> From: Scott Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:25:28 -0700 (MST)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apache and MetaCard
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 David Bovill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> The DLL interface to IIS is similar enough to Apache mods that it
>>> should work the same way. Of course, we're not considering doing
>>> either of these things because it'd be a lot of work and you'd end up
>>> with something less useful than just writing a little client/server
>>> system and running MetaCard as a separate server, or just using mchttp
>>> instead of or in addition to another HTTP server.
>>
>> I guess so, but this requires a dedicated server, and an imaginative SysOp,
>> while the Apache Module can be installed on a wide variety of commercial
>> shared hosting solutions, and all the SysOp has to say is "oh yeh, Apache
>> module. Fair do." -:)
>
> Yeah, right ;-) I think your recent experience trying to get a sysop
> to install even libraries that are distributed standard with the OS
> should tell us that the response is far more likely to be "oh yeh,
> Apache module. Tough cookies: we have a standard configuration for
> all our servers and there are no exceptions".
Except of course they did have a standard policy for installing an "Apache
Module" for $20.
Actually I'm making that up, it was for "non-standard perl libraries", which
as far as their technical support went was pretty close to a take-away pizza
-:(
This isn't a feature request, but as a bit of politics/marketing you could
probably stand for President if you got Metacard to be a CGI solution for
"the rest of us".
But then again real programmers, don't stand for President - right Scott?
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
