[typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications
chet at nogators.com
Wed Jul 16 09:38:28 EDT 2008
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Scott Likens wrote:
>> I'll certainly agree with that. Getting mongrel working with
>> mod_proxy was essentially an exercise in Google and reading blogs.
> Why is mod_proxy working with mongrel such an exercise?
Beats me. Perhaps you should refer to the first portion of my reply to
you last night.
It's clearly a problem, though. It's also a problem that the purpose
of Mongrel isn't made clear; you just have to take on faith that it's
something you need to do based on the sketchy installation guide.
>> Yes. And, frankly, Ruby + gems on most Linux distros is in such a
>> state that I end up maintaining my own Ruby install from source.
>> Given the pain of the recent security holes (for example), I find
>> that this is actually driving me to think I should can it and go
>> for the same suite of PHP apps as everyone else.
> I will agree with that, as Debian Etch currently has Ruby 1.8.4(2? i
> forget) with Rubygems 0.92. However is that Ruby's problem? or the
> Linux distribution you chose?
It's definitely Ruby's problem if PHP, Perl, Python, etc., are all
running fine out of the box.
Here, you're defaulting back to a knee-jerk defense of what is clearly
your pet language. That has no place here. Compared to LAMP-stack
stuff, RoR applications are much harder to set up and deploy. They
require a totally different approach, and that approach is very poorly
documented. This isn't a controversial statement.
"Don't let your mongoose get cold or dirty, or it will die."
(Animals as Friends and How to Keep Them, by Shaw & Fisher, Dent 1939)
More information about the Typo-list