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 and using Application X with that of using
Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market
(i.e., blogging software).
As I said above, you are doing nothing useful in this argument.
Stop it. If you care that much passionately, then run Wordpress.
The argument is self defeating, because you are comparing apples to
pears. You can try this argument on a Django list and see how far
you get.
The problem here, Scott, is that you're the one who's arguing. I
stated an uncontroversial position -- RoR apps are harder to deploy
than traditional LAMP apps -- and you've gone all apoplectic with
fanboy protestations that, frankly, make no sense.
Look: I don't care. It's absolutely not important to me today, and I'm
100% done with you. I have problems with Typo that Fred says he's
working on, and I appreciate that. What I do NOT appreciate is your
incessant browbeating and bombastic Ruby boosterism.
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.
Then I suggest you to take that torch up with the Mongrel Mailing
list and ask them.
If it's something that's considered a common part of a Typo install,
then the Typo docs need to address it because it's out of the ordinary
for weblogging software.
To Quote from http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingMigrations
I'll read this later. I am refreshed, however, that you've provided an
apparently useful link.
In essence, your database has a 'version' number in it, and if
someone adds a new model, or changes a model a migration is also
made. So that you can run 'rake db:migrate' to ensure your database
is "up to date" and able to do what the new version intends to do.
Why is this better than just dropping the SQLite file into the tree
after your re-install? (Hypothetically; I haven't tried it.)
Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes.
!!!!
To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the
user.
With the exception of plugins and themes, I find the upgrade process
very relaxing and totally capable.
It's plugins and theme reinstallation I find bizarre.
I believe as a standard practice
Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use.
Remind me not to hire you as a Systems Administrator.
Based on my exposure to you here, it seems astoundingly unlikely
you'll ever be in a position to hire anyone with my resume.
My reference here is to the need to reinstall plugins and themes, not
standard pre-patch/pre-upgrade backups. In my career so far, my
experience is much more defined by my own refusal to hire doctrinaire
platform zealots.
Not to mention that is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Matrix (http://www.crcdataprotection.com/solutions/sox_compliance.asp
)
SarBox is so often a part of blog culture.
Because clearly I don't get it, and won't get it.
This, at least, is abundantly clear.
<plonk>
Chet Farmer
----
"When you've got an RV, a jet pack, and a monkey you really don't need
much actual content" - KS
_______________________________________________
Typo-list mailing list
Typo-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
