slashcode-general — This is the general discussion list. Install questions welcome.

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

[Eric D. <eri...@ja...>]

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
> Sla...@li...
> 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

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

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

> 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?

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...

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

[Brian A. <br...@ta...>]

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

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

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

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                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

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.

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

[Jim P. <ji...@ya...>]

--- Morbus Iff <mo...@di...> 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:
        Cmd...@ao...
        lu...@sl... 
 
-Jim P.

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

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

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

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                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

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

[Dave H. <da...@ho...>]

Martin Hauptmann <m.h...@gm...> 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
	       ----------------------------------------

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

[Brian A. <br...@ta...>]

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

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

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

> I don't think it makes any sense to say "don't use modules."  That makes
as
> much sense as saying "don't install Slash."  They equate to the same
thing.
> of the extra installation step?  If so, why not just make a big

"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.

 b) Although a webhost shouldn't have any problem installing
    modules, it does make the installation process slower. No
    one wants to wait around whilst some overtaxed and uncaring
    webhost piddles around before they get to your request.
    (I'm ignoring the inevitable cries of "choose a different webhost").

 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.

Perhaps the whole request should be rephrased as "create a slashcode that
the user needs only FTP access to install and administer". In association
with that, "create a slashcode that an ISP isn't going to be afraid to
install." Working at an ISP as the sysadmin, and asking the boss to install
this, I can see two main concerns from him:

 a) recompile apache? uh huh. ok, buddy.
 b) run a daemon? that's not good. uh huh. ok, buddy.

> 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.

> 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? How slow is
slow? We know how many hits Slashdot gets, and the code certainly reflects
that needs. Is that the goal statement of Slashcode? To provide a CMS that
can work in million hit per day installations? That should be up front
somewhere.

I get only thousands of hits per day. Is Slashcode too good for me? Do I
need all this caching and super power if it's never going to be used?
Perhaps my request is stupid from the start because the daemon, speed
lovin', caching, and all that junk is overkill for my installation.

And what about the people who just want to run Slashcode on their intranet?
Or for people who want to run a "NeedleMakers in the 402", which is going to
have a incredibly small audience. Is Slashcode too good for them as well?
They certainly don't need caching.

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.
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".

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

[Dave A. <dav...@ct...>]

> 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. So I would like to put slashcode into the cgi-bin folder of an
ISP> ..
> You can save me a lot of time of researching, when you simply answer me
> 
> the question, if that is possible or not (and, if possible, if it is
> 
> sensible or not).
> > 

Martin:

I am one of the occasional contributors around here who took a previous 
version of the code and made significant modifications to it in order to get it 
to work in my environment.  I wanted to get the code to work in a cgi-bin 
environment as well.  It took several weeks of intense coding to change all of 
the things that needed to be changed for my environment.

If I take what you are saying literally, all you want to do is to take the 
mod_perl specific code out of Slash and set it up to run as CGI scripts.  This 
is not as difficult as what I was trying to do, but, you have a number of 
complicating factors that make success more uncertain.  They are:

1) You are not a coder, by your own admission.

2) You imply that you cannot use mod_perl.  This is an Apache module that 
allows you to embed the Perl interpreter in each part of the Web Server that 
serves Web Pages.

Slash Version 1.x is harder to run outside the Apache and mod_perl context than 
previous versions.  The main reason is because it uses more code that is 
dependent upon that specific configuration.  I do not know enough about 2.x to 
make the same assessment.

3) You probably cannot run daemons or cron jobs on the ISP's Web Server.

If all you can do is run CGI programs, you will not be able to run the daemons 
that execute in the background on the server.  These are the programs that do 
housekeeping functions like generating static versions of the story pages.  You 
could convert most of them to cron jobs (programs that run at specific times, 
which are somewhat easier to understand and control) relatively easily.  But, 
the ISP probably won't allow that if it is not your own box.


I hope that this explanation is helpful to you.  If you have any followup 
questions, based on what I said, feel free to email me.

Dave Aiello
CTDATA

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

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 09:20 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote:
>Slashcode-Lite type of port, called Slashcod (an in-joke from LILO). My
>desires were:
>
>   a) no module installation.
>   b) optional database support (which he tells me is possible, but
>      one would need to write a DBD::CSV implementation, which
>      probably violates a)
>   c) xml support (which after talking with him is nothing more
>      than a DBD type of port, so shouldn't be a big deal).
>   d) no apache recompile.
>
>The big, big, big one is a). That's no template-toolkit, none of the dozens
>of other required modules. A lot of code would have to rewritten, I
>believe, just to support the stupid user. Some people don't believe that
>stupid users should have access to this power. I disagree.

It is not about them having access to "power."  No one ever said anything
like that.  It is about us making the best code we can, and that means
using preexisting code.  It is about us making the best use of our time,
which means not making one distribution for everything.

I don't think it makes any sense to say "don't use modules."  That makes as
much sense as saying "don't install Slash."  They equate to the same thing.
I am not sure why you would not want to install the modules.  Is it because
of the extra installation step?  If so, why not just make a big
distribution that already includes the modules?  We won't, because we have
more important things to do.  But there's nothing stopping someone else
from doing that.

It would be nothing at all like Slash if you take away database support,
template-toolkit, etc.  You might as well just start a new project from
scratch.  That would be like wanting Mac OS "without that silly GUI."  But
modules are not a reasonable impediment to use of Slash.  They just aren't.
All it takes is someone to prepackage all the necessary modules into one
easy-to-install distribution, which is not difficult.  But it is
time-consuming.


>I never did understand why d) was needed.

If you can get mod_perl to build with DSO, it isn't.  If you can get an
Apache/mod_perl binary that already has the proper configurations built in,
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
prepackaged Apache/mod_perl binaries do not have the proper configurations
built-in.

Apparently, it does work now with the correct Debian packages, which is
great.  But we cannot control the distributions.  And we cannot control
sysadmins who don't -- or won't -- supply the configuration options we need.

If you really really want to avoid mod_perl (which is what you are asking
for, if you don't want a recompile of Apache for Apache builds that won't
work already), then that means you want to run Slash just as CGIs.  This is
possible.  It is very much not advisable.  You would get no caching of
modules, no caching of templates (though this could be worked around to
some degree), no caching of data.  It would be slow.

But I do not see any reason why there needs to be a separate project just
for this.  What needs to happen is someone (or someones) needs to sit down
and find all the places in Slash where the code needs to change to support
the need.  Then we would need to look at all of those places and see if it
is feasible to incorporate those necessary changes into Slash.

As to XML support: what you wanted was importing of stories via XML.  That
is not a DBD type of port (I am not sure what that means).  What it would
take is just creating a plugin or script to extend Slash.

So, to sum up:

    a) You don't need to not install modules.  You really don't.
    b) You do need a database if you want any kind of reasonable performance.
       If you want to port it to comma-separated-values or something similar,
       more power to you, but it won't be fast, and it will take some
       significant work to put together; this is true whether you work with
       Slash, or start a separate project, so I don't see much point in
starting
       a separate project over this point.
    c) Almost any additional features can be added to Slash via plugins or
       standalone scripts, etc.  That's not a problem for Slash, it is just
       work to write the code you need.
    d) If you don't want to recompile Apache, you can try to get DSO support,
       or try the proper Debian packages.

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

[Slashcode-general] How to adjust frequency of story updates?

[Adam K. <as...@en...>]

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?

Adam Khan
as...@en...

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

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

As people have already said, the answer is "no".

And this bugs me. I've chatted with Chris Nandor about this vaguely, and he 
said I should approach the list with my concerns. After lurking for a week 
or so, gosh golly, what a perfect way to broach my concerns.

Slashcode, while great code, is for geeks.
Slashcode, while great code, needs to be for everyone.

"Everyone" in this case means:

   - a stupid user who barely understands FTP and
     permissions. they need to be able to unwinzip,
     upload, and chmod through FTP easily.

   - the ISP. one response was, in essence, "does
     your ISP love you? cos if he don't, you can
     just hide in the closet, fanboy."

This is a problem.

Originally, when I contacted Chris, I had asked him about doing a 
Slashcode-Lite type of port, called Slashcod (an in-joke from LILO). My 
desires were:

   a) no module installation.
   b) optional database support (which he tells me is possible, but
      one would need to write a DBD::CSV implementation, which
      probably violates a)
   c) xml support (which after talking with him is nothing more
      than a DBD type of port, so shouldn't be a big deal).
   d) no apache recompile.

The big, big, big one is a). That's no template-toolkit, none of the dozens 
of other required modules. A lot of code would have to rewritten, I 
believe, just to support the stupid user. Some people don't believe that 
stupid users should have access to this power. I disagree.

I never did understand why d) was needed. I'm the sysadmin at a small ISP - 
I still get remotely nervous of hosing 200 sites just because I, 
personally, want to run Slashcode.

So, that's my soapbox derby. Thoughts?

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

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

[Markus A. <mar...@ub...>]

ch...@tm... wrote:
> Please excuse that question of a non-coder.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^
> I want to run Slashcode, but do not have a static IP-Address-Server at
> home. So I would like to put slashcode into the cgi-bin folder of an ISP.
> You can save me a lot of time of researching, when you simply answer me
> the question, if that is possible or not (and, if possible, if it is
> sensible or not).

No.

Markus.

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

[Adam K. <as...@en...>]

Martin,

> Please excuse that question of a non-coder.
> I want to run Slashcode, but do not have a static IP-Address-Server at
> home. So I would like to put slashcode into the cgi-bin folder of an ISP.
> You can save me a lot of time of researching, when you simply answer me
> the question, if that is possible or not (and, if possible, if it is
> sensible or not).

The general answer is No. In order to turn that into a Yes, your ISP
sysadmin would probably have to have more love for you than for his job.
Take a look at the install instructions and see if you think you can get
your ISP sysadmin to go through all that -- Apache itself has to be
configured for Slash -- with you. If you're sharing a server with others,
which is most likely, what's to happen to overall service while you're
reconfiguring the server?

This question has been asked and answered a few times at
http://www.slashcode.com -- search the archives there for more.

Adam Khan
as...@en...

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

[Martin H. <m.h...@gm...>]

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. So I would like to put slashcode into the cgi-bin folder of an ISP=
.
You can save me a lot of time of researching, when you simply answer me=

the question, if that is possible or not (and, if possible, if it is
sensible or not).

Regards

Martin

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

[Fred B. <ch...@tm...>]

Hi,

Please excuse that question of a non-coder.
I want to run Slashcode, but do not have a static IP-Address-Server at=20=

home. So I would like to put slashcode into the cgi-bin folder of an ISP=
.
You can save me a lot of time of researching, when you simply answer me =

the question, if that is possible or not (and, if possible, if it is=20=

sensible or not).

Regards

Martin

Re: [Slashcode-general] Server Speed / Load Balancing / Performance

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

At 01:55 PM 4/18/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >[..]
>More specifically, what upgrades to the current server I've got running 
>would most help server performance?  And, as is more likely the case, if 
>we go with a multiple server setup, how easy is this to do when we've got 
>everything running on a single box right now (I'm pretty much a novice, 
>though I've got access to someone very familiar with Linux, though not 
>necessarily every nuance of Slashcode).

Checkout <URL: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ >

Re: [Slashcode-general] Server Speed / Load Balancing / Performance

[Dave H. <da...@ho...>]

Miguel Danielson <mda...@la...> writes:

> More specifically, what upgrades to the current server I've got
> running would most help server performance?

Read and understand the mod_perl guide: http://perl.apache.org/guide/


>  And, as is more likely
> the case, if we go with a multiple server setup, how easy is this to
> do when we've got everything running on a single box right now (I'm
> pretty much a novice, though I've got access to someone very familiar
> with Linux, though not necessarily every nuance of Slashcode).

Fairly straightforward. A basic undertanding of the load-balancing
tricks you can pull with thin and fat apache servers is good.

At least I'm assuming the slashcode behaves like other mod_perl apps,
otherwise I shall duck and run...


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

[Slashcode-general] Server Speed / Load Balancing / Performance

[Miguel D. <mda...@la...>]

Hi all-

Since this is my first post, I thought I'd just say thanks to 
everyone who kindly offers their time to answer questions here.  I'm 
working with Slash for a very important projects and am learning a 
lot from this list.

Now to the question:

We currently have our slash server running on a single box.  It's a 
modest PII system with a decent (256 Megs) chunk of RAM and a not too 
speedy IDE HD.

We're going to ramp up for some pretty heavy traffic and I'm very 
much wondering what sorts of loads people are handling with various 
hardware configs.

More specifically, what upgrades to the current server I've got 
running would most help server performance?  And, as is more likely 
the case, if we go with a multiple server setup, how easy is this to 
do when we've got everything running on a single box right now (I'm 
pretty much a novice, though I've got access to someone very familiar 
with Linux, though not necessarily every nuance of Slashcode).

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Miguel

Re: [Slashcode-general] (Bender) Apache won't start

[Alvaro d. C. <ac...@ba...>]

On 16 Apr 2001 17:32:09 -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 14:14 -0700 2001.04.16, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> >I had apache (not apache-perl) as well as libapache-mod-perl installed.
> > It appears that you need apache-perl and NOT libapache-mod-perl for
> >this to work.  I am in the process of confirming this.  Obviously this
> >should be reflected in the latest docs.
> 
> Great, thanks, let me know anything you find out.
> 
> And thanks again, Alvaro.

It's great to help this project :-)

I am waiting for the great slash 2.0 release to release a patch that
prepare the ACLs for slashcode. In the pre1 it works right :-)

Cheers

-- Alvaro

> 
> -- 
> Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
> Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Sla...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general
> 

Re: [Slashcode-general] (Bender) Apache won't start

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 14:14 -0700 2001.04.16, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>I had apache (not apache-perl) as well as libapache-mod-perl installed.
> It appears that you need apache-perl and NOT libapache-mod-perl for
>this to work.  I am in the process of confirming this.  Obviously this
>should be reflected in the latest docs.

Great, thanks, let me know anything you find out.

And thanks again, Alvaro.

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

Re: [Slashcode-general] (Bender) Apache won't start

[Jim P. <ji...@ya...>]

BINGO!  That was it!

I had apache (not apache-perl) as well as libapache-mod-perl installed.
 It appears that you need apache-perl and NOT libapache-mod-perl for
this to work.  I am in the process of confirming this.  Obviously this
should be reflected in the latest docs.  

Thanks Alvaro and Chris!

-Jim P.


--- Chris Nandor <pu...@po...> wrote:
> At 08:41 +0200 2001.04.16, Alvaro del Castillo wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >I am using Debian Potato with some extra Perl modules installed in
> it.
> >But talking about de web server, I have installed the Apache server
> >with mod_perl that is included in Debian and it works right.
> >
> >More details:
> >
> >ii  apache-common  1.3.9-13.1     Support files for all Apache
> >webservers
> >ii  apache-dev     1.3.9-13.1     Apache webserver development kit
> >ii  apache-perl    1.3.9-13.1-1.2 Versatile, high-performance HTTP
> >server with
> >ii  libapache-dbi- 0.87-1         Connect apache server to database
> via
> >perl's
> >ii  libapache-dbil 0.93-1         Tracks what's being transferred in
> a
> >DBI dat
> >
> >With Debian you can have slashcode working without compiling Apache
> >and mod_perl.
> 
> Great, thanks.  I've added the three apache- packages above in place
> of the
> "apache" package in INSTALL.debian, along with a note that says "if
> Apache/mod_perl don't work, please build it from the source as
> described in
> INSTALL" or something.
> 
> -- 
> Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...   
> http://pudge.net/
> Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...    
> http://osdn.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Sla...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/