From: Fred B. <ch...@tm...> - 2001-04-20 12:05:17
|
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 |
From: Martin H. <m.h...@gm...> - 2001-04-20 12:05:17
|
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 |
From: Dave H. <da...@ho...> - 2001-04-20 15:54:34
|
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 ---------------------------------------- |
From: Adam K. <as...@en...> - 2001-04-20 12:31:26
|
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... |
From: Markus A. <mar...@ub...> - 2001-04-20 12:37:40
|
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. |
From: Adam K. <as...@en...> - 2001-04-20 13:38:05
|
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... |
From: Adam K. <as...@en...> - 2001-04-20 21:04:35
|
> 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? OK it's updatemin. Nice talking to me. |
From: Morbus I. <mo...@di...> - 2001-04-20 13:18:51
|
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/ |
From: Chris N. <pu...@po...> - 2001-04-20 14:00:00
|
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/ |
From: Jim P. <ji...@ya...> - 2001-04-20 16:48:11
|
--- 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/ |
From: Morbus I. <mo...@di...> - 2001-04-20 16:51:28
|
> 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. |
From: Chris N. <pu...@po...> - 2001-04-20 16:59:54
|
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/ |
From: Brian A. <br...@ta...> - 2001-04-20 17:07:09
|
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. |
From: Morbus I. <mo...@di...> - 2001-04-20 17:18:44
|
> 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? |
From: Brian A. <br...@ta...> - 2001-04-20 18:42:55
|
Morbus Iff wrote: > 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. I think therre is money in someone building a CD that installed everything you needed to run Slash. Hand someone a CD, click on an icon, answer a couple of questions and you are in business. Seel it for $30 a pop and make sure it works with OSX. At a minimum I could see you easily selling a few thousand copies. -Brian |
From: Eric D. <eri...@ja...> - 2001-04-20 20:20:18
|
Well, hopefully next week I'll get my Mac working again and slap OS X on it and I'll test it....... Brian Aker wrote: > Morbus Iff wrote: > > 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. > I > think therre is money in someone building a CD that installed > everything > you needed to run Slash. Hand someone a CD, click on an icon, answer a > couple > of questions and you are in business. Seel it for $30 a pop and make > sure it works with OSX. At a minimum I could see you easily selling a > few > thousand copies. > > -Brian > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
From: Morbus I. <mo...@di...> - 2001-04-20 17:10:37
|
> > 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... |
From: Eric D. <eri...@ja...> - 2001-04-20 17:23:08
|
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 |
From: Chris N. <pu...@po...> - 2001-04-20 17:25:59
|
At 13:10 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote: >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? Who says you are getting shafted? You are saying every quality tool should be usable by people who don't have the knowledge to use them. This just isn't the case. We've already gone over specific reasons why it would be extremely difficult to do what you want to do. That is not elitism. That is a fact of life. >How many "knowledgable admins" do you know? I know more knowledgable admins than I know unknowledgable computer users, I think. :-) >How many of them really have the >time to write good, top notch stories on a regular basis? I am not sure what being an admin has to do with writing stories. >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. Again, compare to Apache. If you want to run it, you need to invest in some time. >Oh, that I don't doubt, which is why I had mentioned "Slashcod" and not >something like "Slashcode-Lite" for a name. But there's two problems: * Even that name makes it sound like it is based on Slash * If you really want to do all you've said -- which I think is probably impossible unless you have a lot of time that you said you don't have -- you shouldn't base it on Slash, but basically start from scratch >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. It has nothing to do with the power of the toolkit. It has to do with "this is how it is done," and to change that will take a lot of work. -- Chris Nandor pu...@po... http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network pu...@os... http://osdn.com/ |
From: Jim P. <ji...@ya...> - 2001-04-20 17:39:35
|
--- Morbus Iff <mo...@di...> wrote: > > I don't think, however, it's a good attitude. It may not be. But that attitude may still be necessary. All necessary things aren't always pleasing and enjoyable. I could have very well (mis)led you down some Utopian path. > It spanks of elitism. Sure, but not as much as it echos common sense. Again, the goal was to sternly define the parameters rather than mislead you. Slash is (like some roller coasters) not for the faint of heart. -Jim P. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ |
From: Morbus I. <mo...@di...> - 2001-04-20 18:52:06
|
>* Even that name makes it sound like it is based on Slash If the project ever appears, the name won't sound/look like Slash at all. I don't want any bad feelings anywhere. >* If you really want to do all you've said -- which I think is probably >impossible unless you have a lot of time that you said you don't have -- >you shouldn't base it on Slash, but basically start from scratch Wasn't there some quip about the only way to get a programmer to do something is to say it's impossible? <g> Morbus Iff .sig on other machine. http://www.disobey.com/ http://www.gamegrene.com/ |
From: Chris N. <pu...@po...> - 2001-04-20 19:03:26
|
At 14:53 -0400 2001.04.20, Morbus Iff wrote: > >* If you really want to do all you've said -- which I think is probably > >impossible unless you have a lot of time that you said you don't have -- > >you shouldn't base it on Slash, but basically start from scratch > >Wasn't there some quip about the >only way to get a programmer to do >something is to say it's impossible? <g> Well, impossible given that you said you don't even have the time to play with it for a single day ... :) -- Chris Nandor pu...@po... http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network pu...@os... http://osdn.com/ |
From: Eric D. <eri...@ja...> - 2001-04-20 17:26:01
|
Well, why don't you host the sites for them? You can charge them like whatever, or not charge them, and then they can run a site, they have YOU as the admin (a person they know), and everyone is happy. Morbus Iff wrote: > > 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? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
From: Alvaro d. C. <ac...@ba...> - 2001-04-21 08:26:23
|
On 20 Apr 2001 10:25:33 -0700, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > Well, why don't you host the sites for them? You can charge them like whatever, > or not charge them, and then they can run a site, they have YOU as the admin (a > person they know), and everyone is happy. We have done it for two projects. We hope in the future to put banners in their sites and obtain a % of their money ;-) For them now it hasn't any cost until they see that it can be a bussiness for them. The cost for us is minimal. When you have slashcode 2.0 installed in your system, hosting a new slashsite is trivial. You add a new virtual user for DBIx:Passowrd , execute /usr/local/slash/bin/install-slashsite and include in httpd.conf the new Virtual Host as said in the file automatically generated by install-slashsite. There are two kinds of people: we, the technicians and the people who have the content for the slashsite. The last can't install slashcode but this is normal I think. Cheers -- Alvaro > > Morbus Iff wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Slashcode-general mailing list > Sla...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general > |
From: Joel K. <jkl...@ea...> - 2001-04-20 21:43:13
|
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 |