Since the advent of services such as Slicehost or Linode, I'm
surprised anyone bothers with shared hosting. Linode costs $20 a
month, and you get to choose from a variety of different linux
distributions. In my experience, the performance and support are
amazing.
Bernard
On Fri, May 14, 2010
Thanks for the pointer Bernard - any idea how that would compare with
DreamHosts private servers? I certainly like the fact that you have
datacentres in different continents with Linode!
On 15 May 2010 11:36, Bernard Devlin bdrun...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the advent of services such as
But isn't it still 'shared' with other clients on the same machine? I was
offered something like this by Dreamhost but I get such great service and
speed with a regular account, why should I bother? To get at the kernal?
On 15 May 2010 03:36, Bernard Devlin bdrun...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the
My apology to the group for the snarky email response.
When I read the response from Lyn to Richard's email I interpreted it as a
response from RunRev on why they were no longer releasing revCGI updates. It
appeared to me the reason that rev was not releasing updates was due to a
concern about
On 14 May 2010 02:05, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:
Lyn Teyla wrote:
revServer runs as an Apache module, not as CGI.
I don't believe it's an Apache module. I'm not exactly sure what it is,
but when I asked if it was a module per se I was told it was not. That's a
good
On May 13, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Lyn Teyla wrote:
We were wondering if there are still plans to continue
releasing the CGI engine (not just revServer) in the
future?
If so, when should we be expecting the next release?
Thanks in advance!
Moments ago, I conceived a plan for porting my
Tereza Snyder wrote:
On May 13, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Lyn Teyla wrote:
We were wondering if there are still plans to continue
releasing the CGI engine (not just revServer) in the
future?
If so, when should we be expecting the next release?
Thanks in advance!
Moments ago, I conceived a
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Some of the enhancements to the merge function in the engine used at On-Rev
are convenient, and the real-time debugging is indeed a great time-saver but
AFAIK that was always slated to be exclusive to the On-Rev hosting config
anyway.
So since the differences
Lyn Teyla wrote:
Richard Gaskin wrote:
So since the differences between the v3.5 Rev CGI engine we have
and a new one would seem minimal, what specific features are you
looking for?
Our main concern is that any new features and bug fixes that
are included with the Rev engine in the
On May 14, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Lyn Teyla wrote:
However, if future versions of the Rev engine were to include
similarly important features, or say a crucial memory leak bug
fix, it would be good to know if these will be made available
to the CGI folks.
Sounds like it would be useful to have
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Kee Nethery k...@kagi.com wrote:
From: Kee Nethery k...@kagi.com
Subject: Re: Will revCGI be made available (not just revServer)?
To: How to use Revolution use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 6:37 PM
On May 14, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Lyn Teyla
-- Sent last post too soon! --
Kee Nethery wrote:
I know that given the privacy concerns of our business, we cannot use the Rev
engine hosted on a machine that we do not control.
Lyn Teyla wrote:
revServer runs as an Apache module, not as CGI.
I don't believe it's an Apache module. I'm not exactly sure what it is,
but when I asked if it was a module per se I was told it was not.
That's a good thing, IMO, since it would be next to impossible to
install it on a
13 matches
Mail list logo
