On 16 Jul 2008, at 14:38, Chet Farmer wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote:
I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with
mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs.
snip
Yes. And, frankly, Ruby + gems on most Linux distros is in
The documentation is fine. The only problem is that there is no
single orthodox solution. I see that as a strength, but it does mean
that some expertise is required to choose your recipe. You (Chet)
are right in the sense that for the beginner, a working typo blog is
probably not as easy
Scott blathered thusly
It's not my ball, it's everyone else's ball. I do not suffer the problem of
a 6-month release cycle, or how painful Ruby on Rails is to deploy. I
realize I don't see your pain, so perhaps if you could actually write up a
way we could make this easier for you?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Chet Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Williams wrote:
Let's compare to a Wordpress blog run on Apache using mod_php. The PHP
code does not serves all requests. Apache serves up the static content
(css, javascript, graphics,
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Kevin Williams wrote:
At the time Mongrel came around, no one, and I mean no one, would
touch the mod_ruby code. Webrick was slow and FastCGI was very buggy
at best. Zed Shaw stepped up with a strictly-spec-compliant and fast
web server for Ruby. There was much
On Jul 17, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Chet Farmer wrote:
My complaints really began with this very point; recall one of my
original points was the poor state of documentation concerning the
idiosyncratic installation requirements of Typo.
If it were more clear why I should consider installing
Le 17 juil. 08 à 22:30, Scott Likens a écrit :
On Jul 17, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Chet Farmer wrote:
My complaints really began with this very point; recall one of my
original points was the poor state of documentation concerning the
idiosyncratic installation requirements of Typo.
If it were
Look. I like Typo. I'm still trying to use it. But mails like this
just tick me off. They provide no help to speak of while insisting
there is no problem.
Also, proofreading is a good idea.
On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Scott Likens wrote:
To whomever it may concern,
I reckon that
Chet Farmer wrote:
Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run nginx
or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and takes the
most amount of memory (actually all of them really take the same
amount of memory, you just don't see the ruby process hanging around
Chet,
Which portion of the documentation needs to be revised? FastCGI?
Mongrel? I suppose someone can whip up some instructions on how to
make the config.ru for Passenger if need be. Typo is imo extremely
easy to deploy and get up in running in under 5 minutes. If your
having a problem
On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
Chet Farmer wrote:
Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run
nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and
takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take
the same amount of
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote:
I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with
mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs.
Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise?
Beats me. Perhaps you should refer to the first
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Scott Likens wrote:
Which portion of the documentation needs to be revised? FastCGI?
Mongrel?
Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the truth.
Compare the installation experience of a LAMP stack tool to Typo's and
you'll see the huge
Chet Farmer wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote:
I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with
mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs.
Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise?
Beats me. Perhaps you should refer
Scott Likens wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:14 AM, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
Chet Farmer wrote:
Now, there's no real difference with Mongrel/Webrick if you run
nginx or Apache or lighttpd. It works, it's well documented and
takes the most amount of memory (actually all of them really take
On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Rodger Donaldson wrote:
Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise?
That's it as a whole, 7 whole lines. Add that to your apache
configuration in a Virtualhost area for your blog and startup typo
and you should be golden.
At which point you wonder
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:38 AM, Chet Farmer wrote:
Beats me. Perhaps you should refer to the first portion of my reply
to you last night.
It's clearly a problem, though. It's also a problem that the purpose
of Mongrel isn't made clear; you just have to take on faith that
it's something you
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Chet Farmer wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:04 AM, Scott Likens wrote:
Which portion of the documentation needs to be revised? FastCGI?
Mongrel?
Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the
truth. Compare the installation experience of a LAMP
On Jul 16, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Scott Likens wrote:
Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the
truth. Compare the installation experience of a LAMP stack tool to
Typo's and you'll see the huge gap.
In particular, deeper descriptions of why Mongrel needs to be
involved,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Scott Likens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To whomever it may concern,
I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo?
There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is
1) FastCGI.
We all know, it sucks.
2) Mongrel/Webrick
Nginx with proxy load
On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Chet Farmer wrote:
We are comparing an Apple to a Pear, LAMP is not the same as LAMR
or a Ruby on Rails install. Please stop comparing it, you are
doing nothing useful by doing that.
Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app?
That's
On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Chet Farmer wrote:
Scott,
You persist in answering questions that I'm not asking. At this
point, I won't give a damn about Typo deployment again until some
time *after* the bug fixes I require are deployed, if then.
Your ongoing insistence that Typo/Ruby IS
On Jul 16, 2008, at 5:09 PM, JZ wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Scott Likens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To whomever it may concern,
I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo?
There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is
1) FastCGI.
We all know, it sucks.
It
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Scott Likens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If thin supported Streaming (Not Media, but the Mongrel Extension) it would
be something I would have no issue using. I've mentioned that to the author
of Thin and we'll see how that goes.
Thin depends on the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Chet Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems like a
really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most obvious question
(which boils down to WTF?, essentially) isn't addressed.
Let's compare
On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Scott Likens wrote:
Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app?
That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT
and WP and etc?
No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the
experience of setting up
To whomever it may concern,
I notice the common thread here. How to deploy typo?
There is many ways to deploy typo, the most common is
1) FastCGI. (It's also the most murky confusing documentation imo, I
don't blame this on typo, I blame this on FastCGI Documentation and
the people who
27 matches
Mail list logo
