions on the websites or blogs or resources like that, but it would be nice so have a more formal support solution. As far as improvements, integration is important for us. So improving the possibilities and capabilities for integration is the first thing I would like to see. The other one is an improvement in implementation. The other one is improving the availability of support. I think also improving the GUI for the less experienced users. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience. The setup is hard for them. For us it is not hard because we have experience with that, so we do not have any problem. But maybe changes to the GUI could be a benefit or become one of the advantages of this solution.
The Apache HTTP Server Project was founded in 1995 by a group of webmasters, known as The Apache Group, with the aim of developing robust, richly-featured, freely-available and commercial-standard Web (HTTP) server source code. The result was Apache Web Server or Apache HTTP Server, which is an open-source public-domain web server.This collaborative project has been enhanced ever since with contributions from the core development team and other volunteers situated all over the globe. Also,...
When it comes to Apache Web Server, I don't have any suggestions for improvement because we use it in the UAT environment. For production, my company mainly uses NGINX. There is no direct package provided by the product if I want to use WAF. In NGINX, NGINX Plus has the signature update capability, but in Apache, the same feature is not available, making it an area where improvements are required. If WAF can be introduced in Apache Web Server, it would be a good improvement so that its users can implement either the WAF module or ModSecurity, as they choose. For NGINX, I think it has NGINX Management Suite, which is GUI-based and allows you to manage your configuration via the user interface, but Apache fails to offer such capabilities to users. Apache Web Server should provide users with the same capabilities offered under NGINX Management Suite with the help of a simple GUI so that our company doesn't have to do anything on the terminal while directly getting to use the user interface, which can help us with the configuration part.
Enhanced security features would be great. In future releases, I would like to see better server optimization.
The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management. Changing ports might be tricky for beginners. Maybe making port numbers easier to understand could be helpful.
The interface has room for improvement.
In terms of improvement, Apache should work better with modern cloud and proxy systems like Kubernetes. Right now, it is not very compatible with them. Additionally, adding a reverse proxy to Apache Web Server would be a significant improvement.
The product's initial setup process could be easier for users.
I want the user interface to be more user-friendly.
So far, for us, everything is okay.
I haven't really gone in deep in utilizing the full functionality of the product just yet. We just use it enough to run our application. There's probably a lot on the solution we haven't even tried. It's good enough to run and deploy our application. Therefore, I can't really speak to anything that is lacking. Things change very fast. We're always on the lookout for better approaches and tools. If the solution falls behind, we may have to switch. Nowadays, the user actually requests to do their own maintenance instead of relying on the vendor. We're looking for something that's easy to understand for the user so that they can do their own maintenance.
The improvement can be done in the versions. Even though there are newer, stabler versions available, if you are installing from a data center, you have to install the older version. Then, installing the newer version is uncomfortable as it has to be done manually. A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system.
Better integration with other environments is needed. It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need.
The Apache Server and the Nginx load balancer are Linux based. This is good for our security. Windows has a lot of security issues. Maybe if we could find a good operator to configure it then it would be even more secure than the solution we use. But because of their support policies, for the intrusion and attacking defenses, cost, and throughput, we are going with the free scenarios, like Apache and Nginx. Maybe Windows is a good solution but we are not familiar with that. For a business that has other services related to Microsoft, it might be good sometimes if they used that. But we do not have other Microsoft services. Apache Server and the Nginx also do not require any licenses, and I think because of this that the support is not so good for us. It does not cost us money so this is a benefit for our budget. The product has a lot of experienced users and they share information. Because of this, it is possible for a company like us to find the information we need and we can use it. But the company does not have any support options in our country. We can find solutions on the websites or blogs or resources like that, but it would be nice so have a more formal support solution. As far as improvements, integration is important for us. So improving the possibilities and capabilities for integration is the first thing I would like to see. The other one is an improvement in implementation. The other one is improving the availability of support. I think also improving the GUI for the less experienced users. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience. The setup is hard for them. For us it is not hard because we have experience with that, so we do not have any problem. But maybe changes to the GUI could be a benefit or become one of the advantages of this solution.