Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads, but very little little feedback. This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not having any problems, I''d like to here from you just to get that feedback. The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the first of the year because I want it to include the released version of Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0. My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help me with a couple of decisions/priorities here: 1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache 1.3.33 for the time being? 2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently 4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x? Thanks, Curt
Curt, I''m using the application successfully and have been very pleased with it''s ease of use. It has helped me to understand Ruby and Ruby on Rails, as I am new to this environement. As to your question, I''m ok with Apache 1. I''d prefer MySQL to be upgraded to 5.x Thanks again, Clint On 11/7/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview > of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads, > but very little little feedback. > > This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or > that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems > (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not > having any problems, I''d like to here from you just to get that > feedback. > > The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the > first of the year because I want it to include the released version of > Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0. > > My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains > Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help > me with a couple of decisions/priorities here: > > 1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache > 1.3.33 for the time being? > > 2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently > 4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x? > > Thanks, > Curt > > _______________________________________________ > Instantrails-users mailing list > Instantrails-users-GrnCvJ7WPxnNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/instantrails-users >
I''ve received a couple inquiries from people who missed the original announcement of Instant Rails. If you are in category and want to know more, go here: http://instantrails.rubyforge.org/ Curt On 11/7/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs@gmail.com> wrote:> Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview > of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads, > but very little little feedback. > > This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or > that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems > (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not > having any problems, I''d like to here from you just to get that > feedback. > > The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the > first of the year because I want it to include the released version of > Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0. > > My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains > Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help > me with a couple of decisions/priorities here: > > 1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache > 1.3.33 for the time being? > > 2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently > 4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x? > > Thanks, > Curt >
I''m in no hurry for Apache 2.0, since we''re using 1.3 on our production servers. Makes managing server configurations easier, since there are so many changes in that area with 2.0. We''re still on MySQL 4.x, so staying there helps me. I haven''t used 5.0.x to know how backwards-compatible it is with 4.x. Dave On 11/7/05 1:11 PM, "Curt Hibbs" <curt.hibbs-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview > of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads, > but very little little feedback. > > This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or > that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems > (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not > having any problems, I''d like to here from you just to get that > feedback. > > The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the > first of the year because I want it to include the released version of > Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0. > > My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains > Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help > me with a couple of decisions/priorities here: > > 1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache > 1.3.33 for the time being? > > 2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently > 4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x? > > Thanks, > Curt > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Hi Curt, thanks for providing this all in one convenient package. Preview3 has worked well for me (on XP). One thing I noticed is that admin rights (AR) seem to actually be mandatory when installing. One gets a warning that not everything might be working otherwise, but then config files are not patched to point to the actual install directory, and servers won''t start. Perhaps it''d be clearer to just require AR? Starting the thing once installed seems to work with my regular account. I''ve only looked at the cookbook, though. I wish I had more time to delve into RoR - but your bundle certainly removes a hurdle and gives one excuse less not to get started. OTOH if it was possible to get this working without AR at all, it might help some developers to get their skunk works started. At work for example I don''t have AR - yes they''re that tight... Anyway this is but a suggestion. As to the apache & mysql versions, I have no strong preference, save for something that "just works". Thanks again and cheers, Bernard.
I''ve download it several times. Sometimes it will not install on Windows 2003 servers. Don''t know why. Sometimes will install, but mySQL will not start. Sometimes SCGI won''t start. preview3 seems to be better. I really like the fact that it''s a ''one piece'' drop-in. It would be nice to have better instructions on how to reconfigure it for multiple apps. Even without a ''real world domain name'', should be able to use an IP address to hit the webapp from another box. I''d really like to have MySQL 5.0, since I can make valid business case for migrating from SQL SERVER to that db. Apache 2,0 would be good. Isn''t that a requirenment to run subversion. And, I don''t have a lot of exerience with either version. But, if Apache 1.3 is more stable on windows platforms, then I''d probably want to stay with that. -Larry On 11/7/05, baldyeti <e_fax_t-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Hi Curt, > > thanks for providing this all in one convenient package. > > Preview3 has worked well for me (on XP). One thing I noticed > is that admin rights (AR) seem to actually be mandatory when > installing. One gets a warning that not everything might be > working otherwise, but then config files are not patched to > point to the actual install directory, and servers won''t start. > Perhaps it''d be clearer to just require AR? > Starting the thing once installed seems to work with my regular > account. I''ve only looked at the cookbook, though. I wish I > had more time to delve into RoR - but your bundle certainly > removes a hurdle and gives one excuse less not to get started. > > OTOH if it was possible to get this working without AR at all, > it might help some developers to get their skunk works started. > At work for example I don''t have AR - yes they''re that tight... > Anyway this is but a suggestion. As to the apache & mysql versions, > I have no strong preference, save for something that "just works". > > Thanks again and cheers, > > Bernard. > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Curt Hibbs wrote:> Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview > of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads, > but very little little feedback. > > This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or > that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems > (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not > having any problems, I''d like to here from you just to get that > feedback.Curt, thank you for all your good work. I tried the first preview of Instant Rails, with the hope that it would be the quickest way to introduce work colleagues to Rails. Although Instant Rails is a very useful bundle, the "local virtual host" approach it uses seems tricky if you are behind a proxy to the Internet. I put an entry in the hosts file as instructed, but whereas pinging the address worked OK in a command window, both my browsers (IE and Firefox) still went to the Internet (via the proxy that they were auto-configured to use) rather than acessing the local web server. I don''t understand it, but that''s what happened. For both IE and Firefox the only thing that appeared to work was disabling auto-configuration, manually configuring the proxy server, and then setting the recipes site explicitly as a proxy bypass address. I wouldn''t want to ask my colleagues to do that. So while Instant Rails gives a setup which is close to what you would want for production, in my context running WEBrick on a dedicated port appears a much easier option. Maybe things have changed in later versions, or perhaps there''s a better way of getting round the browser configuration problem.> The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the > first of the year because I want it to include the released version of > Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0.I agree it should be on Rails 1.0 - when is Ruby 1.8.4 due?> My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains > Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help > me with a couple of decisions/priorities here: > > 1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache > 1.3.33 for the time being?My impression is that Apache 1.3 is much more trusted for use with Rails than Apache 2, so I would prefer 1.3.> 2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently > 4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x?Interesting question. Practically all the documentation people will be following will relate to using MySQL 4.x with Rails. I''d like to move to PostgreSQL myself... and MySQL 5 is too new. For my colleagues, I''d stick with MySQL 4.x. For a smaller self-contained "starter kit", why not offer Ruby/WEBrick/Rails/SQLite? (Locomotive seems to do fine with SQLite)> Thanks, > Curtthank you Justin
Curt Hibbs wrote:>Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview >of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads, >but very little little feedback. > >-snip->Thanks, >Curt >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >Curt, this is a GREAT package and I am using it for development purposes on my notebook and then transfering the code I develop onto a linux server. It has allowed me to have a much ''truer'' environment (eg apache) to my target and given me some experience now with SCGI (to be implemented on my target as well very shortly).... plz, keep up the excellent work!!! as to versions, the versions you have now are perfect... apache 1.3.x is still on far more servers than 2.x to my knowledge and is the target I have. ditto mysql 4.1.x.... also the fact you package in PHP is a great bonus for me as I have some legacy code that is integrated into my applications so your Instant Rails is a perfect env for me!!! once again, thx for all your efforts, Dave Langston
Thanks so much for all of your hard work and I''m really using it. Just added Typo 2.5.8, created an installer to drop it on other windows boxes (doubles as a backup), working with Rails plugins, and lots of other things as they come up. There''s one thing I think that would add to the ease of use and that would be to add a third button that links directly to "Manage Rails Apps". Just a little quicker to start an app... Overall, the ease of use has been fantastic. The best thing since rails itself for Windows! I''m would vote for the current versions of Apache and MySQL if that version of Instant Rails works as good as this one. Ed --- Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs at gmail.com> wrote:> Its been a little over three weeks since I released > the first preview > of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over > 3,000 downloads, > but very little little feedback. > > This tells me either that it is not being used > (which would be bad) or > that it is being used but no one is having any > significant problems > (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, > but are just not > having any problems, I''d like to here from you just > to get that > feedback. > > The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be > sometime after the > first of the year because I want it to include the > released version of > Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0. > > My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 > (currently it contains > Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of > MySQL. Please help > me with a couple of decisions/priorities here: > > 1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you > happy with Apache > 1.3.33 for the time being? > > 2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x > release (currently > 4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x? > > Thanks, > Curt > > _______________________________________________ > Instantrails-users mailing list > Instantrails-users at rubyforge.org >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/instantrails-users>__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs