+1 I think it's ridiculous to blame this on distro choice, especially since we're not talking about some exotic niche distro, but debian, "the" classical web server OS. A webserver with a nice and shiny web interface and therefore an emphasis on ease of use has to hold up similar standards when it comes to ease of installation and setup. I see a huge discrepancy here.
PS cheers Daniel, >gibbonweb< Am 04.12.2012 um 22:11 schrieb Daniel Lo Nigro: > Plus I wouldn't say Ubuntu has a "lot more users" - Debian is much, much > older so I'd say it has many more users than Ubuntu does. Not sure if it's > changed recently but a server installation of Ubuntu used to be heavier than > a basic Debian installation. > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Daniel Lo Nigro <[email protected]> wrote: > How can Cherokee have up-to-date packages for Ubuntu but not for Debian? > Surely the Ubuntu packages would need minimal modification to work on Debian? > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/04/12 18:42, - - wrote: > > I am angry about Cherokee Project. Not for the sake of being angry, > > but because I love Cherokee but I just don't see it as an awesome > > webserver anymore. It becomes something for insiders, developers and > > nerds. :(((( > > I regret I say this probably, but there is a user friendly > distribution called "Ubuntu" it looks like "Debian", but has a lot more > users. It seems we do have up to date Cherokee packages for Ubuntu. > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee > > > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
