Andrew,  If you are going to ignore my arguments about Plone being well
tested, easy to install and having a better upgrade path than a customized
solution like patching localFS, then this is just a waste
of everybody's time.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Andrew Milton <>wrote:

> +-------[ Tim Nash ]----------------------
> | No your response and Jens response are totally inappropriate. We will
> never
> | rebuild this community if all our posts are greeted with personal
> attacks.
> You're not going to "rebuild" any community if given a choice of two
> items, they're told to install the largest most complicated of them.
> | Using plone for the said usecase is not inappropriate especially since
> using a
> | directory view does not require using all of plone.
> Yes, Jens failed to factor in ideology and laziness into the use-case.
> | Please keep your arguments reasonable and focused on the technology or
> the
> | management of that technology.
> OK.
> LocalFS works. It's small. It does the task that was asked for. There
> are various patches around that increase its performance to close to that
> of serving static content directly out of Apache.
> Serving from Apache works. It's external to Zope. It does the task that
> was asked for, but, can't be managed from inside Zope or it requires the
> Zope install to share a filesystem with Apache (to manage from zope).
> Plone works. It's huge. It's complicated. It does 1000x more things than
> was asked for and is not a solution that should be recommended to simply
> serve files from the file system.
> Get a grip. You might want to install plone to do it, but, 99 times out
> of 100 that isn't the correct solution to recommend to *anyone* that
> just wants to serve files from the file system.
> --
> Andrew Milton
Zope maillist  -
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to