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

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

 >> 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/