[typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
chet at nogators.com
Thu Jul 17 01:32:24 EDT 2008
On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Scott Likens wrote:
>> Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app?
>> That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT
>> and WP and etc?
>> No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the
>> experience of setting up and using Application X with that of using
>> Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market
>> (i.e., blogging software).
> As I said above, you are doing nothing useful in this argument.
> Stop it. If you care that much passionately, then run Wordpress.
> The argument is self defeating, because you are comparing apples to
> pears. You can try this argument on a Django list and see how far
> you get.
The problem here, Scott, is that you're the one who's arguing. I
stated an uncontroversial position -- RoR apps are harder to deploy
than traditional LAMP apps -- and you've gone all apoplectic with
fanboy protestations that, frankly, make no sense.
Look: I don't care. It's absolutely not important to me today, and I'm
100% done with you. I have problems with Typo that Fred says he's
working on, and I appreciate that. What I do NOT appreciate is your
incessant browbeating and bombastic Ruby boosterism.
>>> Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems
>>> like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most
>>> obvious question (which boils down to "WTF?", essentially) isn't
> Then I suggest you to take that torch up with the Mongrel Mailing
> list and ask them.
If it's something that's considered a common part of a Typo install,
then the Typo docs need to address it because it's out of the ordinary
for weblogging software.
> To Quote from http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingMigrations
I'll read this later. I am refreshed, however, that you've provided an
apparently useful link.
> In essence, your database has a 'version' number in it, and if
> someone adds a new model, or changes a model a migration is also
> made. So that you can run 'rake db:migrate' to ensure your database
> is "up to date" and able to do what the new version intends to do.
Why is this better than just dropping the SQLite file into the tree
after your re-install? (Hypothetically; I haven't tried it.)
>>> Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes.
>> To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the
> With the exception of plugins and themes, I find the upgrade process
> very relaxing and totally capable.
It's plugins and theme reinstallation I find bizarre.
>>> I believe as a standard practice
>> Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use.
> Remind me not to hire you as a Systems Administrator.
Based on my exposure to you here, it seems astoundingly unlikely
you'll ever be in a position to hire anyone with my resume.
My reference here is to the need to reinstall plugins and themes, not
standard pre-patch/pre-upgrade backups. In my career so far, my
experience is much more defined by my own refusal to hire doctrinaire
> Not to mention that is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Matrix (http://www.crcdataprotection.com/solutions/sox_compliance.asp
SarBox is so often a part of blog culture.
> Because clearly I don't get it, and won't get it.
This, at least, is abundantly clear.
"When you've got an RV, a jet pack, and a monkey you really don't need
much actual content" - KS
More information about the Typo-list