Rails - Sep 2005 - The Missing Parts of RoR (Money making opportunity for someone smart)

Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here, just  
hoping to point out some very important points to those that have  
seemingly missed them.


As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find the  
following really really hard to digest/accept:

The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on, is  
really really poor. Amazingly poor.


A good illustrative example (assuming MySQL is installed already):

IF you would want to do PHP development on OS X with most PHP  
packages - (using WordPress here) then you follow these simple easy  
steps:

-- visit [ http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/ ] and download  
the version you would want, and then follow the minimal, but helpful  
instructions on the page.
     -- open the .dmg file and double-click the .pkg installer, click  
continue a few times and so on (a basic Mac install process)
--  once the PHP installer is completed, you restart the webserver  
and voila there it is working.
--  to install WP, you download it, extract the files into the  
location where you want them, and hit the wp-install.php script, and  
2 minutes later you have a working blog on your local system.

--  When you wish to upload/install this local dev version on your  
public webserver, you just FTP it up to your host, change a few DB  
related bits and voila it''s working.

Total time consumed (excl. down/uploads): 10-15 mins and that''s  
working SLOW.


Try to achieve the same with RubyonRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and Typo.   
Yes, DHH and the super-gurus might be able to do it in that time, but  
truthfully I strongly doubt it.

I know that you can get RoR up and running with Webrick quite  
quickly, but Webrick IS NOT a production environment ! Apache & PHP are.

I know that there are 20+ versions of blog/wiki posts out there on  
how to install RoR, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on. BUT, they are often out  
of date, contradicting each other, confusing, takes knowledge for  
granted, requires you to go through so many hoops that normal people  
- non super geeks - gets dizzy, and so on.

I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take  
one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff  
installed, and turn their backs to it.



So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR  
core group, sit down and produce ''one-click-installers'' that
mimics
the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.

In other words, a basic installer that installs the required Ruby,  
RoR, gems, FCGI, Lighttpd, common gem stuff (generators, etc etc) in  
a single convenient package that is easily updated by using a later  
version installer.  The installer, or some installed CLI script, then  
allows you to easily generate vhosts and working apps from there.

I would be quite happy to pay US$ 10-20 for such a working installer  
that was updated as things changed, and I am sure I''m NOT alone in  
wanting that, so if someone took the time to do this, I''m sure they  
could even earn some money from it.

Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. I  
want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access the  
various RoR apps, rather than "localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.


To put it succinctly in a simple comparison analogy. Compare hard  
coded SQL and verbose DB connections code with RoR''s ActiveRecord.  I  
want the install experience of ActiveRecord, NOT something else, and  
unfortunately that''s what we have today.


Apologies for being verbose, but that''s part of the current
''install
experience'' today, so I guess you''re all used to it ;-)


Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

Hi Mats,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:14:11PM +0100, Mats Persson
wrote:
> 
> Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here, just  
> hoping to point out some very important points to those that have  
> seemingly missed them.
> 
> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find the  
> following really really hard to digest/accept:
> 
> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on, is  
> really really poor. Amazingly poor.
well, it isn''t a one-click install. more exactly, it requires you no
clicks at all - just a commandline and a text editor ;-)  

To make a long story short - I don''t think setting up a production
quality server can or should be done in a one-click-install manner.

Imho someone administering a production server system should at least
have *some* knowledge of what''s going on - and one learns that best
when
setting things up by himself. That way you know where to look when
things break. 

[ skipped some paragraphs ]
> I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take  
> one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff  
> installed, and turn their backs to it.
I really don''t get your point here. Why the heck should designers or
clients want to set up a rails ''production quality'' server ?  
> So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR  
> core group, sit down and produce ''one-click-installers''
that mimics
> the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.
Personally I would appreciate if they continued to do rails development,
not to produce fancy installers. 

main difference between Open Source and commercial products: OS
sometimes sucks at installation time but works once installed -
commercial software has nice installers and fancy GUIs with bells and
whistles - but sucks once installed. ;-)
> In other words, a basic installer that installs the required Ruby,  
> RoR, gems, FCGI, Lighttpd, common gem stuff (generators, etc etc) in  
> a single convenient package that is easily updated by using a later  
> version installer.  The installer, or some installed CLI script, then  
> allows you to easily generate vhosts and working apps from there.
> 
> I would be quite happy to pay US$ 10-20 for such a working installer  
> that was updated as things changed, and I am sure I''m NOT alone in
> wanting that, so if someone took the time to do this, I''m sure
they
> could even earn some money from it.
well, if there really is this demand, the market will fill the
gap soon.
> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. I
> want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access the  
> various RoR apps, rather than "localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/
so what''s the problem ? 

I think if you came up with a concrete question about a problem you have
in getting your setup done, you really would get help. At no cost, in
most cases. Just sit down, think and describe your problem, instead of
crying for an automated fool-proof installer.

And if you really can''t get this working on your own - why
don''t you do
the business with a professional rails hoster or employ a sysadmin
yourself ?

Hope I didn''t sound too harsh, but I simply think it''s weird
to say ''one
click installer'' and ''server'' in one sentence.


greetings,

Jens


-- 
Jens Krämer
jk-UayuY8ajoWPk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org

On 9/8/05, Mats Persson <mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here, just
> hoping to point out some very important points to those that have
> seemingly missed them.
> 
> 
> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find the
> following really really hard to digest/accept:
> 
> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on, is
> really really poor. Amazingly poor.
> 
> 
> A good illustrative example (assuming MySQL is installed already):
> 
> IF you would want to do PHP development on OS X with most PHP
> packages - (using WordPress here) then you follow these simple easy
> steps:
> 
> -- visit [ http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/ ] and download
> the version you would want, and then follow the minimal, but helpful
> instructions on the page.
>      -- open the .dmg file and double-click the .pkg installer, click
> continue a few times and so on (a basic Mac install process)
> --  once the PHP installer is completed, you restart the webserver
> and voila there it is working.
> --  to install WP, you download it, extract the files into the
> location where you want them, and hit the wp-install.php script, and
> 2 minutes later you have a working blog on your local system.
> 
> --  When you wish to upload/install this local dev version on your
> public webserver, you just FTP it up to your host, change a few DB
> related bits and voila it''s working.
I don''t understand why you want a "production" environment on
your
local machine.

And, assuming that the public webserver is already configured, I can
just export a version of my application from subversion to some spot
on the webserver and have it working.

I *am* addressing this issue. I have been working on a project called 
"Instant Rails" that prepackages Ruby, Rails, Apache and MySQL and an
admin
controller that is all preconfigured and an ready to run. It follows the 
Instiki inspired three-step installation (1. download, 2. run, 3. there is 
no step three)! In other words, there is no installer, you simply drop it 
into any directory and run it.

I am actively working on this right now, and I hope to have a preview or 
beta available by RubyConf.

This is a fork of the open source project EasyPHP. The bad news is that this 
only runs on Windows (the admin controller program is a C++ windows app). 
The good news is that after I get the initial release out on Windows, I plan 
to rewrite the controller app in Ruby/wxRuby and make it multiplatform. 

Tanner Burson is going to help me with the Linux version. If I can get more 
volunteers to help, the porting to other platforms would go faster. I would 
especially like to get someone to work on an OSX port.

Curt

On 9/8/05, Mats Persson <mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> 
> Please Note! I am not trying to have a bitching session here, just
> hoping to point out some very important points to those that have
> seemingly missed them.
> 
> 
> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find the
> following really really hard to digest/accept:
> 
> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on, is
> really really poor. Amazingly poor.
> 
> 
> A good illustrative example (assuming MySQL is installed already):
> 
> IF you would want to do PHP development on OS X with most PHP
> packages - (using WordPress here) then you follow these simple easy
> steps:
> 
> -- visit [ http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/ ] and download
> the version you would want, and then follow the minimal, but helpful
> instructions on the page.
> -- open the .dmg file and double-click the .pkg installer, click
> continue a few times and so on (a basic Mac install process)
> -- once the PHP installer is completed, you restart the webserver
> and voila there it is working.
> -- to install WP, you download it, extract the files into the
> location where you want them, and hit the wp-install.php script, and
> 2 minutes later you have a working blog on your local system.
> 
> -- When you wish to upload/install this local dev version on your
> public webserver, you just FTP it up to your host, change a few DB
> related bits and voila it''s working.
> 
> Total time consumed (excl. down/uploads): 10-15 mins and that''s
> working SLOW.
> 
> 
> Try to achieve the same with RubyonRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and Typo.
> Yes, DHH and the super-gurus might be able to do it in that time, but
> truthfully I strongly doubt it.
> 
> I know that you can get RoR up and running with Webrick quite
> quickly, but Webrick IS NOT a production environment ! Apache & PHP
are.
> 
> I know that there are 20+ versions of blog/wiki posts out there on
> how to install RoR, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on. BUT, they are often out
> of date, contradicting each other, confusing, takes knowledge for
> granted, requires you to go through so many hoops that normal people
> - non super geeks - gets dizzy, and so on.
> 
> I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take
> one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff
> installed, and turn their backs to it.
> 
> 
> 
> So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR
> core group, sit down and produce ''one-click-installers''
that mimics
> the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.
> 
> In other words, a basic installer that installs the required Ruby,
> RoR, gems, FCGI, Lighttpd, common gem stuff (generators, etc etc) in
> a single convenient package that is easily updated by using a later
> version installer. The installer, or some installed CLI script, then
> allows you to easily generate vhosts and working apps from there.
> 
> I would be quite happy to pay US$ 10-20 for such a working installer
> that was updated as things changed, and I am sure I''m NOT alone in
> wanting that, so if someone took the time to do this, I''m sure
they
> could even earn some money from it.
> 
> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. I
> want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access the
> various RoR apps, rather than "localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.
> 
> 
> To put it succinctly in a simple comparison analogy. Compare hard
> coded SQL and verbose DB connections code with RoR''s ActiveRecord.
I
> want the install experience of ActiveRecord, NOT something else, and
> unfortunately that''s what we have today.
> 
> 
> Apologies for being verbose, but that''s part of the current
''install
> experience'' today, so I guess you''re all used to it ;-)
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Mats
> 
> ----
> "TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
> - www.macromates.com <http://www.macromates.com> -
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

Hi Mats,

The thing that finally got me going with Apache and FCGI was removing  
the Ruby sessions in my /tmp folder AND changing my user and group  
names to the first part of the httpd.conf file. You also need to add  
the comment in your .htaccess (located in the public folder). (It is  
already there but commented out) and comment out the *.cgi rule It  
should look like this.

RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.fcgi [QSA,L]
#RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.cgi [QSA,L]

Follow the steps outlined here EXACTLY : http://hivelogic.com which  
will reinstall ruby on your OSX system into usr/local/. Then remove  
any ruby sessions in the /tmp folder. Then move your user and group  
names to the beginning of httpd.conf. Then restart ''sudo apachectl  
graceful'' and point your browser to the port you have named. You know  
you are getting close if you see a fastcgi.server.crashlog in your  
<railsapp>/log/ folder. This log pointed me to the stalled ruby  
session in /tmp.

Finally, if you want to make your URL''s port number free, you will  
need to look into some Rewrite rules.

Anyway, it finally worked for me after some head scratching and some  
frustration, but it took longer than the three hours between your posts.

Good luck



On Sep 8, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Mats Persson wrote:
>
> Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here, just  
> hoping to point out some very important points to those that have  
> seemingly missed them.
>
>
> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find  
> the following really really hard to digest/accept:
>
> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on,  
> is really really poor. Amazingly poor.
>
>
> A good illustrative example (assuming MySQL is installed already):
>
> IF you would want to do PHP development on OS X with most PHP  
> packages - (using WordPress here) then you follow these simple easy  
> steps:
>
> -- visit [ http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/ ] and  
> download the version you would want, and then follow the minimal,  
> but helpful instructions on the page.
>     -- open the .dmg file and double-click the .pkg installer,  
> click continue a few times and so on (a basic Mac install process)
> --  once the PHP installer is completed, you restart the webserver  
> and voila there it is working.
> --  to install WP, you download it, extract the files into the  
> location where you want them, and hit the wp-install.php script,  
> and 2 minutes later you have a working blog on your local system.
>
> --  When you wish to upload/install this local dev version on your  
> public webserver, you just FTP it up to your host, change a few DB  
> related bits and voila it''s working.
>
> Total time consumed (excl. down/uploads): 10-15 mins and that''s  
> working SLOW.
>
>
> Try to achieve the same with RubyonRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and Typo.   
> Yes, DHH and the super-gurus might be able to do it in that time,  
> but truthfully I strongly doubt it.
>
> I know that you can get RoR up and running with Webrick quite  
> quickly, but Webrick IS NOT a production environment ! Apache & PHP  
> are.
>
> I know that there are 20+ versions of blog/wiki posts out there on  
> how to install RoR, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on. BUT, they are often  
> out of date, contradicting each other, confusing, takes knowledge  
> for granted, requires you to go through so many hoops that normal  
> people - non super geeks - gets dizzy, and so on.
>
> I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take  
> one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff  
> installed, and turn their backs to it.
>
>
>
> So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR  
> core group, sit down and produce ''one-click-installers''
that mimics
> the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.
>
> In other words, a basic installer that installs the required Ruby,  
> RoR, gems, FCGI, Lighttpd, common gem stuff (generators, etc etc)  
> in a single convenient package that is easily updated by using a  
> later version installer.  The installer, or some installed CLI  
> script, then allows you to easily generate vhosts and working apps  
> from there.
>
> I would be quite happy to pay US$ 10-20 for such a working  
> installer that was updated as things changed, and I am sure I''m
NOT
> alone in wanting that, so if someone took the time to do this, I''m
> sure they could even earn some money from it.
>
> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. I
> want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access the  
> various RoR apps, rather than "localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.
>
>
> To put it succinctly in a simple comparison analogy. Compare hard  
> coded SQL and verbose DB connections code with RoR''s ActiveRecord.
> I want the install experience of ActiveRecord, NOT something else,  
> and unfortunately that''s what we have today.
>
>
> Apologies for being verbose, but that''s part of the current  
> ''install experience'' today, so I guess you''re
all used to it ;-)
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mats
>
> ----
> "TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
> - www.macromates.com -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Utahweb]
>
>
>
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Utahweb]

> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. 
To be fair, I released a 0.1.1 alpha version of Locomotive 1 week ago
- it''s not by any means the final, complete, perfected version. 
I''ve
had some feedback from various people and I have started a list of
features to work on.  If there are particular things you want, you''ll
have to speak up!

-- 
Ryan Raaum
http://www.rockefeller.edu -- Bacterial Pathogenesis and Immunology
http://www.worldmartial.com -- Black Belt Instructor
http://locomotive.sourceforge.net -- Self contained one-click Rails for Mac OS X

What about Locomotive?
http://locomotive.sourceforge.net

--Alison

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 13:14 +0100, Mats Persson wrote:
> Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here, just  
> hoping to point out some very important points to those that have  
> seemingly missed them.
> 
> 
> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find the  
> following really really hard to digest/accept:
> 
> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on, is  
> really really poor. Amazingly poor.
> 
> 
> A good illustrative example (assuming MySQL is installed already):
> 
> IF you would want to do PHP development on OS X with most PHP  
> packages - (using WordPress here) then you follow these simple easy  
> steps:
> 
> -- visit [ http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/ ] and download  
> the version you would want, and then follow the minimal, but helpful  
> instructions on the page.
>      -- open the .dmg file and double-click the .pkg installer, click  
> continue a few times and so on (a basic Mac install process)
> --  once the PHP installer is completed, you restart the webserver  
> and voila there it is working.
> --  to install WP, you download it, extract the files into the  
> location where you want them, and hit the wp-install.php script, and  
> 2 minutes later you have a working blog on your local system.
> 
> --  When you wish to upload/install this local dev version on your  
> public webserver, you just FTP it up to your host, change a few DB  
> related bits and voila it''s working.
> 
> Total time consumed (excl. down/uploads): 10-15 mins and that''s  
> working SLOW.
> 
> 
> Try to achieve the same with RubyonRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and Typo.   
> Yes, DHH and the super-gurus might be able to do it in that time, but  
> truthfully I strongly doubt it.
> 
> I know that you can get RoR up and running with Webrick quite  
> quickly, but Webrick IS NOT a production environment ! Apache & PHP
are.
> 
> I know that there are 20+ versions of blog/wiki posts out there on  
> how to install RoR, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on. BUT, they are often out  
> of date, contradicting each other, confusing, takes knowledge for  
> granted, requires you to go through so many hoops that normal people  
> - non super geeks - gets dizzy, and so on.
> 
> I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take  
> one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff  
> installed, and turn their backs to it.
> 
> 
> 
> So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR  
> core group, sit down and produce ''one-click-installers''
that mimics
> the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.
> 
> In other words, a basic installer that installs the required Ruby,  
> RoR, gems, FCGI, Lighttpd, common gem stuff (generators, etc etc) in  
> a single convenient package that is easily updated by using a later  
> version installer.  The installer, or some installed CLI script, then  
> allows you to easily generate vhosts and working apps from there.
> 
> I would be quite happy to pay US$ 10-20 for such a working installer  
> that was updated as things changed, and I am sure I''m NOT alone in
> wanting that, so if someone took the time to do this, I''m sure
they
> could even earn some money from it.
> 
> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. I
> want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access the  
> various RoR apps, rather than "localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.
> 
> 
> To put it succinctly in a simple comparison analogy. Compare hard  
> coded SQL and verbose DB connections code with RoR''s ActiveRecord.
I
> want the install experience of ActiveRecord, NOT something else, and  
> unfortunately that''s what we have today.
> 
> 
> Apologies for being verbose, but that''s part of the current
''install
> experience'' today, so I guess you''re all used to it ;-)
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Mats
> 
> ----
> "TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
> - www.macromates.com -
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 
>

On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:25, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> I don''t understand why you want a "production"
environment on your
> local machine.
With "production" environment I mean having FCGI and/or Lighttpd  
installed locally, so that you mimic your production environment, so  
that the transition between local dev and live production site is  
minimised to changing DB conf variables, setting configs like  
site_url (if used) and so on.

Why? To make mine and everyone else''s lives easier, more productive  
and more enjoyable.

> And, assuming that the public webserver is already configured, I  
> can just export a version of my application from subversion to some  
> spot on the webserver and have it working.
This IS EXACTLY what I am hoping to achieve, but I''m having BIG  
problems.

As an example:  I''m working on a hacked version of Hieraki, and on my  
system I can run it under both Webrick (as localhost:<port>) and FCGI  
as a vhost (''http://project.site/'' if it''s installed
in my Sites
directory)

Trying to upload it to my TextDrive a/c (pendrell.td.com), I need to  
change the .htaccess and the [ public/dispatch.fcgi ] because my  
settings don''t seem to work, and in the end I can only get it working  
as a CGI process, not FCGI on TD.

These are just fundamental basic F-Up''s in my mind. The PHP example  
in my original post has **none** of those problems, limitations and  
irritations.

OK, maybe I''m not understanding how to hack the TD a/c correctly to  
get it running and so on, maybe it''s just me being stupid, but the  
fundamental fact here is that I can get WP (most php solutions)  
running on my TD a/c in minutes with no major config mojo going on,  
but getting a RoR app running correctly is like installing Windows  
1.0 from around 1987. In other words, it''s known to be possible, but  
sure require more effort than I''ve got to give.

I''m a newbie to RoR and I absolutely LOVE certain aspects of it, but  
the whole install/run process is the dark ugly corner in this  
otherwise brilliant solution.

Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

On 9/8/05, Mats Persson <mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:25, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > I don''t understand why you want a "production"
environment on your
> > local machine.
> 
> With "production" environment I mean having FCGI and/or Lighttpd
> installed locally, so that you mimic your production environment, so
> that the transition between local dev and live production site is
> minimised to changing DB conf variables, setting configs like
> site_url (if used) and so on.
> 
> Why? To make mine and everyone else''s lives easier, more
productive
> and more enjoyable.
> 
> 
> > And, assuming that the public webserver is already configured, I
> > can just export a version of my application from subversion to some
> > spot on the webserver and have it working.
> 
> This IS EXACTLY what I am hoping to achieve, but I''m having BIG
> problems.
> 
> As an example:  I''m working on a hacked version of Hieraki, and on
my
> system I can run it under both Webrick (as localhost:<port>) and FCGI
> as a vhost (''http://project.site/'' if it''s
installed in my Sites
> directory)
<snip>

I''m using lighttpd on TxD, and I don''t have to change any
settings
(other than the DB) going from locally hosted webrick to a production
env on lighttpd.

On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:11, Jens Kraemer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:14:11PM +0100, Mats Persson wrote:
>> Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here,  
>> just hoping to point out some very important points to those that  
>> have seemingly missed them.
>>
>> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'',
and further
>> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find  
>> the following really really hard to digest/accept:
>> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on,  
>> is really really poor. Amazingly poor.
>
> well, it isn''t a one-click install. more exactly, it requires you
> no clicks at all - just a commandline and a text editor ;-)
OK, so WHERE is that Idiot-proof, easy-to-follow and up-to-date step- 
by-step installations instructions ??  I hacked my way to both  
getting RoR and FCGI installed on my system somehow, but trying to  
get it running on a client''s/friend''s Powerbook was
impossible, and
we gave up after 4 hours of problems, confusions and non-working FCGI.
> To make a long story short - I don''t think setting up a production
> quality server can or should be done in a one-click-install manner.
Why can''t it be done ? If PHP can, why can''t RoR ?  Does it
need to
be "production quality" when you want to use it for local  
development ?  No, it won''t have those loads/requirements, but that  
surely doesn''t mean it can''t be mimicked ?

> Imho someone administering a production server system should at  
> least have *some* knowledge of what''s going on - and one learns  
> that best when setting things up by himself. That way you know  
> where to look when things break.
OK, fair enough, but provide that basic required info in an easy to  
read, follow and understand way then. Reading 10+ versions on how to  
install, set-up etc that requires more mental processing than should  
be needed, is not the way to do this.  I''m not interested in having  
to learn the ins and outs of FCGI, Lighttpd and/or PHP. I just want  
it to work !! Nothing more, nothing less.

>> I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take  
>> one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff   
>> installed, and turn their backs to it.
> I really don''t get your point here. Why the heck should designers
> or clients want to set up a rails ''production quality''
server ?
Hopefully my above points will have cleared up the confusion in your/ 
other''s minds about ''production quality server''.

A designer that is used to working with PHP can set-up a virtualhost  
for their php solution on their local OS X box in seconds using a  
simple bash script. So the project "client_site.com" can be accessed  
through the url [ http://client_site.dev/ ] or something similar. It  
beats the Webrick "localhost:<port>" stuff hands down every
single time.

A designer can work on many different projects at the same time or  
during a period of time. Referring to each by human friendly vhosts  
beats trying to remember port numbers and having to start/stop  
Webrick for each project.

That should be fundamentally simple enough for everyone to understand.

>> So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR  
>> core group, sit down and produce
''one-click-installers'' that
>> mimics the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.
>
> Personally I would appreciate if they continued to do rails  
> development, not to produce fancy installers.
I too prefer them to work on rails development, but having a good,  
easy to use install functionality is very important too. First  
impressions counts, and not getting things working is sure a  
productivity killer!!

> main difference between Open Source and commercial products: OS  
> sometimes sucks at installation time but works once installed -  
> commercial software has nice installers and fancy GUIs with bells  
> and whistles - but sucks once installed. ;-)
You have obviously not ever used anything like the PHP installer I  
linked to.  Since it is FREE (as in beer), is based on OSS code and  
provides a "fancy installer" to simplify a complex process.
Geeks (and I use that term disparagingly here) seems to get off on  
having to go through 400 hoops to achieve something that can and  
**should** be made simple.

Contrast the entire install process to get the latest PHP version  
with all extra bits installed via make ./configure etc. etc and that  
of downloading an installer, double-click it, follow instructions and  
job done.  Yes, one takes hours and might work in the end, the other  
one takes minutes and works. The choice is simple and obvious and  
intelligent people will always choose the simpler, faster and safer  
version.

>> I would be quite happy to pay US$ 10-20 for such a working  
>> installer  that was updated as things changed, and I am sure
I''m
>> NOT alone in wanting that, so if someone took the time to do this,  
>> I''m sure they could even earn some money from it.
>
> well, if there really is this demand, the market will fill the gap  
> soon.
It''s not needed soon, it''s needed already. That''s why
I addressed the
point.

>> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s
simplicity.
>> I  want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access  
>> the  various RoR apps, rather than
"localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/
> so what''s the problem ?
I''ve already been having vhost''s running nicely for 5+ years
when
working with PHP. Now I''m trying to replicate the same environment  
and experience with Rails. Unfortunately it requires you to install  
things like FCGI or Lighttpd. Maybe there''s a different way, but I  
haven''t found it yet. IF there is, please inform me.

> I think if you came up with a concrete question about a problem you  
> have in getting your setup done, you really would get help. At no  
> cost, in most cases. Just sit down, think and describe your  
> problem, instead of crying for an automated fool-proof installer.
OK, Jens, thanks for that, please read this thread [ [Rails]  
rails_product, vhosts, subdomains, OS X and Dreamhost == Help  
needed ]  posted today, and then please reply with all the relevant  
info to get the set-up described in there working, through an idiot- 
proof system that I can pass on to a non-programmer. IF you need  
further information you know where to find me ;)

> And if you really can''t get this working on your own - why
don''t
> you do the business with a professional rails hoster or employ a  
> sysadmin yourself ?
You see, this is the problem that I''m seeing with the RoR community  
right now. You are all seemingly big time companies or very capable  
programmers. I''m not, I''m a small-time guy that''s
trying to develop
something that there is a market for out there, but is being hampered  
by my finances, time & energy available, my skills and the technology  
available.

In other words, I can''t hire someone to do this, nor should I have to  
really.

> Hope I didn''t sound too harsh, but I simply think it''s
weird to say
> ''one click installer'' and ''server'' in
one sentence.
Borderline ;-) and I hope the same, but don''t think it''s weird
at
all. :)



Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

On Sep 8, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Mats Persson wrote:
>
> On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:11, Jens Kraemer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:14:11PM +0100, Mats Persson wrote:
>>
>>> Please Note!  I am not trying to have a bitching session here,  
>>> just hoping to point out some very important points to those that  
>>> have seemingly missed them.
>>>
>>> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR
''club'', and further
>>> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find  
>>> the following really really hard to digest/accept:
>>> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on,  
>>> is really really poor. Amazingly poor.
>>>
>>
>> well, it isn''t a one-click install. more exactly, it requires
you
>> no clicks at all - just a commandline and a text editor ;-)
>>
>
> OK, so WHERE is that Idiot-proof, easy-to-follow and up-to-date  
> step-by-step installations instructions ??  I hacked my way to both  
> getting RoR and FCGI installed on my system somehow, but trying to  
> get it running on a client''s/friend''s Powerbook was
impossible, and
> we gave up after 4 hours of problems, confusions and non-working FCGI.
>
Install the complete Ruby on Rails and Lighttpd/fastcgi/php Stack  
from source with the fastcgi dev kit and the pcre''s. This has been  
tested on RHEL4, Debian Sarge, Ubuntu and OSX. It should work on most  
Linux Distro''s and probably BSD as well(not tested)
__________________________________________________ ______________
Get Ruby1.8.2

wget http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.p...by-1.8.2.tar.gz
tar xvzf ruby-*
cd ruby-1.8.2
./configure
make
make test
sudo make install
__________________________________________________ ______________

Get Ruby gems

wget http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.p...gems-0.8.11.tgz
tar xvzf rubygems*
cd rubygems*
sudo ruby setup.rb
__________________________________________________ ______________

Get Rails and a few other gems

sudo gem install rails RedCloth search_generator  
salted_login_generator production_log_analyzer
answer yes to all dependencies
__________________________________________________ ______________

Get mysql-ruby C bindings (the pure ruby ones suck)

wget http://www.tmtm.org/en/mysql/ruby/mysql-ruby-2.6.tar.gz
tar zxvf mysql-ruby-*
cd mysql-ruby-*
ruby extconf.rb --with-mysql-config
make
sudo make install
__________________________________________________ ______________

download fastcgi developers kit

wget http://fastcgi.com/dist/fcgi.tar.gz
tar xvzf fcgi-2.4.0.tar.gz
cd fcgi*
./configure
make
sudo make install
__________________________________________________ ______________

Get the new non memory leaking ruby-fastcgi bindings

wget http://sugi.nemui.org/pub/ruby/fcgi...gi-0.8.6.tar.gz
tar xzvf ruby-fcgi*
ruby install.rb config --without-ext
ruby install.rb setup
sudo ruby install.rb install
__________________________________________________ ______________

We need the correct pcre .so’s for lighttpd to work correctly

wget ftp://ftp.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/softwar...pcre-5.0.tar.gz
tar xzvf pcre-5.0.tar.gz
cd pcre-*
./configure
make
sudo make install
__________________________________________________ ______________

Get lighttpd 1.3.16 (you can use 1.4.3 if you like. I am having good  
luck with 1.3.16 right now in production on a site that gets 40,000  
hits a day)

wget http://www.lighttpd.net/download/lighttpd-1.3.16.tar.gz
tar xzvf lighttpd-1.3.16.tar.gz
cd lighttpd-*
./configure
make
sudo make install
__________________________________________________ ______________

Compile php as a fast-cgi binary The main thing here is the following  
configure options. You can add whatever else you like to your php  
binary but these are needed for fast-cgi support.

$ ./configure \
--enable-fastcgi \
--enable-discard-path \
--enable-force-cgi-redirect \
__________________________________________________ ______________

Lighttpd Launcher Script

Here is a link for a sweet enhancement. Put this script in your  
RAILS_ROOT/script folder and put the lighttpd.conf file in RAILS_ROOT/ 
config. Now you can launch your rails app by cd’ing into your  
RAILS_ROOT for your app and typing:
$ruby script/lighty -p 7500 -e development (or whatever port & env  
you want to use)

Now you can hit http://localhost:7500/ and you will get your app  
running on lighttpd no muss no fuss. Very sweet for development. Here  
is the link: http://www.bigbold.com/snippets/posts/show/303 . Name  
the first ruby script lighty and name the config file lighttpd.conf.  
Now every time you start your app this way is creates a new  
lighttpd.conf in /tmp and starts lighttpd up with that file. This way  
you can give it command line options as to what port to bind to and  
others. I’m using this for development and it is sweet!


-Ezra Zygmuntowicz
Yakima Herald-Republic
WebMaster
509-577-7732
ezra-gdxLOakOTQ9oetBuM9ipNAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org

On 8 Sep 2005, at 16:29, Ryan Raaum wrote:
>> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s
simplicity.
>
> To be fair, I released a 0.1.1 alpha version of Locomotive 1 week  
> ago - it''s not by any means the final, complete, perfected  
> version.  I''ve had some feedback from various people and I have  
> started a list of features to work on.  If there are particular  
> things you want, you''ll have to speak up!
Ryan, I was not having a go at you, nor was I trying to devalue your  
work, and I was planning on writing you a long feedback on what would  
be great in Locomotive.

As a quick feedback, go visit the PHP link in my original post, study  
the page, the options, the info carefully, download the installer,  
install it and evaluate the features/functionality installed by  
default.  Contact Marc and ask him about his experiences from how he  
supports two versions of PHP that are updated as often as RoR, and  
has been doing so successfully for almost 3-4 years.

When you have done that, then try to replicate the same experience as  
closely as possible in an easy, simple and convenient experience and  
you''ll be very appreciated.

Also, don''t forget to write some more documentation on what  
Locomotive does and does not do. ;-)

PS. Having installed Locomotive over my existing installation, will  
that have messed up my install in some way ?? Thinking FCGI mostly  
here ?


Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

On 8 Sep 2005, at 17:21, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> On 9/8/05, Mats Persson
<mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:25, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
>>> I don''t understand why you want a "production"
environment on
>>> your local machine.
>>
>> With "production" environment I mean having FCGI and/or
Lighttpd
>> installed locally, so that you mimic your production environment,  
>> so that the transition between local dev and live production site  
>> is minimised to changing DB conf variables, setting configs like  
>> site_url (if used) and so on.
>>
>> Why? To make mine and everyone else''s lives easier, more  
>> productive and more enjoyable.
>>
>>> And, assuming that the public webserver is already configured, I  
>>> can just export a version of my application from subversion to  
>>> some spot on the webserver and have it working.
>>
>> This IS EXACTLY what I am hoping to achieve, but I''m having
BIG
>> problems.
>>
>> As an example:  I''m working on a hacked version of Hieraki,
and on
>> my system I can run it under both Webrick (as localhost:<port>)  
>> and FCGI as a vhost (''http://project.site/'' if
it''s installed in
>> my Sites directory)
> <snip>
>
> I''m using lighttpd on TxD, and I don''t have to change any
settings
> (other than the DB) going from locally hosted webrick to a  
> production env on lighttpd.
Good for you !! Doesn''t help me in any way though. Maybe I need go  
for a zen retreat, and come back in 10 months when things might have  
improved ;-)

AFAIK, getting Lighttpd running on TxD is not something that is as  
easy as it ought to be. Please tell me I''m wrong, cause I''ve
been
looking at/for things.

Running things through Webrick doesn''t help with the other main  
issues either described in my other posts on this thread.


Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

Mats Persson wrote:
> As an example:  I''m working on a hacked version of Hieraki, and on
my
> system I can run it under both Webrick (as localhost:<port>) and FCGI
> as a vhost (''http://project.site/'' if it''s
installed in my Sites
> directory)
> 
> Trying to upload it to my TextDrive a/c (pendrell.td.com), I need to  
> change the .htaccess and the [ public/dispatch.fcgi ] because my  
> settings don''t seem to work, and in the end I can only get it
working
> as a CGI process, not FCGI on TD.
I am using Lighttpd on TxD and Webrick on OSX for development and I too 
have to do nothing when deploying. There''s really no need to run 
Lighttpd or Apache locally, unless you have the desire to do so. Also, 
getting Apache/FastCGI/RoR running locally won''t necessarily make in
run
on TxD.
> I''m a newbie to RoR and I absolutely LOVE certain aspects of it,
but
> the whole install/run process is the dark ugly corner in this  otherwise 
> brilliant solution.
Yeah, getting RoR running in a shared hosting environment can be a pain. 
I am sure we''ll gradually get past this as deployment etc matures, and 
already now something like www.railsapphosting.com is coming along, 
which seems to do pretty much what you want. Time will tell how well it 
works.

-- 
Jakob L. Skjerning - http://mentalized.net

Mats Persson <mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org> writes:
>> And if you really can''t get this working on your own - why
don''t
>> you do the business with a professional rails hoster or employ a
>> sysadmin yourself ?
>
> You see, this is the problem that I''m seeing with the RoR
community
> right now. You are all seemingly big time companies or very capable  
> programmers. I''m not, I''m a small-time guy
that''s trying to develop
> something that there is a market for out there, but is being hampered  
> by my finances, time & energy available, my skills and the technology  
> available.
>
> In other words, I can''t hire someone to do this, nor should I have
to
> really.
I''ll jump in here too.  Remember that Rails is just barely over a year
old.  PHP is many years old (is it 10 yet?).  One-click PHP installers
is something you should expect from a mature product.  It''s not
something you should expect from a pre 1.0 product.  Yes, Rails has a
lot of hype.  From whom?  From a lot of people, but mainly (I think)
from experienced developers who are excited about the clean OOD and
testability mixed with a rapid "scripting" environment.

I''m sure it''s frustrating to you.  It sounds like
you''re a fairly
cutting edge designer who wants to stay on top of the tech curve.  I
applaud your efforts to learn new technologies and leave your comfort
zone.  At this point, the only advice I have is either: 1) wait until
Rails is further developed and has more robust installation; 2) dive
in, read the 10+ instructions and figure out how to make it work; 3)
hire someone to help you get it installed properly.  To that last
option, you''ve said you''re willing to spend $10 - $20 for the
installer.  That might be enough to get it installed for you by
someone who knows how.  TextMate is what, $60?  I know $60 would get
Rails installed for you.  I''d do it for that price.

My only point in jumping on this thread is that I don''t think
it''s
reasonable to assume there''s a trivial one-click installer
that''s
100% ready to mimic and/or deploy to production for a product that''s a
year old and at version 0.13.
-- 
Doug Alcorn - http://lathi.net/RubyOnRailsDeveloper
doug-jGAhs73c5XxeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org

> As a quick feedback, go visit the PHP link in my original post, study
> the page, the options, the info carefully, download the installer,
> install it and evaluate the features/functionality installed by
> default.  Contact Marc and ask him about his experiences from how he
> supports two versions of PHP that are updated as often as RoR, and
> has been doing so successfully for almost 3-4 years.
Yes. It is very nice.  I''m going somewhere a little different with
Locomotive - but check back in when I get some more releases out and
perhaps you''ll like where it''s at.
> 
> Also, don''t forget to write some more documentation on what
> Locomotive does and does not do. ;-)
Well, yes.
> 
> PS. Having installed Locomotive over my existing installation, will
> that have messed up my install in some way ?? Thinking FCGI mostly
> here ?
No, unless, for some totally insane reason, you installed fastcgi into
/Applications/Locomotive.app.  Locomotive is completely self-contained
- the ONLY place it installs ANYTHING is into
/Applications/Locomotive.app
 

-r

-- 
Ryan Raaum
http://www.rockefeller.edu -- Bacterial Pathogenesis and Immunology
http://www.worldmartial.com -- Black Belt Instructor
http://locomotive.sourceforge.net -- Self contained one-click Rails for Mac OS X

On Sep 8, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Mats Persson wrote:
> As a newbie and a converted member of the RoR ''club'', and
further
> considering that DHH and many other users are OS X users, I find  
> the following really really hard to digest/accept:
>
> The Installl experience of RubyOnRails, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on,  
> is really really poor. Amazingly poor.
As I blogged, it took me an hour to go through the original video and  
follow along. That hour included installation.

http://deirdre.net/posts/2005/05/ruby-on-rails-first-glance/
> A good illustrative example (assuming MySQL is installed already):
>
> IF you would want to do PHP development on OS X with most PHP  
> packages - (using WordPress here) then you follow these simple easy  
> steps:
You''re comparing setting up a development environment (Rails) to  
setting up a user environment (WordPress).

Unfortunately, getting typo working also involves getting Rails there.

I agree that it should be easier to get a test environment set up  
that mimics one''s deployment environment.
> [for php setup] Total time consumed (excl. down/uploads): 10-15  
> mins and that''s working SLOW.
I found almost the same time for Rails, btw.
> I know that there are 20+ versions of blog/wiki posts out there on  
> how to install RoR, FCGI, Lighttpd and so on. BUT, they are often  
> out of date, contradicting each other, confusing, takes knowledge  
> for granted, requires you to go through so many hoops that normal  
> people - non super geeks - gets dizzy, and so on.
There''s not enough wiki gardening going on -- and there''s a
lot of
duplicate subject matter (and some revisions were axed during a  
changeover, but that''s another story).
> I know that non-programmers - designers, clients, etc. etc. - take  
> one look at the steps they have to go through to get the stuff  
> installed, and turn their backs to it.
This is also a fair point. We''d like to have designers and clients  
using Rails.
> So what I am kindly asking is that someone, or preferably the RoR  
> core group, sit down and produce ''one-click-installers''
that mimics
> the available installations on TextDrive, Dreamhost, etc. etc.
I think that in this case, trying to work feature requests into  
existing one-click installers would be a better idea.
> Locomotive looked promising, but let me down by it''s simplicity. I
> want and NEED to be able to define virtualhosts that access the  
> various RoR apps, rather than "localhost:<PortNum>" stuff.
I think that''s a good idea.

Also, while we''re at it, why not add a wrapper to the script/ 
generates as well?

On 9/8/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> 
> Tanner Burson is going to help me with the Linux version. If I can get 
> more volunteers to help, the porting to other platforms would go faster. I 
> would especially like to get someone to work on an OSX port.
> 
> Curt

Hopefully I can work it so that the Linux port is nearly the OSX port as 
well. This depends on a lot of things, but once Curt gets the Windows 
version done, I''m going to be actively looking for help on porting it
*nix
(I''d like FreeBSD as well but have no experience here) and OSX.
-- 
===Tanner Burson==tanner.burson-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day...


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

In article
<31d15f4905090807416d998c1f-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
curt.hibbs-
Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org
says...
> Tanner Burson is going to help me with the Linux version. If I can get more
> volunteers to help, the porting to other platforms would go faster. I would
> especially like to get someone to work on an OSX port.
This is great news.  I would love to test the OSX version as soon as 
it''s ready for someone to QA it; I have a lot of people with Powerbooks
who''d love to have this as simple as possible.  

And kudos for working on a solution instead of posting about how you 
shouldn''t need one.  There''s been an awful lot of "real
men don''t
need x" here lately.

-- 
Jay Levitt                | 
Wellesley, MA             | I feel calm.  I feel ready.  I can only
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t
have a
http://www.jay.fm         | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler

On 8 Sep 2005, at 18:18, Jakob L. Skjerning wrote:
> Mats Persson wrote:
>> As an example:  I''m working on a hacked version of Hieraki,
and on
>> my  system I can run it under both Webrick (as localhost:<port>)
>> and FCGI  as a vhost (''http://project.site/'' if
it''s installed in
>> my Sites  directory)
>> Trying to upload it to my TextDrive a/c (pendrell.td.com), I need  
>> to  change the .htaccess and the [ public/dispatch.fcgi ] because  
>> my  settings don''t seem to work, and in the end I can only get
it
>> working  as a CGI process, not FCGI on TD.
> I am using Lighttpd on TxD and Webrick on OSX for development and I  
> too have to do nothing when deploying. There''s really no need to  
> run Lighttpd or Apache locally, unless you have the desire to do  
> so. Also, getting Apache/FastCGI/RoR running locally won''t  
> necessarily make in run on TxD.
OK, that''s a few of you without problems moving local Webrick  
projects to TxD. Any good easy to understand and follow write-up on  
that process anywhere ? The TxD forums seems to have so many  
different versions of what is needed in a rather indigestible format.  
(at least for me)

All I''m really interested in is the "It works!!" type
scenario where
I can do stuff locally and then quickly, safely and assuredly upload  
to the TxD (or others) a/c and it works there as well.

>> I''m a newbie to RoR and I absolutely LOVE certain aspects of
it,
>> but  the whole install/run process is the dark ugly corner in  
>> this  otherwise brilliant solution.
> Yeah, getting RoR running in a shared hosting environment can be a  
> pain. I am sure we''ll gradually get past this as deployment etc  
> matures, and already now something like www.railsapphosting.com is  
> coming along, which seems to do pretty much what you want. Time  
> will tell how well it works.
I''m sure things will be improved as time progresses, and this thread  
was really just an attempt to raise the issue in the minds of those  
that can change it now, rather than later.

Railsapphosting.com looks cool and a possibility for new clients  
maybe, but some already has Dreamhost a/c''s so that''s what I
have to
work with.


Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

Information which could be useful to you :

Last I heard, TxD disabled ruby-fcgi because it caused unrecoverable
errors in apache. Something to do with ressource hogging (can''t
remember if it''s process/memory or anything)

To get lighttpd to run on TxD you first and foremost need to put in a
ticket request for a port number to run the server on. Have you done
this ?

Next, lighttpd is installed by default in TxD environments. you simply
have to create a directory to store your lighttpd conf, your log files
and stuff like that.

Last but not least : do you know of this URL and the many extremely
useful ressources it provides
http://manuals.textdrive.com/
including => About "Lighttpd: The painless way"
http://manuals.textdrive.com/read/book/9 

Hope this helps, if you need further examples, I will share my config
files with you (not on the list though). Feel free to ask.

For the record : I have configured lighttpd on TxD for my account once
(I am to ashamed of the website hosted to publish the url on a public
list but I will give it to you if you want to see it working) and
never touched the config files since. I develop using an eclipse-run
webrick, commit to my svn repos, and simply checkout the modified
files (excluding the config directory) when I want to deploy (I am the
only active committer so not too many risks).

Jean

On 9/9/05, Mats Persson <mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> On 8 Sep 2005, at 18:18, Jakob L. Skjerning wrote:
> > Mats Persson wrote:
> >> As an example:  I''m working on a hacked version of
Hieraki, and on
> >> my  system I can run it under both Webrick (as
localhost:<port>)
> >> and FCGI  as a vhost (''http://project.site/'' if
it''s installed in
> >> my Sites  directory)
> >> Trying to upload it to my TextDrive a/c (pendrell.td.com), I need
> >> to  change the .htaccess and the [ public/dispatch.fcgi ] because
> >> my  settings don''t seem to work, and in the end I can
only get it
> >> working  as a CGI process, not FCGI on TD.
> > I am using Lighttpd on TxD and Webrick on OSX for development and I
> > too have to do nothing when deploying. There''s really no need
to
> > run Lighttpd or Apache locally, unless you have the desire to do
> > so. Also, getting Apache/FastCGI/RoR running locally won''t
> > necessarily make in run on TxD.
> 
> OK, that''s a few of you without problems moving local Webrick
> projects to TxD. Any good easy to understand and follow write-up on
> that process anywhere ? The TxD forums seems to have so many
> different versions of what is needed in a rather indigestible format.
> (at least for me)
> 
> All I''m really interested in is the "It works!!" type
scenario where
> I can do stuff locally and then quickly, safely and assuredly upload
> to the TxD (or others) a/c and it works there as well.
> 
> 
> >> I''m a newbie to RoR and I absolutely LOVE certain aspects
of it,
> >> but  the whole install/run process is the dark ugly corner in
> >> this  otherwise brilliant solution.
> > Yeah, getting RoR running in a shared hosting environment can be a
> > pain. I am sure we''ll gradually get past this as deployment
etc
> > matures, and already now something like www.railsapphosting.com is
> > coming along, which seems to do pretty much what you want. Time
> > will tell how well it works.
> 
> I''m sure things will be improved as time progresses, and this
thread
> was really just an attempt to raise the issue in the minds of those
> that can change it now, rather than later.
> 
> Railsapphosting.com looks cool and a possibility for new clients
> maybe, but some already has Dreamhost a/c''s so that''s
what I have to
> work with.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Mats
> 
> ----
> "TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
> - www.macromates.com -
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

This thread is really pissed me off.  so im going to fashionable
lately note on crap that is either ignorent, annoying, or just stupid.

@one click installers
for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
world you would never use any peice of crap like this.

@php is easier
can you STOP comapring php to rails, its really annoying.  rails IS
NOT php.  is does not run the same as php, its not comparable to php. 
php is easier to you because you have used it for the last 4 years im
sure.  and im almost willing to bet you complained your ass off the
very first time you used php going i cant get it work, why did this
happen, what did i do wrong.

@i dont care how it works, as long as it works.
first you complain you want howto, and production environment for
testing, then you complain you couldnt give a shit less about how it
works.  if you dont care then use webrick and STFU!  you obviosly do
care though cause you decided to write a 2 page email complaining
about the topic.  admittedly lighttpd+fcgi was complicated the first
time i set it up but i managed, and even modified the page on the wiki
to suit.  now i can get lighttpd+fcgi running in about 5 minutes.

@transitioning between dev->prod
there is no transitioning.  you can put 5 billion different
environments in database.yml and easily change 1 line in your lighttpd
config telling rails which environment to use.  switchtower your code
to production, update links, sighup fcgi processes and your running on
new codebase.  you should not be updating dispatch.fcgi or anything
else.  the site_url im not even sure about as everything ive ever done
uses relative links and doesnt matter what the hostname is.

@annoying portnumbers and NEED vhosts
im not sure how that bash script does vhosting for the network (if it
is) but you can JUST as easily use webrick and setup a vhost on
apache/lighttpd to proxy these to localhost:3000 ... this is what i do
for all my applications (proxy to lighttpd+fcgi instances that run on
localhost:port.)
you dont NEED lighttpd, you dont NEED fcgi, you dont NEED apache.  you
can go gung ho and use ipfw/iptables/pf to rewrite the packets headed
for ip:3000 to ip:80 and run webrick as nobody.

@500 tutorials. & begging for the golden spoon
i setup lighttpd+fcgi alone.  using primarily the wiki howto for
lighttpd+fcgi (imagine that.)  i had one slight problem which required
looking at the lighttpd manual itself, and after solving that problem
updating the wiki.  if you actually READ one or two of these howto''s
you might get something running. you you actually READ log files you
might see what you borked and be able to fix these problems.
but instead we decide to email a mailing list... DEMANDING answers and
papers and howto''s and tutorials and installers on what YOU see fit
for the rails world.  it took me 1 day to get lighttpd+fcgi working,
happily, reliable.  that one day consisted of learning the lighttpd
config file, learning what fcgi was, custom configuring lighttpd for
ME, setting up typo (one of the biggest problems o the entire day
honestly)  and having my blog running.  if i really wanted to, i could
have used apache and probably got it running in a few hours.
im sure pre-php 1.0 had ONE install tutorial that worked for everyone
im sure pre-php 1.0 had a one-click installer that made you foam at the mouth
im sure pre-php 1.0 automagically worked with apache and no one ever
comaplained.

@"Good for you !! Doesn''t help me in any way though."
i think someone is begging for a golden spoon once again as noted
above.  we arent paid to reply to the mailing list.  we arent paid to
write howto''s/update the wiki as we do.  a lot of the people on irc
that do rails arent paid for any of the work they do.  i viewed this
one email as the most worthless of the bunch.  crying doesnt get
anything done.  the 3 days you spent ranting in this thread and you
could have read the apache, lighttpd, 20 howto''s a few dozen times and
been a god at apache,lighttpd+fcgi+ror.


yes.
this email was very harsh.  and its intent was to be that way.

-- 
Zachery Hostens <zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

On 9/15/05, Zachery Hostens
<zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> @one click installers
> for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
> hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
> world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
I agree with most of what you said (although maybe not the tone), but
I think one-click installers can be useful. Not, of course, for your
custom built application like Basecamp, Shopify or whatever. But for
stuff like Typo, Hieraki and Instiki what''s wrong with it? It makes
setting it up instant, and it''s done the right way (provided the
installer was implemented correctly of course).

But other than that - I agree. Ruby is a programming language, Rails
is a framework for that language. If you''re doing this for business or
pleasure then you should take the time to learn Ruby, Rails and the
system underneath (*nix). Solutions like RailsAppHosting will make
everyone''s life easier, but it''s no excuse for ignorance.

Ben

Allow me to agree. Setting up the full stack for a production
environment is way too hard to be fun. And Ruby on Rails is all about
having fun developing with blazing speed. It''s about removing pain and
currently there is indeed a lot of pain getting the full stack huming.

Installing Rails shouldn''t be a rite of passage to some secret club. I
believe that installing a production environment _should_ be a
braindead easy move.

I''ve been meaning to write something about "you can''t
compare" in a
long time, but let me give the short version: PHP, J2EE, Rails, .NET,
they''re all comparable! They''re presenting themselves as
environments
to get stuff done. And they should be compared on their ability to do
just that.

Rails currently has a strong edge once you got it all up and running,
but PHP still beats us for getting to that point. There''s nothing
inherent that makes that so. I believe we can have our cake and eat it
too.

So please. Let''s just get our hands dirty and fix this problem. While
"whining about the problem" can be a bit annoying at times,
it''s a
signal we need to listen to. Just do the mental translation: "Your
stuff is really cool. I want to use your stuff, but it''s too hard to
get running. Will you please help me?". How can you turn an offer like
that down?
-- 
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework

On Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 4:31:23 AM, Ben Myles wrote:
> On 9/15/05, Zachery Hostens
<zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> @one click installers
>> for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
>> hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
>> world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
> I agree with most of what you said (although maybe not the tone), but
> I think one-click installers can be useful. Not, of course, for your
> custom built application like Basecamp, Shopify or whatever. But for
> stuff like Typo, Hieraki and Instiki what''s wrong with it? It
makes
> setting it up instant, and it''s done the right way (provided the
> installer was implemented correctly of course).
> But other than that - I agree. Ruby is a programming language, Rails
> is a framework for that language. If you''re doing this for
business or
> pleasure then you should take the time to learn Ruby, Rails and the
> system underneath (*nix). Solutions like RailsAppHosting will make
> everyone''s life easier, but it''s no excuse for ignorance.
I''ve been doing software for longer than most programmers have been
alive, and I''ve discovered that everyone starts a new thing in a
state of ignorance, no matter how long they''ve been around. When
it''s easy to get started with a language or framework, more people
will get started. After that they can learn at their own pace.

Chet Hendrickson and I used Ruby a lot a few years ago. Then we
moved on to other things, and now we''re coming back to Ruby and
Rails. Since we''ve just started, here are some of the things
we''ve
encountered:

  For some reason, right after installing Ruby and Rails, Chet''s
  computer came up with a spooling problem. Had to reload Windows
  before it went away. Ruby''s fault? We might have thought so and
  never put it back.

  When I installed Ruby 1.8.x, all my Ruby examples stopped running,
  because unit testing is all changed. I had to find the code and
  read the comments. I might have given up.

  MySQL was acting like it wasn''t running. Never did figure it out.
  Uninstalled it and installed it again. Might have given up.

  Scripts in /Agile Web Development with Rails/ don''t run on
Chet''s
  computer. They''re not logged in. Different MySQL configuration? We
  don''t know. So we run them inside MySQL instead. We might have
  given up.

I''m not mentioning this to whine, or to get help: all this is
absolutely "normal". But a person with a life and a job isn''t
likely
to stick with the stuff long enough to get past it. A couple of
kicks in the head are enough to get us to set Ruby aside, and maybe
never get back.

One-click installers aren''t just for the lazy and kids. In the
"REAL
*PRODUCTION*" world, learning something new takes time away from the
job and life. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to
get on board.

It''s 10X easier to get started with Ruby and Rails than with other
tools I''ve tried. I applaud Dave and Andy, David, the whole Ruby and
Rails communities. They''re a huge part of the reason why Ruby, and
Rails, are as successful as they are.

There''s more in the world than any of us can ever learn. Making more
of the world accessible to us is a great service. Keep it up!

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can
become great." -- Mark Twain.

On Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 6:26:50 AM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
> So please. Let''s just get our hands dirty and fix this problem.
While
> "whining about the problem" can be a bit annoying at times,
it''s a
> signal we need to listen to. Just do the mental translation: "Your
> stuff is really cool. I want to use your stuff, but it''s too hard
to
> get running. Will you please help me?". How can you turn an offer like
> that down?
Absolutely right, David! It''s that spirit that makes things happen.
I hope to be able to stick with this until I can reach the helping
side of the power curve, at least a little bit. Right now, I''m still
trying to remember how Ruby works and figure out how Rails works.

Keep it happening!

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Resistance may or may not be futile. It is for sure not productive.

On 9/15/05, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> I''ve been doing software for longer than most programmers have
been
> alive, and I''ve discovered that everyone starts a new thing in a
> state of ignorance, no matter how long they''ve been around. When
> it''s easy to get started with a language or framework, more people
> will get started. After that they can learn at their own pace.
So very true -- we learn by hitting walls and figuring out how to climb them.
> I''m not mentioning this to whine, or to get help: all this is
> absolutely "normal". But a person with a life and a job
isn''t likely
> to stick with the stuff long enough to get past it. A couple of
> kicks in the head are enough to get us to set Ruby aside, and maybe
> never get back.
For sure - there needs to be a low barrier to entry so that you get a
taste of how cool something is before you move on.

Rails is about simplicity and ease of use - and it should extend
through the entire development - testing - production - deployment
cycle.

I guess what I meant by my ''no excuse for ignorance'' comment
is just
that, although it''s great when things are easy, it''s still
more than
worthwhile to look under the hood and learn things in greater detail.
Taking the time to understand the operating system (and web server),
programming language and framework will ultimately make you a much
better programmer.

However, the easier something is to use, the more time you''ll have to
tinker and learn - so ease-of-use can only be a good thing :-)

Ben

David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
>Allow me to agree. Setting up the full stack for a production
>environment is way too hard to be fun. And Ruby on Rails is all about
>having fun developing with blazing speed. It''s about removing pain
and
>currently there is indeed a lot of pain getting the full stack huming.
>  
>
I haven''t gotten to the point of putting the shopping cart tutorial on 
line yet, but on my Gentoo system, "installing the full stack" was a 
two-step process:

1. Edit "/etc/portage/package.use" to decide which database options
you
want for Rails. I picked them all.
2. "emerge rails". This brings in *all* the dependencies that
aren''t
loaded, including Ruby if you don''t have it, RubyGems, and your
selected
databases.

It does need to recompile the database and the Ruby interpreter, but 
just about everything else is in Ruby and just needs to be placed in the 
right directories. Now that''s Gentoo; I''m guessing
it''s just as easy on
Debian and maybe on Fedora or RHEL or an RHEL clone with Yum if the RPMs 
are freely available. It''s a tad easier to do package management on 
Gentoo because the Gentoo repository is mostly source tarballs and the 
"packages" are scripts to build from source.

There''s another step required for the web server, but I''m
using WEBrick
for now.

P.S.: Where did the name "WEBrick" come from?
>Installing Rails shouldn''t be a rite of passage to some secret
club. I
>believe that installing a production environment _should_ be a
>braindead easy move.
>  
>
Now installing *Gentoo* is a rite of passage to some secret club. :-) It 
took me about a month to get to the point where I considered myself a 
"Gentoo Certified Engineer". How long would you expect it to take 
someone to become a "Rails Certified Developer?"
>I''ve been meaning to write something about "you can''t
compare" in a
>long time, but let me give the short version: PHP, J2EE, Rails, .NET,
>they''re all comparable! They''re presenting themselves as
environments
>to get stuff done. And they should be compared on their ability to do
>just that.
>
>Rails currently has a strong edge once you got it all up and running,
>but PHP still beats us for getting to that point. There''s nothing
>inherent that makes that so. I believe we can have our cake and eat it
>too.
>  
>
>So please. Let''s just get our hands dirty and fix this problem.
While
>"whining about the problem" can be a bit annoying at times,
it''s a
>signal we need to listen to. Just do the mental translation: "Your
>stuff is really cool. I want to use your stuff, but it''s too hard
to
>get running. Will you please help me?". How can you turn an offer like
>that down?
>  
>
Is the "problem" simply difficulty of installation and simply
difficulty
on Windows? Or is there a wider issue?

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://www.borasky-research.net/
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

http://pdxneurosemantics.com
http://pdx-sales-coach.com
http://algocompsynth.com

On 9/15/05, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
<znmeb-2WxwdZd67h7R7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> P.S.: Where did the name "WEBrick" come from?

This is not an authoritative answer, just my long time assumption (formed 
from how WEBrick was described when it was first released). 

WEBrick is billed as a toolkit for created web based servers. Just as real 
bricks are used to build physical structures, WEBrick includes the
"bricks"
that you use to build servers.

Curet


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

On Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 9:28:04 AM, Ben Myles wrote:
> I guess what I meant by my ''no excuse for ignorance''
comment is just
> that, although it''s great when things are easy, it''s
still more than
> worthwhile to look under the hood and learn things in greater detail.
> Taking the time to understand the operating system (and web server),
> programming language and framework will ultimately make you a much
> better programmer.
Yes ... digging in will pay off. My guess, though, is that there had
better be an excuse for ignorance, since we''re all going to be stuck
with a lot of it forever. ;->
> However, the easier something is to use, the more time you''ll have
to
> tinker and learn - so ease-of-use can only be a good thing :-)
Yes, especially at the beginning, and especially if we''re looking to
have lots of users.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
It''s easier to act your way into a new way of thinking
than to think your way into a new way of acting.  --Millard Fuller

In article
<ab86ae090509141512420ff11-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
zacheryph-
Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org
says...
> @one click installers
> for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
> hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
> world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
Hey, what Linux distro do you use?

...

...

If the answer isn''t "none", I''m gonna throw the
above right back at you.

-- 
Jay Levitt                | 
Wellesley, MA             | I feel calm.  I feel ready.  I can only
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t
have a
http://www.jay.fm         | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler

heh.. umm

i currently run gentoo.
before that slackware for ~ 9 months.
before that gentoo for 1.5 - 2 years.
before that debian for 1 year +

ive touched redhat, mdk, fedora, ubuntu, suse for desktops but for
very very short times (week or 2 max for each.)

i run servers running freebsd, gentoo, debian, slackware.


On 9/15/05, Jay Levitt <jay-news-WxwZQdyI2t0@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> In article
<ab86ae090509141512420ff11-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
zacheryph-
> Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says...
> > @one click installers
> > for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
> > hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
> > world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
> 
> Hey, what Linux distro do you use?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> If the answer isn''t "none", I''m gonna throw the
above right back at you.
> 
> --
> Jay Levitt                |
> Wellesley, MA             | I feel calm.  I feel ready.  I can only
> Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I
don''t have a
> http://www.jay.fm         | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 

-- 
Zachery Hostens <zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

:x bit my tongue.

maybe its just me... 

but developers that care nothing about what there application is
running on top of, frighten me...


On 9/15/05, Jay Levitt <jay-news-WxwZQdyI2t0@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> In article
<ab86ae090509141512420ff11-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
zacheryph-
> Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says...
> > @one click installers
> > for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
> > hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
> > world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
> 
> Hey, what Linux distro do you use?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> If the answer isn''t "none", I''m gonna throw the
above right back at you.
> 
> --
> Jay Levitt                |
> Wellesley, MA             | I feel calm.  I feel ready.  I can only
> Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I
don''t have a
> http://www.jay.fm         | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 

-- 
Zachery Hostens <zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

In article
<ab86ae0905091514222ca97fca-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
zacheryph-
Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org
says...
> but developers that care nothing about what there application is
> running on top of, frighten me...
There''s "care nothing about", and then there''s
"would love to
investigate, but perhaps at a later time, once I actually understand the 
application, not right now when I just want to get the thing working."

If you care what your application is running on, why didn''t you build 
your own kernel from source, choosing the appropriate patches, not to 
mention building each package from source via a signed tarball from the 
author?  Are you lazy?  For any *REAL* production world, you would never 
use any crap like a distro.

-- 
Jay Levitt                | 
Wellesley, MA             | I feel calm.  I feel ready.  I can only
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t
have a
http://www.jay.fm         | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler

Heya :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org 
> [mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Jay Levitt
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:04 PM
> To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> Subject: [Rails] Re: Re: The Missing Parts of RoR (Money 
> making opportunityfor someone smart)
> 
> lazy?  For any *REAL* production world, you would never use 
> any crap like a distro.
Me? If I can set things up in a simple, reproducable, ALWAYS works pretty
damn close to "one click" installer it doesn''t get anywhere
NEAR a
production system. Production is not something to be handled in my mind on
fragile, might work might not if you do the right chicken dance stuff. 

Its why I won''t consider Rails for production right now... for the most
part
Rails seems to have a lot of ways you can run it - and most of them seem
pretty fragile without a lot of babysitting. Fcgi looks broken, webrick
can''t handle load, apache / ruby seems to barf, IIS doesn''t
work at all and
scgi is unproven. Heck, just on this list - the people who know Ruby best
and >like< are sometimes runnign cron jobs to kill of zombie processes and
try and reclaim memory before it dies. Rails hosting is so touchy that it
looks like a whole industry is springing up around being able to actually do
it and then charge for the hosting.

No offense to the hard work that went into it... But looking at the list
here and all the machinations those folks who are trying to put Rails into
production are going through does it REALLY seem like it''s ready for
"prime
time"? 

And it doesn''t look like that''s going to get any better as
long as the
underlying tone seems to be "real programmers don''t want stuff
that *just
works*".

Soulhuntre
----------
 
http://www.girl2.com  - my girls
http://www.the-estate.com  - my legacy
http://wiki.thegreybook.com - my project
http://weblog.soulhuntre.com - my thoughts

David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
>So please. Let''s just get our hands dirty and fix this problem.
While
>"whining about the problem" can be a bit annoying at times,
it''s a
>signal we need to listen to. Just do the mental translation: "Your
>stuff is really cool. I want to use your stuff, but it''s too hard
to
>get running. Will you please help me?". How can you turn an offer like
>that down?
>  
>
Hear, hear!


-Vamsee.

Ruby and Rails are very cool technology, but that isn''t enough to
ensure their widespread adoption.  The history of technology is
littered with wonderful things that never got much market share.

Packaging and polish are often key ingredients.  If a technology
is easy to use and attractive, it has a better chance of being
tried out, talked about (in favorable ways :-), etc.

Apache, FreeBSD, and GCC are all well-regarded software offerings,
but none of them is a household word.  OTOH, Mac OS X is well on
its way towards becoming a household word, and it _includes_ all
of these technologies.  By providing the packaging and polish,
Apple has brought these technologies to the mass market (albeit
somewhat invisibly).


Similarly, Rails is causing many programmers (myself included) to
take a hard look at Ruby.  Writing and maintaining CGI scripts is
a big hassle; if Rails can relieve me of a lot of the pain, while
achieving excellent results, I''m all for it.

Many developers are having similar thoughts about Rails; some will
try it out.  But, as noted, this effort can''t be too onerous, lest
these curious folks give up.  There are lots of cool technologies;
the ones that succeed tend to be better packaged and polished.  So,
it''s very important that Rails be easy to install and get working.


Going a step further, I think that Rails needs some "killer" apps
that will cause webmasters to say "we could really use that". 
I''m
not sure what these would be, but they need to serve a need AND
they need to be easy to install, well documented, etc.

The Rails "Open Source Projects" page:

   http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/OpenSourceProjects

lists a number of contenders for this role.  Unfortunately, the
level of polish in these apps varies widely:  it isn''t obvious
which ones are still in Alpha; some entries even have broken links.
Nonetheless, it is a good start and it will be interesting to watch
this list evolve...

-r
-- 
email: rdm-go8te9J4rpw@public.gmane.org; phone: +1 650-873-7841
http://www.cfcl.com        - Canta Forda Computer Laboratory
http://www.cfcl.com/Meta   - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc.

wow.  talk about destroying a context.

i didnt say download the source, ensure the signature, read the source
code, build it using all your own customized nifty options.

giving people a one-click installer cause there to lazy to download
apache, and download mysql, and download php is honestly sad.  pure
lazyness is a key feature of the majority of society today.  not to
mention, heaven forbid it stops working half of them cry about it, and
go "whats a config file?" when you ask them if its configured
properly.

im not purely against one-click installers, i personally tried one
once, and from that day forward vowed to never touch them again. 
there nice for getting a simple environment up quickly.  not a
production environment in any case.

i dont like the fact of people complaining that the tools they have
arent good enough, then complain that the correct tools arent simple
enough.


On 9/15/05, Jay Levitt <jay-news-WxwZQdyI2t0@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> In article
<ab86ae0905091514222ca97fca-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>,
zacheryph-
> Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says...
> > but developers that care nothing about what there application is
> > running on top of, frighten me...
> 
> There''s "care nothing about", and then there''s
"would love to
> investigate, but perhaps at a later time, once I actually understand the
> application, not right now when I just want to get the thing working."
> 
> If you care what your application is running on, why didn''t you
build
> your own kernel from source, choosing the appropriate patches, not to
> mention building each package from source via a signed tarball from the
> author?  Are you lazy?  For any *REAL* production world, you would never
> use any crap like a distro.
> 
> --
> Jay Levitt                |
> Wellesley, MA             | I feel calm.  I feel ready.  I can only
> Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I
don''t have a
> http://www.jay.fm         | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 

-- 
Zachery Hostens <zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

I believe the key to packaging is automation. I''ve long tried to
cajole someone into accepting this task as their own. All the elements
for creating executables on OS X and Windows are there. They just need
to be put together.

It looks like Aslak and team behind Damage Control will be the first
to move on this by creating a exe file for DC. It''s still in the early
stages, but please do have a look and help them out. Likewise, Instiki
showed over a year ago how easy it was to create a .app for OS X.

So what we really need is someone to adopt and drive this effort.
Collect the pieces, make it ''rake package'' simple, and then
the world
is next!
-- 
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework

Hmm, this thread took on a new life suddenly, so please allow me to  
contrasts two new posts in this thread against each other, as they  
highlight some important issues. The sole intention of this reply is  
to further the awareness and understanding of everyone. Please do not  
read anything else into it.

Zachery Hostens vs David Heinemeier Hansson


On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> @one click installers
> for the lazy.  this is understandable for the kid that wants to do  
> hello world and ther own personal blog.  for any REAL *PRODUCTION*  
> world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
On 15 Sep 2005, at 11:26, David Heinemeier Hansson
wrote:
> Allow me to [dis]agree. Setting up the full stack for a production  
> environment is way too hard to be fun. And Ruby on Rails is all  
> about having fun developing with blazing speed. It''s about
removing
> pain and currently there is indeed a lot of pain getting the full  
> stack huming.
>
> Installing Rails shouldn''t be a rite of passage to some secret  
> club. I believe that installing a production environment _should_  
> be a braindead easy move.
DHH clearly understands the key issues here, and illustrates why he''s  
been able to develop Rails, attract so much attention, and converted  
so many others into using it.

I just need to add these two clarification points:

Re: *PRODUCTION* ...
For local development on your desktop/laptop/internal cheap PC server  
you can still need a "production"-like environment, so that you know  
that your code works within that set-up. Production in this case DOES  
NOT mean that the set-up will have to meet all the rigourous stress  
tests that a publicly available money generating production  
environment requires.  I wrongly assumed that everyone understood  
that simple and obvious point. My apologies for not being clearer.
Many newcomers to RoR comes from a world where they do development of  
sites locally and then host them on shared/dedicated servers with  
hosting companies like Textdrive, Dreamhost, etc etc.

Re: one click & lazy
Yeah, I admit I''m lazy, but so is 100% of the human race!!  I want to  
save my time, energy and money all the time. IF I can install a  
working solution in a few short minutes with minimal brain activity I  
- and 99.9% of the intelligent population - will do so.  So, in  
simpler terms, I am representing the absolute majority and views like  
Zachary''s represent an obscure minority.


On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> @php is easier
> can you STOP comapring php to rails, its really annoying.  rails IS  
> NOT php.  is does not run the same as php, its not comparable to  
> php. php is easier to you because you have used it for the last 4  
> years im sure.  and im almost willing to bet you complained your  
> ass off the very first time you used php going i cant get it work,  
> why did this happen, what did i do wrong.
On 15 Sep 2005, at 11:26, David Heinemeier Hansson
wrote:
> I''ve been meaning to write something about "you
can''t compare" in a
> long time, but let me give the short version: PHP, J2EE,  
> Rails, .NET, they''re all comparable! They''re presenting
themselves
> as environments to get stuff done. And they should be compared on  
> their ability to do just that.
>
> Rails currently has a strong edge once you got it all up and  
> running, but PHP still beats us for getting to that point. There''s
> nothing inherent that makes that so. I believe we can have our cake  
> and eat it too.
Yet again DHH is on the ball and understands my point of view and the  
main reasons why I wrote my original post.

When I - and other web developers like me - evaluate Rails vs  
<LANGUAGE>, we initially don''t care about all the underlying  
technical stuff that might be better in Ruby/Rails than in our  
current language. We look for it as a means to solve a problem we  
have, and generally that problem has to do with productivity and  
efficiency. IF a pen and paper could solve our problem equally well,  
then we would use those instead. So we don''t get off on language  
bits, but on the possibilities of what we can do with it.

For us each development environment is just that, a **development  
environment** that allows us to develop the site/solution we need to  
create, and whether that ''environment'' is Typo running on RoR,
or WP
on PHP, or anything else, we truly don''t care, as long as we can do  
what we want and deploy it quickly, safely and easily to a live site,  
so that we can get paid for our work from a happy client.



On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> @i dont care how it works, as long as it works.
> first you complain you want howto, and production environment for  
> testing, then you complain you couldnt give a shit less about how  
> it works.  if you dont care then use webrick and STFU!  you  
> obviosly do care though cause you decided to write a 2 page email  
> complaining about the topic.
On 15 Sep 2005, at 11:26, David Heinemeier Hansson
wrote:
> So please. Let''s just get our hands dirty and fix this problem.  
> While "whining about the problem" can be a bit annoying at times,
> it''s a signal we need to listen to. Just do the mental
translation:
> "Your stuff is really cool. I want to use your stuff, but
it''s too
> hard to get running. Will you please help me?". How can you turn an  
> offer like that down?
DHH is professional and shows great intelligence in his response. So  
thank you, David, for deepening my confidence in you and your views/ 
work.

Zachery, unlike you I come from a country - Sweden - and a culture/ 
background that openly questions and comments on things. Yes, to  
those unaccustomed to it, it may sound like complaining and/or  
whining, but contrast my original post to yours, and then honestly  
tell us who''s complaining/whining on ?

And "STFU" !?! Why be rude and arrogant when there''s no need
for it ?
Did I really offend you so much ?

And YES, I do CARE about a lot of things and a lot of people. That''s  
perhaps a difference between us ? I tried to help convert a few  
friends/clients into RoR and come up against a number of unneeded  
''road blocks'' in the process, so I wrote a public comment on
this to
the list in order to elicit the exact response that DHH provided  
above. So I think (and hope) my effort was worthwhile :-)


On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> im sure pre-php 1.0 had ONE install tutorial that worked for everyone
> im sure pre-php 1.0 had a one-click installer that made you foam at  
> the mouth
> im sure pre-php 1.0 automagically worked with apache and no one  
> ever comaplained.
Who cares what PHP, or any other language, did at it''s pre 1.0 stage.  
It''s fairly irrelevant in my mind. I care about what was possible to  
do when it gained mass adoption, and what it can do now in comparison  
to RoR, and that''s what we all should care about. And I do understand  
that RoR is still maturing!


People have different strengths, skills and capabilities. So don''t  
assume that others are more stupid than you or vice versa. Just  
because you - or someone else - can install, configure and/or  
understand things easily, does not mean that others can - or should -  
as well.

To those, like Zachery, who can install and configure things in 5  
minutes without difficulty, or have overcome various problems while  
doing so, please help DHH out! I can only help in the areas where I can!


Without intending to offend anyone, I view DHH''s - and many others -  
response to this thread as professional, courteous and aiding the  
overall community, whereas Zachery''s - and parts of others - response  
comes across as those one could expect from a KKK & NRA card carrying  
redneck that has never seen, understood or accepted another race or  
culture.

So I will do my absolute best to follow DHH''s approach and hope that  
others will strive to do the same.


On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> yes.
> this email was very harsh.  and its intent was to be that way.
This email was intended to be informative and conciliatory, but with  
a few strong parts in it for effect. ;-)

May peace be with us all !


Kind regards,

Mats

----
"TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
- www.macromates.com -

Thanks for this summary contrast. You echoed my own thoughts as I slogged 
through these posts over the last week or so, but its nice to see it neatly 
summarized in one place.

I''m working hard to get a preview of my Instant Rails project ready in
time
for RubyConf. I think you will be very pleased with the result as it makes 
getting a working Rails environment dead-simple. 

After I get the preview out for feedback, I will be able to accept help from 
others. How long it takes me to get the first real release, and how long it 
takes to port it to other platforms (the initial release is for Windows), 
depends on how much help I get.

Curt

On 9/19/05, Mats Persson <mats-uGq4Pdis5ybkYMGBc/C6ZA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> 
> Hmm, this thread took on a new life suddenly, so please allow me to
> contrasts two new posts in this thread against each other, as they
> highlight some important issues. The sole intention of this reply is
> to further the awareness and understanding of everyone. Please do not
> read anything else into it.
> 
> Zachery Hostens vs David Heinemeier Hansson
> 
> 
> On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> > @one click installers
> > for the lazy. this is understandable for the kid that wants to do
> > hello world and ther own personal blog. for any REAL *PRODUCTION*
> > world you would never use any peice of crap like this.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2005, at 11:26, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
> > Allow me to [dis]agree. Setting up the full stack for a production
> > environment is way too hard to be fun. And Ruby on Rails is all
> > about having fun developing with blazing speed. It''s about
removing
> > pain and currently there is indeed a lot of pain getting the full
> > stack huming.
> >
> > Installing Rails shouldn''t be a rite of passage to some
secret
> > club. I believe that installing a production environment _should_
> > be a braindead easy move.
> 
> DHH clearly understands the key issues here, and illustrates why
he''s
> been able to develop Rails, attract so much attention, and converted
> so many others into using it.
> 
> I just need to add these two clarification points:
> 
> Re: *PRODUCTION* ...
> For local development on your desktop/laptop/internal cheap PC server
> you can still need a "production"-like environment, so that you
know
> that your code works within that set-up. Production in this case DOES
> NOT mean that the set-up will have to meet all the rigourous stress
> tests that a publicly available money generating production
> environment requires. I wrongly assumed that everyone understood
> that simple and obvious point. My apologies for not being clearer.
> Many newcomers to RoR comes from a world where they do development of
> sites locally and then host them on shared/dedicated servers with
> hosting companies like Textdrive, Dreamhost, etc etc.
> 
> Re: one click & lazy
> Yeah, I admit I''m lazy, but so is 100% of the human race!! I want
to
> save my time, energy and money all the time. IF I can install a
> working solution in a few short minutes with minimal brain activity I
> - and 99.9% of the intelligent population - will do so. So, in
> simpler terms, I am representing the absolute majority and views like
> Zachary''s represent an obscure minority.
> 
> 
> On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> > @php is easier
> > can you STOP comapring php to rails, its really annoying. rails IS
> > NOT php. is does not run the same as php, its not comparable to
> > php. php is easier to you because you have used it for the last 4
> > years im sure. and im almost willing to bet you complained your
> > ass off the very first time you used php going i cant get it work,
> > why did this happen, what did i do wrong.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2005, at 11:26, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
> > I''ve been meaning to write something about "you
can''t compare" in a
> > long time, but let me give the short version: PHP, J2EE,
> > Rails, .NET, they''re all comparable! They''re
presenting themselves
> > as environments to get stuff done. And they should be compared on
> > their ability to do just that.
> >
> > Rails currently has a strong edge once you got it all up and
> > running, but PHP still beats us for getting to that point.
There''s
> > nothing inherent that makes that so. I believe we can have our cake
> > and eat it too.
> 
> Yet again DHH is on the ball and understands my point of view and the
> main reasons why I wrote my original post.
> 
> When I - and other web developers like me - evaluate Rails vs
> <LANGUAGE>, we initially don''t care about all the underlying
> technical stuff that might be better in Ruby/Rails than in our
> current language. We look for it as a means to solve a problem we
> have, and generally that problem has to do with productivity and
> efficiency. IF a pen and paper could solve our problem equally well,
> then we would use those instead. So we don''t get off on language
> bits, but on the possibilities of what we can do with it.
> 
> For us each development environment is just that, a **development
> environment** that allows us to develop the site/solution we need to
> create, and whether that ''environment'' is Typo running on
RoR, or WP
> on PHP, or anything else, we truly don''t care, as long as we can
do
> what we want and deploy it quickly, safely and easily to a live site,
> so that we can get paid for our work from a happy client.
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> > @i dont care how it works, as long as it works.
> > first you complain you want howto, and production environment for
> > testing, then you complain you couldnt give a shit less about how
> > it works. if you dont care then use webrick and STFU! you
> > obviosly do care though cause you decided to write a 2 page email
> > complaining about the topic.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2005, at 11:26, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
> > So please. Let''s just get our hands dirty and fix this
problem.
> > While "whining about the problem" can be a bit annoying at
times,
> > it''s a signal we need to listen to. Just do the mental
translation:
> > "Your stuff is really cool. I want to use your stuff, but
it''s too
> > hard to get running. Will you please help me?". How can you turn
an
> > offer like that down?
> 
> DHH is professional and shows great intelligence in his response. So
> thank you, David, for deepening my confidence in you and your views/
> work.
> 
> Zachery, unlike you I come from a country - Sweden - and a culture/
> background that openly questions and comments on things. Yes, to
> those unaccustomed to it, it may sound like complaining and/or
> whining, but contrast my original post to yours, and then honestly
> tell us who''s complaining/whining on ?
> 
> And "STFU" !?! Why be rude and arrogant when there''s no
need for it ?
> Did I really offend you so much ?
> 
> And YES, I do CARE about a lot of things and a lot of people.
That''s
> perhaps a difference between us ? I tried to help convert a few
> friends/clients into RoR and come up against a number of unneeded
> ''road blocks'' in the process, so I wrote a public comment
on this to
> the list in order to elicit the exact response that DHH provided
> above. So I think (and hope) my effort was worthwhile :-)
> 
> 
> On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> > im sure pre-php 1.0 had ONE install tutorial that worked for everyone
> > im sure pre-php 1.0 had a one-click installer that made you foam at
> > the mouth
> > im sure pre-php 1.0 automagically worked with apache and no one
> > ever comaplained.
> 
> Who cares what PHP, or any other language, did at it''s pre 1.0
stage.
> It''s fairly irrelevant in my mind. I care about what was possible
to
> do when it gained mass adoption, and what it can do now in comparison
> to RoR, and that''s what we all should care about. And I do
understand
> that RoR is still maturing!
> 
> 
> People have different strengths, skills and capabilities. So don''t
> assume that others are more stupid than you or vice versa. Just
> because you - or someone else - can install, configure and/or
> understand things easily, does not mean that others can - or should -
> as well.
> 
> To those, like Zachery, who can install and configure things in 5
> minutes without difficulty, or have overcome various problems while
> doing so, please help DHH out! I can only help in the areas where I can!
> 
> 
> Without intending to offend anyone, I view DHH''s - and many others
-
> response to this thread as professional, courteous and aiding the
> overall community, whereas Zachery''s - and parts of others -
response
> comes across as those one could expect from a KKK & NRA card carrying
> redneck that has never seen, understood or accepted another race or
> culture.
> 
> So I will do my absolute best to follow DHH''s approach and hope
that
> others will strive to do the same.
> 
> 
> On 14 Sep 2005, at 23:12, Zachery Hostens wrote:
> > yes.
> > this email was very harsh. and its intent was to be that way.
> 
> This email was intended to be informative and conciliatory, but with
> a few strong parts in it for effect. ;-)
> 
> May peace be with us all !
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Mats
> 
> ----
> "TextMate, coding with an incredible sense of joy and ease"
> - www.macromates.com <http://www.macromates.com> -
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

> Without intending to offend anyone, I view DHH''s - and many others
-
> response to this thread as professional, courteous and aiding the
> overall community, whereas Zachery''s - and parts of others -
response
> comes across as those one could expect from a KKK & NRA card carrying
> redneck that has never seen, understood or accepted another race or
> culture.
Allow me to set another example, then. This is unnecessary. Part of
restoring good manners to a list is to hold your tongue if you get
your way. I''m sure authors of the slightly too trigger-happy posts
fully understand that we need to meet somewhere in the middle by now.

Be graceful when the winds flow your way and karma may be so kind when
it swings back.
-- 
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework