Re: [Slashcode-general] Can I run slashcode via cgi-bin of an ISP?

[Morbus I. <mo...@di...>]

> > 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...