Re: modperl growth
Rod Butcher wrote: My .05... I run a small communal webserver. Software had to be free, secure, stable, support Perl, multiple domains and ASP, be reasonably simple, originally run on Win32 and be capable of migration to Linux later. Nobrainer -- Apache, mod_perl, Apache::ASP. Only difficulty was getting mod_perl installed, it helped that I had a background in IT, I suspect a non-professional would find it impossible. Which is a shame because Win$ users expect everything to work out of the box wihout having to know anything. That's not meant as a criticism, but I think it's the reality now. I was thinking that too, but then I remembered that if you're not from an IT background, you're probably not going to be able to write a line of mod_perl code anyhoo. But, yeah, the installation/compilation process is daunting for a javascript/html jockey who is trying to pick which server side language (PHP, Perl, Python, JSP, etc.) to learn.
Re: modperl growth
Mark Maunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was thinking that too, but then I remembered that if you're not from an IT background, you're probably not going to be able to write a line of mod_perl code anyhoo. No, but you can pick up Mason, embperl, or Apache::Template (the TT loaded into Apache). -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: [OT] RE: modperl growth
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dave Rolsky wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Andrew Ho wrote: One last thing that is hard is where is your DocumentRoot? This is a huge problem for web applications being installable out of the box. Perl can't necessarily figure that out by itself, either. You take a guess and then ask the user to confirm. And you can't guess you just ask. That's a good strategy (assuming a missing if in there somewhere). It can be augmented with the tactic of check for a running apache, see where it gets its config file from, and parse the config file to get the initial guess. (Note that I wouldn't want this to be a final guess; I'm using mod_perl in a virtual host config; the main apache config doesn't use it, and has a completely unrelated docroot (/usr/local/apache/htdocs as opposed to /home/appname/public_html)) There's nothing wrong with an interactive installer. What kills mod_perl apps is they simply have a README or INSTALL that says Copy all the template files to a directory called 'app-root' under your document root. My what? Which files are templates? I don't know this unix stuff; copy doesn't work right. I think we've all probably heard these words before... I guess my point is that installation is hard. Rather than trying to make it work for everybody out of the box, you should make it work for the typical case out of the box, and then provide hooks for installing it in custom places. I think the best installer is an interactive installer that tries really hard to provide good defaults. I agree; while I frequently leave unimportant considerations alone (note my main docroot above), I tend to have very poor luck with the works with the typical case out of the box, and then provides hooks which change with every bloo^W^W^W^W^Wfor installing it in custom places. I won't go into speculations why. Ed
Re: [OT] modperl growth (installers)
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Ed Grimm wrote: That's a good strategy (assuming a missing if in there somewhere). It can be augmented with the tactic of check for a running apache, see where it gets its config file from, and parse the config file to get the initial guess. (Note that I wouldn't want this to be a final guess; I'm using mod_perl in a virtual host config; the main apache config doesn't use it, and has a completely unrelated docroot (/usr/local/apache/htdocs as opposed to /home/appname/public_html)) Yep, been there, done that ;) The installer I mentioned for WeBoard UX was really pretty smart. It would look for the Apache binary (and ask if it couldn't find it), figure out if it had mod_perl (and ask for a different one if that binary didn't have mod_perl), check the Apache version, check the mod_perl version, find that Apache binary's config file (and ask...), figure out what user group that Apache ran as (to change certain permissions), tweak the Apache and config file to load WebBoard. And that's just what it did for Apache. It did a lot of other install/config tasks as well. Hmm, I really feel that this has gotten quite off-topic. Maybe I should create a Perl installer project on Sourceforge that'd attempt to take these types of things and create various useful modules for them, like Installer::Apache, Installer::Alzabo, Installer::RDBMS::MySQL, etc. -dave /*== www.urth.org we await the New Sun ==*/
Re: modperl growth
Paul DuBois [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 11:02 + 2/3/02, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Paul DuBois [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mac OS X includes Apache, and mod_perl works there, too. That's another group of potential new mod_perl-ized servers. I think all the recent RedHats come with mod_perl as a DSO by default. I just looked on a RH 7.2 machine. It has the AddModule line in the default httpd.conf, but no mod_perl.so in the modules directory. OK try: ps wwaux | grep httpd Does it have -DHAVE_PERL? -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: modperl growth
On Saturday 02 February 2002 23:20, Matt Sergeant wrote: Wow, bizarre. Not sure why but the AxKit list has seen a massive spurt in traffic lately too. Perhaps due to the migration to xml.apache.org (well, just a link at the moment), but perhaps due to the above? Traffic is notoriously hard to predict. Maybe someone has just been asking a lot of questions, which in turn has brought others to ask more questions, as well as brought up subjects people had been wanting to investigate but had forgotten to post about, etc. However I'm always skeptical of such massive changes - perhaps more likely is a change in SecuritySpace's methodology? If that were the case it would affect other modules similarly. I went through a number of other modules, notably PHP, and the Java ones and there is no comparable change. The only other sharp increase was for mod_fastcgi, but it was merely a jump from 2.5 to 3% or something like that, nothing really comparable to the leap forward made by modperl. -- ___ Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CTO k n o w s c a p e : // venture knowledge agency www.knowscape.com --- Change is inevitable except from a vending machine.
Re: modperl growth
one more guess - in the group of guesses. ;-) perhaps redhat or another popular distro is configuring standard with mod_perl (i use redhat, but i always hand select my packages). if this is the case, then the banner will show mod_perl, even if the user has no idea what it is, and it is not in use. the good news is, there is lots of mod_perl installed out there, so if more applications are created that use it, there is a bigger installed base capable of running them. cliff Robin Berjon wrote: For some reason, in December, it would seem that modperl just jumped ahead in market share (from 13% to nearly 20%). So given that people here are occasionally given to gloom and doom descriptions of the Perl/mod_perl world (there aren't as many people as before, the Java folks are taking over, etc.) I'd like to take this growth as well as modperl's general well doing (19.78% is a *huge* amount of people -- 600.000 servers, a fifth of the internet) as a very good sign that modperl is alive, kicking, and doing very well. Kudos to all ;-) -- ___cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.genwax.com/
Re: modperl growth
___cliff rayman___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: one more guess - in the group of guesses. ;-) perhaps redhat or another popular distro is configuring standard with mod_perl (i use redhat, but i always hand select my packages). if this is the case, then the banner will show mod_perl, even if the user has no idea what it is, and it is not in use. the good news is, there is lots of mod_perl installed out there, so if more applications are created that use it, there is a bigger installed base capable of running them. And if the Slashcode were as easy to install and customise as phpnuke... ;-) Hmmmactually, there's half a point buried in there. -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: modperl growth
On 4 Feb 2002, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: And if the Slashcode were as easy to install and customise as phpnuke... For OSCON (and hopefully YAPC too), I've submitted a talk on using Module::Build (an ExtUtils::MakeMaker replacement) for modules and using it to build an application installer. Its not _that_ hard, and using Module::Build makes it a lot easier. When Matt Sergeant and I were working on (formerly) O'Reilly's WebBoard for Unix, we built an interactive command-line installer that could do the following: - Install Apache and mod_perl, or use an existing installation. - Install all the needed modules, template files, images, etc. - Set up a new database in your RDBMS of choice (MySQL, Postgres, Sybase, or Oracle) though the Sybase and Oracle choices weren't 100% automated (they are just too complex). Nowadays, I'd use Alzabo, which can also intelligently handle upgrading old versions of a schema (its not quite 100% perfect but its pretty good). - Insert various default values into your DB, if they weren't already there. At this point, you simply (re-)started your Apache w/mod_perl and you were ready to go. You had an admin account you logged in with and could start creating boards and such. It was a lot of work but its not _that_ hard. Perl definitely needs more out of tarball/box/whatever install-able apps and I'd like to help people get there. Alzabo is pretty close, though it still requires you to hand-modify your httpd.conf. I'm not sure how on-topic this is anymore, though I don't think creating a separate list would exactly help at this point. -dave /*== www.urth.org we await the New Sun ==*/
RE: modperl growth
Many cobalt boxes come running mod_perl by default. perhaps if people have been deploying a lot of these things lately it could have made an impact. HEAD / HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:13:54 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.12 Cobalt (Unix) mod_jk mod_ssl/2.6.4 OpenSSL/0.9.5a PHP/4.0.3pl1 mod_auth_pam/1.0a FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_perl/1.24 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 adam
Re: modperl growth
Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4 Feb 2002, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: And if the Slashcode were as easy to install and customise as phpnuke... For OSCON (and hopefully YAPC too), I've submitted a talk on using Module::Build (an ExtUtils::MakeMaker replacement) for modules and using it to build an application installer. For slashcode, the HTML templating is a little hairy although beutifully crafted and using Template Toolkit. It's just real hard to find your way round the first time. I'm not sure how on-topic this is anymore, though I don't think creating a separate list would exactly help at this point. I'm sure several mod_perl advocacy lists have spun out like a little UFO in Conway's game of life and disappeared off the edge of the screen already... -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
[OT] RE: modperl growth
:: - Install Apache and mod_perl, or use an existing installation. :: :: - Install all the needed modules, template files, images, etc. [cut] Dave, I too try to automate installations as much as possible. Within Perl, I've found it possible to dispense with a separate configuration file for almost any application, even those with an RDBMS back-end. Under *nix it's really easy to automate things, under Win32 it's a little more difficult (file permissions are a bastard to manipulate). Perl can analyse its own environment very accurately, and once it has this awareness it's really easy to achieve automation. Anyone can do this, but most of us are too lazy for such niceties, which is too our detriment I think. However, all of my work in this direction requires that Perl and any required modules/libraries are already installed - I have never attempted to do an all-in-one install, although I do see this as being relatively easy to achieve. I would love to contribute to any efforts towards an out-of-the-box installer. Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator West Yorkshire Perl User Group http://wypug.pm.org/
Re: modperl growth
My .05... I run a small communal webserver. Software had to be free, secure, stable, support Perl, multiple domains and ASP, be reasonably simple, originally run on Win32 and be capable of migration to Linux later. Nobrainer -- Apache, mod_perl, Apache::ASP. Only difficulty was getting mod_perl installed, it helped that I had a background in IT, I suspect a non-professional would find it impossible. Which is a shame because Win$ users expect everything to work out of the box wihout having to know anything. That's not meant as a criticism, but I think it's the reality now. regards, Rod === The sender has never accepted any funding from Enron. Any suggestion to that effect will be met with legal action.
Re: [OT] RE: modperl growth
Hello, JHI've found it possible to dispense with a separate configuration file JHfor almost any application, even those with an RDBMS back-end. Under JH*nix it's really easy to automate things, under Win32 it's a little more JHdifficult (file permissions are a bastard to manipulate). Perl can JHanalyse its own environment very accurately, and once it has this JHawareness it's really easy to achieve automation. So you are right about this, but let me add a caveat. Many times you need to cooperate with a third-party package management system. For example, an RPM database, or a stow or encap repository. In the latter case especially the paths that files are referenced at (typically /usr/local) differ from the places they actually live (typically a mounted repository). (I believe the Andrew File System has a similar problem, too.) Stuff using GNU autoconf is pretty easy to work into this by specifying a PREFIX at configure time. As of Perl 5.6.0 the Perl base install system accomodates for this as well, allowing you to specify different stuff to go into @INC versus where make install puts the package. Perl modules aren't as nice to fix. They automatically want to go where Perl is installed. If you want to rev packages separately, regular make install doesn't do the right thing. One last thing that is hard is where is your DocumentRoot? This is a huge problem for web applications being installable out of the box. Perl can't necessarily figure that out by itself, either. I guess my point is that installation is hard. Rather than trying to make it work for everybody out of the box, you should make it work for the typical case out of the box, and then provide hooks for installing it in custom places. Humbly, Andrew -- Andrew Ho http://www.tellme.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice 650-930-9062 Tellme Networks, Inc. 1-800-555-TELLFax 650-930-9101 --
Re: modperl growth
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Robin Berjon wrote: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200201/apachemods.html?mod=cGVybA== For some reason, in December, it would seem that modperl just jumped ahead in market share (from 13% to nearly 20%). [...] At least on Netcraft big jumps are usually explained by a big hosting provider or a domain name parking service changing servers. 13% to 20% does seem odd though. -- ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do(); more than a billion impressions per week, http://valueclick.com
Re: [OT] RE: modperl growth
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Andrew Ho wrote: One last thing that is hard is where is your DocumentRoot? This is a huge problem for web applications being installable out of the box. Perl can't necessarily figure that out by itself, either. You take a guess and then ask the user to confirm. And you can't guess you just ask. There's nothing wrong with an interactive installer. What kills mod_perl apps is they simply have a README or INSTALL that says Copy all the template files to a directory called 'app-root' under your document root. I guess my point is that installation is hard. Rather than trying to make it work for everybody out of the box, you should make it work for the typical case out of the box, and then provide hooks for installing it in custom places. I think the best installer is an interactive installer that tries really hard to provide good defaults. -dave /*== www.urth.org we await the New Sun ==*/
Re: modperl growth
Paul DuBois [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mac OS X includes Apache, and mod_perl works there, too. That's another group of potential new mod_perl-ized servers. I think all the recent RedHats come with mod_perl as a DSO by default. -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: modperl growth
At 11:02 + 2/3/02, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Paul DuBois [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mac OS X includes Apache, and mod_perl works there, too. That's another group of potential new mod_perl-ized servers. I think all the recent RedHats come with mod_perl as a DSO by default. I just looked on a RH 7.2 machine. It has the AddModule line in the default httpd.conf, but no mod_perl.so in the modules directory.
Re: modperl growth
Paul DuBois wrote: I think all the recent RedHats come with mod_perl as a DSO by default. I just looked on a RH 7.2 machine. It has the AddModule line in the default httpd.conf, but no mod_perl.so in the modules directory. I think the DSO in a separate mod_perl RPM package. -- Pierre Phaneuf
modperl growth
Hi, I thought that some of you might find this graph interesting: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200201/apachemods.html?mod=cGVybA== For some reason, in December, it would seem that modperl just jumped ahead in market share (from 13% to nearly 20%). So given that people here are occasionally given to gloom and doom descriptions of the Perl/mod_perl world (there aren't as many people as before, the Java folks are taking over, etc.) I'd like to take this growth as well as modperl's general well doing (19.78% is a *huge* amount of people -- 600.000 servers, a fifth of the internet) as a very good sign that modperl is alive, kicking, and doing very well. Kudos to all ;-) -- ___ Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CTO k n o w s c a p e : // venture knowledge agency www.knowscape.com --- There are trivial truths and there are great Truths. The opposite of a trival truth is obviously false. The opposite of a great Truth is also true. -- Niels Bohr
Re: modperl growth
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Robin Berjon wrote: Hi, I thought that some of you might find this graph interesting: http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200201/apachemods.html?mod=cGVybA== For some reason, in December, it would seem that modperl just jumped ahead in market share (from 13% to nearly 20%). So given that people here are occasionally given to gloom and doom descriptions of the Perl/mod_perl world (there aren't as many people as before, the Java folks are taking over, etc.) I'd like to take this growth as well as modperl's general well doing (19.78% is a *huge* amount of people -- 600.000 servers, a fifth of the internet) as a very good sign that modperl is alive, kicking, and doing very well. Kudos to all ;-) Wow, bizarre. Not sure why but the AxKit list has seen a massive spurt in traffic lately too. Perhaps due to the migration to xml.apache.org (well, just a link at the moment), but perhaps due to the above? However I'm always skeptical of such massive changes - perhaps more likely is a change in SecuritySpace's methodology? -- !-- Matt -- :-Get a smart net/:-
Re: modperl growth
Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow, bizarre. Not sure why but the AxKit list has seen a massive spurt in traffic lately too. Perhaps due to the migration to xml.apache.org (well, just a link at the moment), but perhaps due to the above? However I'm always skeptical of such massive changes - perhaps more likely is a change in SecuritySpace's methodology? You have to remember of the latest attacks on IIS too... People are migrating from IIS to other web servers. Apache is a very good candidate to power these ex-IIS sites. Since the use of Apache has increased, people start looking after alternative technologies that use it. mod_perl, AxKit and other are these technologies. I don't think that this covers all those new servers, but it certainly covers a lot of them. Be seeing you, -- Godoy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Escritório de Projetos --Conectiva S.A. Projects Office --Conectiva Inc. msg24569/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: modperl growth
Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However I'm always skeptical of such massive changes - perhaps more likely is a change in SecuritySpace's methodology? Don't Netcraft keep numbers? -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: modperl growth
At 20:54 -0200 2/2/02, Jorge Godoy wrote: Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow, bizarre. Not sure why but the AxKit list has seen a massive spurt in traffic lately too. Perhaps due to the migration to xml.apache.org (well, just a link at the moment), but perhaps due to the above? However I'm always skeptical of such massive changes - perhaps more likely is a change in SecuritySpace's methodology? You have to remember of the latest attacks on IIS too... People are migrating from IIS to other web servers. Apache is a very good candidate to power these ex-IIS sites. Since the use of Apache has increased, people start looking after alternative technologies that use it. mod_perl, AxKit and other are these technologies. I don't think that this covers all those new servers, but it certainly covers a lot of them. Mac OS X includes Apache, and mod_perl works there, too. That's another group of potential new mod_perl-ized servers.
Re: email attachments; was modperl growth
Folks, please don't send attachments, esp. with no explanation, it looks just like these deliberate virus attacks to me and I refuse to open any attachments unless I am personally familiar with the sender and know they know what they're doing. If it's plain text please embed it in the email, else provide a URL where one can download the attachment from. Yeah, I know, use Linux, don't use Outlook Express, .txt attachments are unlikely to contain virus, use antvirus software etc been there, done that, I'm sticking to my story. thanks regards, Rod === The sender has never accepted any funding from Enron. Any suggestion to that effect will be met with legal action. - Original Message - From: Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: modperl growth
Re: email attachments; was modperl growth
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 10:21:32AM +1100, Rod Butcher wrote: Folks, please don't send attachments, esp. with no explanation, it looks just like these deliberate virus attacks to me and I refuse to open any attachments unless I am personally familiar with the sender and know they know what they're doing. If it's plain text please embed it in the email, else provide a URL where one can download the attachment from. Yeah, I know, use Linux, don't use Outlook Express, .txt attachments are unlikely to contain virus, use antvirus software etc been there, done that, I'm sticking to my story. Outlook Express has no clue on what to do with PGP signed messages? Which is what it was. -- Thomas Eibner http://thomas.eibner.dk/ DnsZone http://dnszone.org/ mod_pointer http://stderr.net/mod_pointer !(C)http://copywrong.dk/ Putting the HEST in .COM http://www.hestdesign.com/
Re: email attachments; was modperl growth
Rod Butcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Folks, please don't send attachments, esp. with no explanation, it looks just like these deliberate virus attacks to me and I refuse to open any attachments unless I am personally familiar with the sender and know they know what they're doing. If it's plain text please embed it in the email, else provide a URL where one can download the attachment from. Yeah, I know, use Linux, don't use Outlook Express, .txt attachments are unlikely to contain virus, use antvirus software etc been there, done that, I'm sticking to my story. thanks regards, Rod I'm sorry, but it was a GPG (a free PGP) signed message. Outlook is really lost when it sees that and, since you've bought it from Microsoft, I think you should send them a request for them to implement OpenPGP standards in their mail reader. Unfortunately, you (don't) get what you paid for... See you, -- Godoy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Escritório de Projetos --Conectiva S.A. Projects Office --Conectiva Inc.
RE: email attachments; was modperl growth
Since Balmer and Gates consider open anything to be a threat to corporate intellectual property it's not likely that they will do this. If you ask nicely, though, they will steal it and call it ActivePGP - then sell it back to you. Rod Butcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sorry, but it was a GPG (a free PGP) signed message. Outlook is really lost when it sees that and, since you've bought it from Microsoft, I think you should send them a request for them to implement OpenPGP standards in their mail reader. Unfortunately, you (don't) get what you paid for...
RE: email attachments; was modperl growth
:: I'm sorry, but it was a GPG (a free PGP) signed message. :: :: Outlook is really lost when it sees that and, since you've :: bought it from Microsoft, I think you should send them a :: request for them to implement OpenPGP standards in their :: mail reader. Er, that's not strictly true. Outlook handles encrypted and/or signed email as well as any other client. Outlook displays the signed email with a unique icon to identify it as such. The attachment contains the actual PGP info (in case you want to see it). I think that's fair enough isn't it? I don't know about Outlook Express though (which is a completely different mailer). Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator West Yorkshire Perl User Group http://wypug.pm.org/
RE: email attachments; was modperl growth
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Jonathan M. Hollin wrote: Er, that's not strictly true. Outlook handles encrypted and/or signed email as well as any other client. Outlook displays the signed email with a unique icon to identify it as such. The attachment contains the actual PGP info (in case you want to see it). I think that's fair enough isn't it? To be fair, it showed up as an attachment in Pine under Linux also (although identified as a PGP signature). -- Brett http://www.chapelperilous.net/ You will pay for your sins. If you have already paid, please disregard this message.
Re: [OT] email attachments; was modperl growth
Jonathan M. Hollin wrote: Er, that's not strictly true. Outlook handles encrypted and/or signed email as well as any other client. Outlook displays the signed email with a unique icon to identify it as such. The attachment contains the actual PGP info (in case you want to see it). I think that's fair enough isn't it? I don't know about Outlook Express though (which is a completely different mailer). Outlook Express handles S/MIME, but OpenPGP multipart/signed messages confuse it.
