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

[Joel K. <jkl...@ea...>]

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
>Sla...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general