well, I can see that you're a bit upset, but I really can't control your emotions... :p:p:p:p:p

burrrrrnnnned! yeah, baby; doin' my victory dance! bom-chicka-bom-chicka-chika-bom-bom

really, you didn't do anything that bad, you were just kind of short with people. for instance, when acme (whom you may not know is very good with these things) asked you why you weren't using the built in apache module, it would have been nice if you gave a short explanation of why you were doing it the more difficult way. I'm sure you have a reason (even if it's just 'I started doing it this way, and I'd like to finish it, because I'm stubborn like that'), and saying that out loud would have made the context understandable, and gotten everyone focussed on the problem you wanted to solve, rather than focussed on what you weren't telling them. Some kinds of information help explain the problem directly, but other kinds of information help explain why other (perfectly viable, and sometimes easier) solutions aren't appropriate. If you don't tell people why you don't want to do easy solution A, they're probably not going to help you with difficult solution B; would you help a friend carry a couch up three flights of stairs when there's an elevator right next to you? doubtful, not without a good explanation. see what I mean?

Well, not really.

By the way - he didn't ask me WHY I wasn't using the shipped version. He asked me what was wrong with it - and I did respond - that there is nothing wrong with it (as far as I know).

Nothing wrong with it.

Nothing. Nothing wrong with it.

Rather obvious - and not too insightful. OF COURSE that would be "easier". So would not concerning myself with Apache at all. However, that's not the issue and not the problem I am trying to solve. The "easy" solution is not always the best solution - and is often not even a solution at all.

I didn't go into any explanation of WHY I am not using it because not only was that not what he asked, but also because I didn't see any point in going on about some off-topic sub-thread justifying what and why and how and so forth, defending my decision NOT to just use whatever Apple decides to bless its users with and whatever else. Besides that, it had nothing to do with the problem at hand anyway. Aside from all that, it should be pretty obvious that if someone WANTS to use whatever Apple decides to bless its users with, then he/she/it/they will just go ahead and use it. Once the decision to NOT use it has been made, then the WHY of that decision is rather moot - esp. when it has no bearing on the problem at hand.

I simply disagree. You're saying that I should have done just what I described above - justify my personal decision NOT to use whatever Apache Apple chooses to ship, a decision which really has nothing to do with the problem stated. It's apples and oranges.

If someone doesn't want to help work on a problem - then fine - don't help. However, when I ask for help fixing my car and someone tells me I should just take my motorcycle instead - that's not really helping at all. If you want to talk about respecting people, then start with the idea of respecting them enough to consider that they might actually have good reasons for the things that they do and they don't need to justify themselves to you (or anyone else), ESPECIALLY when those reasons, as good or bad as they may be, have nothing to do with the correct solution to the problem as stated.

1) I'm making no statement at all about what happened in this particular thread.

2) If you ask for help on a public forum, then you should respond to requests for more information about the "why" of your request. An explanation of the "why" is often the most important part of the post.
It is very often the case that people ask for help about some specific thing when there is an easier way to accomplish their higher level goal. (i.e. their business-level goal, e.g. to be able to create a web site with such & such feature)

No, I was saying that you should explain why the simple solution is not an option. 80% of the people who come to this forum are having problems because they just simply don't know that the simple solution exists or is usable. You may be the exception to that rule, but we don't know that you're the exception to the rule until you give us a reason why you're doing things the hard way. Sorry, but you're just a name on the screen to me; I don't know you, I don't know your skill level, and so I have to work with you on a neophyte level until I understand how much more you know. Them's the breaks.

With computers, having *good reasons* for your actions simply isn't sufficient. I've seen people (more than a few) read something on the internet, decide they had *good reasons* to make some change to their system, and end up wiping their hard drive, shorting out their motherboard, locking themselves out of their systems, or creating other tragically annoying problems for themselves. I'm more than happy to credit you with having *good reasons*, but I don't want to help you muck up your system because your *good reasons* are based on *faulty information*.

and I'll point out: if you had put one fourth of the effort into explaining yourself in the first place, that you've currently put into defending yourself, we'd all be happy and this conversation would be done.

Explaining why you don't want to use the pre-installed version of Apache would have taken substantially less effort (and produced far less bad karma) than the rant in #20 and #22.

And your analogy about cars and motorbikes doesn't work - the version difference (2.2.13 vs. 2.2.11) you are working with is more like socket vs. box-end wrenches

If you restrict "the difference" between running a customized version of apache httpd server that is the same on all of one's platforms and having an "odd man out" that is NOT your customized version, but whatever version a particular vendor happened to ship at a particular time, as nothing more than a version number - then yes, I agree.

Leaving out that no one asked me WHY I want to configure, compile and install a standard and customized version of Apache HTTPD server in a standard location on all of the platforms I maintain (or WHY I suddenly want to try using launchd instead of using StartupItems, like I've been doing) - I just don't connect those dots. For example - take this guy with the Eudora problem: http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=105066

It's not necessary for anyone to ask him WHY he wants to run Eudora instead of the mail client that ships with the OS for them to help him with his Eudora issue. Nor does KNOWING why he wants to run Eudora help solve his Eudora problem. The WHY of what he wants to do has nothing to do with the HOW to fix the issue he is having. Nor is it incumbent upon a potential helper to point out to him that the OS comes with a mail client, and that he should use it unless he has very good reasons not to. I was able to help him solve his Eudora problem - and I have no idea why he wants to run Eudora. It is likely I will never know...but I could take some good guesses.

We did, just not that bluntly. But as you seem to prefer coarse, direct questions:

Why do you want to do this? What is the benefit of going to all this extra effort? What does your version of Apache do that the Apple-supplied version doesn't? Why do you need an Apache server on "all the platforms you maintain?" (how many platforms are there?)

What difference does it make? How does that possibly affect "correct solution" to a working .plist for launchd and the version I have installed at /usr/local?

My reasons are completely irrelevant to the solution - much like the gentlemen with the Eudora problem.

This thread is exhausted, in my view. onceagain simply doesn't get it.

I agree - entirely.

I have been following this thread from start to finish and have not made any comments. However, I must say that even though OS X is Unix, it is a brand of Unix which Apple made it's own. There are many reasons Apple does this, and being a Linux guy originally and learning to use OS X Server I have realized that there are generally good reasons they do this.

Now, when I have had to reinstall MySQL server, or Apache and do so in a different directory I typically do so, then make sure ownership and permissions are set and then just create symbolic links from the existing software to the newly installed software. This way all original config files are still parse as normal but instead of them linking to the built in stuff they link to the newer installs.

I can't say that this is even the best method, but it did work for me when I had to install a different version of MySQL.

A little explanation helps a lot, especially when trying to gauge your higher goals.

well, I tried. as of now I consider that onceagain owes me $50 bucks for services rendered. If and when he pays up, I'll consider helping him again.