Slash

Might I suggest to just go with a slash hosting provider?
	-Brian

Martin Hauptmann <m.hauptmann@...> writes:

> Hi,
> 
> Please excuse that question of a non-coder.
> I want to run Slashcode, but do not have a static IP-Address-Server
> at home.

If you have cable/ADSL, the IP addresses don't tend to change _that_
often and you can use something like dyndns.org to do that mapping.

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson,                             http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star           http://www.deep-purple.com
	  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
	       ----------------------------------------

At 11:01 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote:
> c) And including the modules with the source probably wouldn't
>    make a good solution anyways - even if you did make some
>    sort of CGI based install script to run the commands needed,
>    they wouldn't go into the same place.

I don't understand what you mean by this.  You create a directory, and put
the modules in it.  You probably add a configuration option somewhere for
where to look for the modules.

Let's assume you can do this.  OK, so you want to not have to install
XML::Parser.  XML input was one of your requirements, so you need to parse
it somehow.  You need to have a binary of XML::Parser.  Heck, LOTS of
binaries, one for each platform this is going to.  Or you need to write an
all-perl XML parser.  You can't do it.  You need XML::Parser.  You need to
have expat.  You need to build it especially for your OS.  Or you can try
to find some other XML parser.

And then there is the templating system.  You could try to write your own,
but that would take months or years to come up with one that works this
well.  You could do what Slash 1.x did, and put perl in the database, but
that is quite insecure (though you can use the Safe module to try to work
around it).  In fact, if you want to use Slash via FTP only, Slash 1.0
might be a better starting point, since it has far fewer external
dependencies.

Slash was written to be good software to run Slashdot and sites that want
to be simimlar to Slashdot (not necessarily in traffic, but in function).
It was not written to be something anyone can pick up and use without any
knowledge.  Again, if this is really what you want, you would probably be
better off starting from scratch.


>> it isn't.  But most of the time Apache is not built with DSO support, and
>> even if it is, it often won't work properly with mod_perl.  And most
>
>Ah... Is there any documentation or pointers on this? I do have an Apache
>compiled with DSO, but am curious about the "often won't work" statement.

Beats me.  I never use DSO.  :)


>> modules, no caching of templates (though this could be worked around to
>> some degree), no caching of data.  It would be slow.
>
>Slow for the current Slashdot population or slow in general?

Yes.  Slash is bigger now than it used to be, and will be significantly
slower than it was before, without caching, even with no significant
traffic.  There are ways to work around it, especially by caching templates
to disk instead of memory.


>And what about the people who just want to run Slashcode on their intranet?

Then they should be able to install it all without a problem.


>I'm not trying to be harsh, or to diss Slashcode, or anything of that
>effect. Slashcode, while great, just isn't accessible to a large audience.

I dunno, we have a large number of people who use it.


>Maybe that's a goal statement somewhere, but my head runs "100% everyone
>everywhere". Slashcode is currently "geeks who have their own servers or
>isp's who love their geeks".

Nah.  That's like saying Apache is only for geeks.  Yes, the average user
cannot set it up.  I don't see why this is a problem, anymore than I can
see why the average user not being able to set up Apache is a problem.

I realize that Slash is cool, and it would be nice if anyone could "just
use it."  The technological reality is that the reasons why Slash is so
cool are some of the same reasons why not everyone can "just use it."
Things like templates and database access and XML etc.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@...     http://osdn.com/

--- Morbus Iff <morbus@...> wrote:
>
> Slashcode, while great code, needs to be for everyone.
> 

I disagree.  Unix/Linux isn't for everyone, that's why AOL has
29million subscribers.  Slash, while great code, is best served by
being used by knowledgeable *admins*, IE: folks who have total control
over their systems.  For all others there is weblog.cgi.  Slash is a
system (and a way of life), not a script.  

Two things that should never occur are:
        CmdrTaco@...
        luser@... 
 
-Jim P.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

> I disagree.  Unix/Linux isn't for everyone, that's why AOL has
> 29million subscribers.  Slash, while great code, is best served by
> being used by knowledgeable *admins*, IE: folks who have total control
> over their systems.  For all others there is weblog.cgi.  Slash is a
> system (and a way of life), not a script.

Well, hey, if the rest of the group feels that way, then I'll unsub and be
done with it.

At 12:51 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote:
>Well, hey, if the rest of the group feels that way, then I'll unsub and be
>done with it.

Hey, they got Linux running on a handheld device, so who am I to say it is
impossible?  :)

If you want to do it, please do go ahead.  I just want there to be no
mistake: Slash is not Slash if you take away mod_perl, databases, and
modules.  It will be a ton of work -- such as with the examples of XML
parsing, and using flat files as the database -- to get it do what you
want, and it will end up being something totally different from what Slash
is.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@...     http://osdn.com/

Morbus Iff wrote:
> Well, hey, if the rest of the group feels that way, then I'll unsub and be
> done with it.
No, Slash is not only for people who can understand the obscurities
of any single OS.

Here is the thing though, like any applicatin there are some are some
minimum requirements that have to be met. If you ever install PeopleSoft
or Oracle Finacials, you will find that the install for Slash is pretty
much cake.
Slash is a lot more of an enterprise solution then a personal solution.
It
has in the last year become a lot more usable from your average users
standpoint, but you still need a certain minimum setup to run it. 
The thing is, you will find any of the systems which offer similair
services as Slash, all require the same sorts of infrastructure.

I would suggest you really look into a Slashhosting service. Your goal
I imagine is to get your site up and running, not become a perl
hacker. Going with a hosting service is your best option. The will
have it installed correctly, they will make sure your site is backed
up, and you will just have to worry about content (which is in the
end the most difficult piece to the puzzle). 

	-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian Aker, brian@... 
Slashdot Senior Developer
Seattle, Washington
http://tangent.org/~brian/
http://slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.

> > I disagree.  Unix/Linux isn't for everyone, that's why AOL has
> > 29million subscribers.  Slash, while great code, is best served by
> > being used by knowledgeable *admins*, IE: folks who have total control
> > over their systems.  For all others there is weblog.cgi.  Slash is a
> > system (and a way of life), not a script.
>
> Well, hey, if the rest of the group feels that way, then I'll unsub and be
> done with it.

I don't think, however, it's a good attitude. It spanks of elitism. I've
gone the same route that you express to a much wider audience:

   http://disobey.com/devilshat/ds011101.htm

Slashcode should be a tool, like any other. We shouldn't pass judgment on
the users of the tool until we see what comes of it. Maybe I hate computers,
but I'm the greatest writer in the world. I should be shafted with an
inadequate script, or large install fees from my ISP just 'cos I'm dumb?

AOL is a service that, on a personal level, affects a small audience. I sign
up for AOL, I get a stupid email address, and suddenly, I'm dumb. Nothing is
assumed otherwise - about how Earthlink doesn't work with my computer. About
how my phone lines suck so that the long distance loop that AOL provides
works better. About how, sadly enough, my friends all use AOL so that if I'm
over their house I can check my email. About how my local "reet" ISP is only
local, and I'd rather not be shafted on long distance charges when I'm in
Hawaii.

How many "knowledgable admins" do you know? How many of them really have the
time to write good, top notch stories on a regular basis? How many of them
are doing a thousand other flipping things? I consider myself a knowledgable
admin with programming knowledge. I have little time to jump into the
intricacies of Slashcode, or to spend a day tweaking the server for it,
testing all my previous hacks to make sure everything is alright.

Chris Nandor writers:
>If you want to do it, please do go ahead.  I just want there to be no?
>mistake: Slash is not Slash if you take away mod_perl, databases, and
>modules.  It will be a ton of work -- such as with the examples of XML
>parsing, and using flat files as the database -- to get it do what you
>want, and it will end up being something totally different from what Slash

Oh, that I don't doubt, which is why I had mentioned "Slashcod" and not
something like "Slashcode-Lite" for a name. The visible "i'm a reading user"
are what's important to me - not the wonderful speed of the code, the power
of the template-toolkit, or similar.

On a side note, Chris, I am planning on responding to your other email. A
little bit later - I just got immediately upset at the original post above,
fired off a quick "argh!" email, and then after lunch, realized that was
stupid (which is why I should have eaten first. Bah!) and thus this
response...

> I would suggest you really look into a Slashhosting service. Your goal
> I imagine is to get your site up and running, not become a perl
> hacker. Going with a hosting service is your best option. The will
> have it installed correctly, they will make sure your site is backed
> up, and you will just have to worry about content (which is in the
> end the most difficult piece to the puzzle).

Actually, I am a perl hacker ;) [my main project is
disobey.com/amphetadesk/] ... I just have a hard-on for global accessibility
and user friendliness. I run the servers that my sites are hosted on, I have
no problem installing Slashcode on there.

For *me*, Slashcode is fine, perfect, and easily do-able. I have no
convictions when I think about a Narcissistic reality. I, however, know a
bunch of people who would love to use Slashcode as a solution to their
needs. They, on the other hand, are not geeks. And their hosting providers
are not friendly (rather generic, as it were). Slashcode would never work
for them.

And changing a hosting provider, while generic and without a face, may be
the "proper" solution to getting Slashcode up and running for these people,
it's not a viable one. Have you ever changed houses because you're sick and
tired of taking the subway every morning? Even if your house is perfect and
without complaint?

No, having AOL does not make you dumb. But wanting to run slash you need to have
certain prerequisites.

You really don't need to know all the intricacies of Slashcode to get it
running. You just need to have the proper hardware/software configuration. It's
like if you buy say Tribes 2 for your 486 pentium. It might work if you hack it
all day, but if you had all the things it recommended, you can just follow the
install directions and go play.

That is what slash 2.x is. Its soo much easier than previous versions where it
was a pain to setup. The current version pretty much is a piece of cake.


Morbus Iff wrote:

> > > I disagree.  Unix/Linux isn't for everyone, that's why AOL has
> > > 29million subscribers.  Slash, while great code, is best served by
> > > being used by knowledgeable *admins*, IE: folks who have total control
> > > over their systems.  For all others there is weblog.cgi.  Slash is a
> > > system (and a way of life), not a script.
> >
> > Well, hey, if the rest of the group feels that way, then I'll unsub and be
> > done with it.
>
> I don't think, however, it's a good attitude. It spanks of elitism. I've
> gone the same route that you express to a much wider audience:
>
>    http://disobey.com/devilshat/ds011101.htm
>
> Slashcode should be a tool, like any other. We shouldn't pass judgment on
> the users of the tool until we see what comes of it. Maybe I hate computers,
> but I'm the greatest writer in the world. I should be shafted with an
> inadequate script, or large install fees from my ISP just 'cos I'm dumb?
>
> AOL is a service that, on a personal level, affects a small audience. I sign
> up for AOL, I get a stupid email address, and suddenly, I'm dumb. Nothing is
> assumed otherwise - about how Earthlink doesn't work with my computer. About
> how my phone lines suck so that the long distance loop that AOL provides
> works better. About how, sadly enough, my friends all use AOL so that if I'm
> over their house I can check my email. About how my local "reet" ISP is only
> local, and I'd rather not be shafted on long distance charges when I'm in
> Hawaii.
>
> How many "knowledgable admins" do you know? How many of them really have the
> time to write good, top notch stories on a regular basis? How many of them
> are doing a thousand other flipping things? I consider myself a knowledgable
> admin with programming knowledge. I have little time to jump into the
> intricacies of Slashcode, or to spend a day tweaking the server for it,
> testing all my previous hacks to make sure everything is alright.
>
> Chris Nandor writers:
> >If you want to do it, please do go ahead.  I just want there to be no?
> >mistake: Slash is not Slash if you take away mod_perl, databases, and
> >modules.  It will be a ton of work -- such as with the examples of XML
> >parsing, and using flat files as the database -- to get it do what you
> >want, and it will end up being something totally different from what Slash
>
> Oh, that I don't doubt, which is why I had mentioned "Slashcod" and not
> something like "Slashcode-Lite" for a name. The visible "i'm a reading user"
> are what's important to me - not the wonderful speed of the code, the power
> of the template-toolkit, or similar.
>
> On a side note, Chris, I am planning on responding to your other email. A
> little bit later - I just got immediately upset at the original post above,
> fired off a quick "argh!" email, and then after lunch, realized that was
> stupid (which is why I should have eaten first. Bah!) and thus this
> response...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Slashcode-general@...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general

--
Back up my hard disk? I can't find the reverse switch!

Eric Dannewitz - Adventurer, saxophonist, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
clarinetist, manic self-publicist, part-time flautist(flutist?), macintosher,
and often thought to be completely out to lunch. http://www.jazz-sax.com

At 13:10 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote:
>Slashcode should be a tool, like any other. We shouldn't pass judgment on
>the users of the tool until we see what comes of it. Maybe I hate computers,
>but I'm the greatest writer in the world. I should be shafted with an
>inadequate script, or large install fees from my ISP just 'cos I'm dumb?

Who says you are getting shafted?  You are saying every quality tool should
be usable by people who don't have the knowledge to use them.  This just
isn't the case.  We've already gone over specific reasons why it would be
extremely difficult to do what you want to do.  That is not elitism.  That
is a fact of life.


>How many "knowledgable admins" do you know?

I know more knowledgable admins than I know unknowledgable computer users,
I think.  :-)


>How many of them really have the
>time to write good, top notch stories on a regular basis?

I am not sure what being an admin has to do with writing stories.


>How many of them
>are doing a thousand other flipping things? I consider myself a knowledgable
>admin with programming knowledge. I have little time to jump into the
>intricacies of Slashcode, or to spend a day tweaking the server for it,
>testing all my previous hacks to make sure everything is alright.

Again, compare to Apache.  If you want to run it, you need to invest in
some time.



>Oh, that I don't doubt, which is why I had mentioned "Slashcod" and not
>something like "Slashcode-Lite" for a name.

But there's two problems:

* Even that name makes it sound like it is based on Slash
* If you really want to do all you've said -- which I think is probably
impossible unless you have a lot of time that you said you don't have --
you shouldn't base it on Slash, but basically start from scratch


>The visible "i'm a reading user"
>are what's important to me - not the wonderful speed of the code, the power
>of the template-toolkit, or similar.

It has nothing to do with the power of the toolkit.  It has to do with
"this is how it is done," and to change that will take a lot of work.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@...     http://osdn.com/

Well, why don't you host the sites for them? You can charge them like whatever,
or not charge them, and then they can run a site, they have YOU as the admin (a
person they know), and everyone is happy.

Morbus Iff wrote:

> > I would suggest you really look into a Slashhosting service. Your goal
> > I imagine is to get your site up and running, not become a perl
> > hacker. Going with a hosting service is your best option. The will
> > have it installed correctly, they will make sure your site is backed
> > up, and you will just have to worry about content (which is in the
> > end the most difficult piece to the puzzle).
>
> Actually, I am a perl hacker ;) [my main project is
> disobey.com/amphetadesk/] ... I just have a hard-on for global accessibility
> and user friendliness. I run the servers that my sites are hosted on, I have
> no problem installing Slashcode on there.
>
> For *me*, Slashcode is fine, perfect, and easily do-able. I have no
> convictions when I think about a Narcissistic reality. I, however, know a
> bunch of people who would love to use Slashcode as a solution to their
> needs. They, on the other hand, are not geeks. And their hosting providers
> are not friendly (rather generic, as it were). Slashcode would never work
> for them.
>
> And changing a hosting provider, while generic and without a face, may be
> the "proper" solution to getting Slashcode up and running for these people,
> it's not a viable one. Have you ever changed houses because you're sick and
> tired of taking the subway every morning? Even if your house is perfect and
> without complaint?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Slashcode-general@...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general

--
Back up my hard disk? I can't find the reverse switch!

Eric Dannewitz - Adventurer, saxophonist, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
clarinetist, manic self-publicist, part-time flautist(flutist?), macintosher,
and often thought to be completely out to lunch. http://www.jazz-sax.com

--- Morbus Iff <morbus@...> wrote:
> 
> I don't think, however, it's a good attitude. 

It may not be.  But that attitude may still be necessary.  All
necessary things aren't always pleasing and enjoyable.  I could have
very well (mis)led you down some Utopian path.

> It spanks of elitism.

Sure, but not as much as it echos common sense.  Again, the goal was to
sternly define the parameters rather than mislead you.  Slash is (like
some roller coasters) not for the faint of heart.

-Jim P.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

"Morbus Iff" <morbus@...> writes:

> "don't use modules" should have been more adequately rephrased as "don't use
> modules that need to be downloaded and installed". My reasoning for this is
> two fold:
> 
>  a) Stupid users don't understand telnet's, so they can't run
>      the typical Make process. Nor do a lot of webhosts provide
>      shell access to even get them that far.

i'm confused by this criterion.  if the stupid user doesn't understand
telnet, how are they going to understand CGI scripts?

or blocks?

or karma?  i mean, even CT doesn't understand karma ;-)

ian

-- 
----
Ian Soboroff                                       ian@...
University of MD Baltimore County      http://www.cs.umbc.edu/~ian

At 14:11 -0400 2001.04.20, Ian Soboroff wrote:
>or karma?  i mean, even CT doesn't understand karma ;-)

LOL!

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@...     http://osdn.com/

Morbus Iff wrote:
> For *me*, Slashcode is fine, perfect, and easily do-able. I have no
> convictions when I think about a Narcissistic reality. I, however, know a
> bunch of people who would love to use Slashcode as a solution to their
> needs. They, on the other hand, are not geeks. And their hosting providers
> are not friendly (rather generic, as it were). Slashcode would never work
> for them.
I
 think therre is money in someone building a CD that installed
everything
you needed to run Slash. Hand someone a CD, click on an icon, answer a
couple
of questions and you are in business. Seel it for $30 a pop and make
sure it works with OSX. At a minimum I could see you easily selling a
few
thousand copies.

	-Brian

>> c) And including the modules with the source probably wouldn't
 >>    make a good solution anyways - even if you did make some
 >>    sort of CGI based install script to run the commands needed,
 >>    they wouldn't go into the same place.
 >
 >I don't understand what you mean by this.  You create a directory, and put
 >the modules in it.  You probably add a configuration option somewhere for
 >where to look for the modules.

You know what, neither do I. I was on someone else's machine, and I had a 
yattering moron talking to me the whole time I was drafting the letter. I 
think I meant about CGI's not having root access, and module errors 
resulting in the call to the webhost.

 >all-perl XML parser.  You can't do it.  You need XML::Parser.  You need to
 >have expat.  You need to build it especially for your OS.  Or you can try
 >to find some other XML parser.

Quite indeed. It's relatively easy to write an XML parser with regexps - 
it's not the greatest solution, but it's one that works. I always design 
crap with the minimal stuff first - all XML parsing would be layered so 
that if people did already have XML::Parser installed, they could just swap 
the library and be all set. I don't have a problem with modulated setups, 
but only if they're an afterthought <g>...

 >And then there is the templating system.  You could try to write your own,
 >but that would take months or years to come up with one that works this

I actually haven't looked into the template-toolkit all that well, but the 
stupid people I work with every day as customers of the ISP wouldn't use 
(or understand) a complex template system (or rather, "a template system 
that would take months or years" to write).

 >>Maybe that's a goal statement somewhere, but my head runs "100% everyone
 >>everywhere". Slashcode is currently "geeks who have their own servers or
 >>isp's who love their geeks".
 >
 >Nah.  That's like saying Apache is only for geeks.  Yes, the average user
 >cannot set it up.  I don't see why this is a problem, anymore than I can
 >see why the average user not being able to set up Apache is a problem.

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't gel perfectly in my head. The 
average user doesn't run their own webserver because they don't have the 
bandwidth or knowledge about static or dynamic IPs and name resolution. But 
the average user doesn't need to worry about that cos there are kazillions 
of providers out there that already provide web hosting (either per month, 
or free with their access).

There aren't millions of hosters with Slash (or at least, not the same 
million), and if people are looking around for software that duplicates 
what Slash does, they're not going to find many viable/free examples.

And yes, I realize that with a bit more thought, we can both find an 
example that proves your point with no rebuke by me. I know what you're 
point is, at this point, I'm playing devil's advocate.

 >I realize that Slash is cool, and it would be nice if anyone could "just
 >use it."  The technological reality is that the reasons why Slash is so
 >cool are some of the same reasons why not everyone can "just use it."
 >Things like templates and database access and XML etc.

I think, at this point, this is the most viable explanation I've heard, and 
is probably the point that will bounce around in my head the most. Thanks.

Morbus Iff
.sig on other machine.
http://www.disobey.com/
http://www.gamegrene.com/

>* Even that name makes it sound like it is based on Slash

If the project ever appears,
the name won't sound/look like Slash at all.
I don't want any bad feelings anywhere.

 >* If you really want to do all you've said -- which I think is probably
 >impossible unless you have a lot of time that you said you don't have --
 >you shouldn't base it on Slash, but basically start from scratch

Wasn't there some quip about the
only way to get a programmer to do
something is to say it's impossible? <g>

Morbus Iff
.sig on other machine.
http://www.disobey.com/
http://www.gamegrene.com/

At 14:50 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote:
> >all-perl XML parser.  You can't do it.  You need XML::Parser.  You need to
> >have expat.  You need to build it especially for your OS.  Or you can try
> >to find some other XML parser.
>
>Quite indeed. It's relatively easy to write an XML parser with regexps -

No, it isn't.  It is quite difficult.  XML is Hard to parse.  Now, you
could write something that could parse a _subset_ of XML, without too much
difficulty.  But it would not be an XML parser.


> >And then there is the templating system.  You could try to write your own,
> >but that would take months or years to come up with one that works this
>
>I actually haven't looked into the template-toolkit all that well, but the
>stupid people I work with every day as customers of the ISP wouldn't use
>(or understand) a complex template system (or rather, "a template system
>that would take months or years" to write).

I don't think it would be a problem, really.  Template is easier to use
than HTML (I think).



> >>Maybe that's a goal statement somewhere, but my head runs "100% everyone
> >>everywhere". Slashcode is currently "geeks who have their own servers or
> >>isp's who love their geeks".
> >
> >Nah.  That's like saying Apache is only for geeks.  Yes, the average user
> >cannot set it up.  I don't see why this is a problem, anymore than I can
> >see why the average user not being able to set up Apache is a problem.
>
>I see what you're saying, but it doesn't gel perfectly in my head. The
>average user doesn't run their own webserver because they don't have the
>bandwidth or knowledge about static or dynamic IPs and name resolution. But
>the average user doesn't need to worry about that cos there are kazillions
>of providers out there that already provide web hosting (either per month,
>or free with their access).
>
>There aren't millions of hosters with Slash (or at least, not the same
>million), and if people are looking around for software that duplicates
>what Slash does, they're not going to find many viable/free examples.

True.  But what if there weren't millions of hosters out there with Apache?
Would you still expect that a user should be able to FTP some files to a
directory and run their own web server?  That's the point: I know not
everyone will allow Slash.  But it is a system that makes a lot of
assumptions about what is available -- even though it is very portable --
and you can't take those away easily.


Have a great weekend,

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@...     http://osdn.com/

At 14:53 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote:
> >* If you really want to do all you've said -- which I think is probably
> >impossible unless you have a lot of time that you said you don't have --
> >you shouldn't base it on Slash, but basically start from scratch
>
>Wasn't there some quip about the
>only way to get a programmer to do
>something is to say it's impossible? <g>

Well, impossible given that you said you don't even have the time to play
with it for a single day ...  :)

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pudge@...     http://osdn.com/

>>Quite indeed. It's relatively easy to write an XML parser with regexps -
 >
 >No, it isn't.  It is quite difficult.  XML is Hard to parse.  Now, you
 >could write something that could parse a _subset_ of XML, without too much
 >difficulty.  But it would not be an XML parser.

LOL... ok. Here's another one of my accessibility snafu's. The XML I'd 
rather work with is non-attributed, non-namespaces, non-DTD'd, 
non-schema'd, bits of text... much like (idiotbox example)

	\r
	<name></name>
	<email></email>
	<number>
		<phone></phone>
		<fax></fax>
	</number>
	\r

In which case, that is easy to parse and write out. Again, I go from a 
rather minimal approach and scale up, never the other way.

 >Have a great weekend,

I shall try. The clouds are forming on the horizon (nothing to do with our 
conversations), and things may turn rather sour. Woeful sigh, nanu, nanu.

Morbus Iff
.sig on other machine.
http://www.disobey.com/
http://www.gamegrene.com/

Well, hopefully next week I'll get my Mac working again and slap OS X on it and
I'll test it.......

Brian Aker wrote:

> Morbus Iff wrote:
> > For *me*, Slashcode is fine, perfect, and easily do-able. I have no
> > convictions when I think about a Narcissistic reality. I, however, know a
> > bunch of people who would love to use Slashcode as a solution to their
> > needs. They, on the other hand, are not geeks. And their hosting providers
> > are not friendly (rather generic, as it were). Slashcode would never work
> > for them.
> I
>  think therre is money in someone building a CD that installed
> everything
> you needed to run Slash. Hand someone a CD, click on an icon, answer a
> couple
> of questions and you are in business. Seel it for $30 a pop and make
> sure it works with OSX. At a minimum I could see you easily selling a
> few
> thousand copies.
>
>         -Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Slashcode-general@...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general

--
Back up my hard disk? I can't find the reverse switch!

Eric Dannewitz - Adventurer, saxophonist, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
clarinetist, manic self-publicist, part-time flautist(flutist?), macintosher,
and often thought to be completely out to lunch. http://www.jazz-sax.com

> I'm looking at slashd.log and see that stories are updated pretty much
every
> minute. I'd like to change this. In Slash1 that could be adjusted from
> slashdotrc.pl . I'm assuming that now in Slash2 it's a Variable,
accessible
> from admin.pl . But what's the variable?

OK it's updatemin. Nice talking to me.

I just hit reply to this one...  any number of these would work.  :)

This is the issue I'm most concerned with.  When I got the idea for a 
pretty cool website 4 months ago, I started figuring out how I could 
implement it.  Since it was a discussion oriented site, I wanted something 
that allowed for easy commenting and conversation.  Having been a longtime 
/. reader, I noted some of its particular usability advantages (Great 
moderation features, printing all scores for the comments and replies, and 
posts can be literally "modded up" to the first page if they are especially 
good or worthwhile).  So I started trying to figure out how I could make 
use of slash.

After spending 4 days installing slash 1.0.9 on a test machine, I finally 
was able to view the index  page and get into the control panel.  Through 
this process, I quickly realized what would have to be done on -any- web 
host that wants to run it.  Because I'm on a shoestring budget  ($15/month 
host for 50MB and 10GB transfer/month), I realized what the improbabilities 
were that I'd ever get my host or pretty much any other to go through that.

So, begrudgingly (and I still don't forgive you people  :) ), I turned to 
phpNuke.  I had it set up within an hour and had a rudimentary theme 
created and live in less than a day.  I also began to appreciate the 
relative simplicity of PHP vs. Perl (no, I do NOT want to get into THAT one 
;))... not just in the syntax but in the _installation_ 
requirements.  Sure, you're not going to move from Perl.  You like it, and 
I respect that.  So where I once was just using phpNuke until I could get 
big enough to afford a dedicated server and migrate to slashcode, I 
realized that what I really wanted was a PHP version of slash simply 
because I preferred PHP, and I was exceedingly more comfortable hacking 
it.  I wrote something of a plugin to connect phpBB and phpNuke so users 
could have the latest version of either.  I probably would've never even 
attempted this in Perl.

With projects like  phpWebSite (phpwebsite.appstate.edu), Titanium-Nuke (a 
better phpNuke... I intend to begin using this on the site that started all 
of this in a few weeks or so), and others cropping up, hopefully, I won't 
have to.

Consider this the long way of saying, "You guys make a great product, 
however, you have little foundation to stand on when someone complains 
about it being difficult to install."  While it might be nice to have a CD 
as mentioned a little later on in this discussion, it really doesn't matter 
anyway.  If RedHat doesn't have it, it probably won't matter to us poor 
web-host guys.

Even though I don't know much perl, I believe that what is holding slash 
back from being easier to install is the fact that perl just doesn't come 
with all of those modules installed.  In other words, there's nothing that 
can be done about it... other than move to PHP.  ;)  There's no use 
expecting things to improve when they can't.

So to the guy that started all of this, my suggestion is to look at the PHP 
apps I mentioned in this email.  I promise you they will be much easier to 
install, and if your host supports PHP (PHP4, especially), you shouldn't 
have any major problems at all.

Good luck to all and may PHP produce a slashcode quality script.  :)

Joel



At 01:10 PM 4/20/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > > I disagree.  Unix/Linux isn't for everyone, that's why AOL has
> > > 29million subscribers.  Slash, while great code, is best served by
> > > being used by knowledgeable *admins*, IE: folks who have total control
> > > over their systems.  For all others there is weblog.cgi.  Slash is a
> > > system (and a way of life), not a script.
> >
> > Well, hey, if the rest of the group feels that way, then I'll unsub and be
> > done with it.
>
>I don't think, however, it's a good attitude. It spanks of elitism. I've
>gone the same route that you express to a much wider audience:
>
>    http://disobey.com/devilshat/ds011101.htm
>
>Slashcode should be a tool, like any other. We shouldn't pass judgment on
>the users of the tool until we see what comes of it. Maybe I hate computers,
>but I'm the greatest writer in the world. I should be shafted with an
>inadequate script, or large install fees from my ISP just 'cos I'm dumb?
>
>AOL is a service that, on a personal level, affects a small audience. I sign
>up for AOL, I get a stupid email address, and suddenly, I'm dumb. Nothing is
>assumed otherwise - about how Earthlink doesn't work with my computer. About
>how my phone lines suck so that the long distance loop that AOL provides
>works better. About how, sadly enough, my friends all use AOL so that if I'm
>over their house I can check my email. About how my local "reet" ISP is only
>local, and I'd rather not be shafted on long distance charges when I'm in
>Hawaii.
>
>How many "knowledgable admins" do you know? How many of them really have the
>time to write good, top notch stories on a regular basis? How many of them
>are doing a thousand other flipping things? I consider myself a knowledgable
>admin with programming knowledge. I have little time to jump into the
>intricacies of Slashcode, or to spend a day tweaking the server for it,
>testing all my previous hacks to make sure everything is alright.
>
>Chris Nandor writers:
> >If you want to do it, please do go ahead.  I just want there to be no?
> >mistake: Slash is not Slash if you take away mod_perl, databases, and
> >modules.  It will be a ton of work -- such as with the examples of XML
> >parsing, and using flat files as the database -- to get it do what you
> >want, and it will end up being something totally different from what Slash
>
>Oh, that I don't doubt, which is why I had mentioned "Slashcod" and not
>something like "Slashcode-Lite" for a name. The visible "i'm a reading user"
>are what's important to me - not the wonderful speed of the code, the power
>of the template-toolkit, or similar.
>
>On a side note, Chris, I am planning on responding to your other email. A
>little bit later - I just got immediately upset at the original post above,
>fired off a quick "argh!" email, and then after lunch, realized that was
>stupid (which is why I should have eaten first. Bah!) and thus this
>response...
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Slashcode-general mailing list
>Slashcode-general@...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general