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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___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
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
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
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
:: - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
--
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
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
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
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
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?
:54 AM
Subject: Re: 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
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
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
:: 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.
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
