[Xitami] Status of Xitami ??

[Pieter Hintjens]

Hi,

> I'd like that it is untrue, the only who can deny this are at Imatix... and
> they seems to be around for a long time here... I'm very displeased of this
> because i really like Xitami. I really appreciate if anyone at Imatix just
> say "hello, we are here"....

Hello, we are here.  Busy, but here.

I'm sorry we don't spend more time reading and replying to the Xitami list.  
It's one of many things we have to spend time on, and inevitably gets less 
attention that it deserves.

Xitami is, obviously, a project that is fairly static.  We make patches now 
and then, especially when there are security issues.  The server solves a 
problem for many people but we cannot compete with the huge resources put 
behind products like Apache, and we would be foolish to try.

Allow me to explain briefly where we are and how we got here...

When we started Xitami in 1996 the goal was not to develop a web server so 
much as to demonstrate a way of building servers.  That's why it was open 
source from day 1.  Unfortunately (for our spare time and personal lives), we 
were dragged kicking and screaming into developing our prototype into a real 
working server.  I can speak for most of the Xitami team when I say that it 
has always been a real pleasure to see our work used by so many enthusiastic 
people, but that the flip side has been a support burden that rapidly became 
impossible.

In 2000-01 or so, we were forced to concentrate on earning money: this was 
banal and much less satisfying than making Xitami better but the few licenses 
we sold for Xitami/Pro did not start to cover even our network costs, let 
alone work on the product.

I've been asked by members of our team to "officially declare Xitami dead" 
several times.  I've resisted.  We use the software ourselves.  We use it on 
websites and in products like smt@ (www.sms-at.com), which is one of the ways 
we make a living.

We spoke to the Apache team in 1999 and were happy to see that they were 
heading towards an architecture like ours: a portability layer, a bunch of 
protocol handlers, a fully portable server.  Today Apache 2 is a fast, 
portable server and seriously: you should be using Apache 2 instead of Xitami 
unless there are specific things Xitami does better for you.

At iMatix we're going through the same boom/bust/boom cycles as everyone else 
in the industry.  We made some money in 1999-2001, we lost most of it in 
2002-2003, and we're now growing again with some interesting projects.  So 
iMatix is definitely here, and will be for a long time.

But... Xitami as a living product... it's clearly something who's time has 
come and gone.  The need for a small, fast, portable web server was painfully 
obvious in 1997-2000, and we are proud to have achieved what we did.  But 
today it's a niche product.

We will continue to provide updates of Xitami, we will continue to publish the 
source code.  Other people may spend the time building binaries and nice 
installers - this is no longer our job.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer.

On behalf of the Xitami team, which has included myself, Ewen McNeill, 
Jonathan Schultz, Julie Pesesse, and numerous other people in various roles 
over the years, I'd like to thank our users, friends and contributers for 
their patience and good will.  It has not been easy to spend such a huge 
effort in writing what we consider to be an excellent server, and to see it 
become almost totally irrelevant, but your feedback and support over the 
years has made it worthwhile.

-- 
Pieter Hintjens
iMatix