Re[2]: [cgiwrap-users] real hosting and cgiwrap

[Daniel L. <da...@lo...>]

Hi,

I'd like to make a suggestion to you. As you appear to know all
cgiwrap-patches very well, why not create a short summary (webpage)
with links to all these patches? You could call it "Unapproved
cgiwrap patches".

If an increasing number of people test these patches, there could be
more feedback about stability and security, which would help the
cgiwrap developers to evaluate whether they should be included
with cgiwrap or not.

You are frustrated because cgiwrap didn't work out-of-the-box as you
expected and now trying to find people you can blame. cgiwrap is
rock-solid, portable and was written by experts. It might be
cumbersome to set up, but it provides a high level of security and
basically you are still using it, aren't you? Quit ranting and do
something productive.

-daniel

----- Original Message -----
From   : Marten Lehmann [mailto:le...@va...]
Sent   : Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2002
Subject: [cgiwrap-users] real hosting and cgiwrap

>> why should this be impossible? I'm doing myself mass-hosting pretty well
>> with a combined cgiwrap and php-cgiwrap.
>> 
>> You could create templates for your virtualhosts:
>> 
>>   <VirtualHost *>
>>     ServerAdmin webmaster@%%domain%%
>>     ServerName %%domain%%
>>     ServerAlias *.%%domain%%
>> 
>>     [..]
>>   </VirtualHost>

> I'm talking about dynamically configured mass-hosting. I don't want to 
> generate a httpd.conf with 1000 VirtualHost entries. A user can easily 
> add a domain or subdomain. I can't give apache a -HUP each time a tiny 
> bit changes.

>> I still don't understand your problem. If there WOULD be another
>> perfect solution, why don't you just use it and stop ranting?

> Once for all: My solution of cgiwrap with mod_cgiwrap and mod_phpcgiwrap 
> _is_ perfect. I'm using this for several months. But the way to use it 
> and get everything started was to hard and I don't get why you don't 
> want to see that?! What you call ranting is just some words from a 
> cgiwrap user, that is annoyed because cgiwrap as it comes from the 
> official website is unusable and you're not willing to accept this fact. 
> Usually software improves, but in this point I can't see any improvement 
> in the recent cgiwrap-release.

> Please explain the need of several different projects like cgiwrap, a 
> php-cgiwrap patch and mod_cgiwrap/mod_phpcgiwrap! Please compare this 
> projects with the core apache, and it's modules or linux and it's device 
> drivers. Do you think they had prevailed if an apache-user had to find a 
> patch so he can use e.g. simple logging? Or Linux, if you had to find a 
> kernel-patch for each hardware-component, no matter that the hardware is 
> used by thousands of other users? Of course not. If you don't put 
> everything together so everyone can use it easliy, without everyone 
> having to go into detail to find appropriate patches, noone likes to use 
> it. Why has everyone to put the parts together again? Sorry, I can't get it.

> Regards
> Marten