Discussion:
Access RadRails at www.radrails.net
Kyle Shank
2007-03-15 17:34:35 UTC
Permalink
RadRails.org is still being held hostage by RegisterFly.

Access www.radrails.net for now. If you can't just yet it should
propagate soon.

Cheers,
Kyle

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Ingo Muschenetz (Aptana)
2007-03-15 19:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi Everyone,

We've also added download links and redirects to the home page of
http://www.aptana.com to allow people to access the content. The only
missing piece is the plugins view still references
plugins.radrails.org, so we're working on getting that switched ASAP.

Best,
Ingo
Post by Kyle Shank
RadRails.org is still being held hostage by RegisterFly.
Accesswww.radrails.netfor now. If you can't just yet it should
propagate soon.
Cheers,
Kyle
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Richard
2007-03-16 06:15:33 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Ian J Cottee
2007-03-16 10:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Tried capistrano?
Post by Richard
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Kevin Williams
2007-03-16 13:39:18 UTC
Permalink
I second that suggestion. Capistrano is so good that it makes
deploying Java or .NET look archaic. Deployment is one of the easiest
parts of Rails work IMHO.
Post by Ian J Cottee
Tried capistrano?
Post by Richard
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.
--
Cheers,

Kevin Williams
http://www.almostserio.us/

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
Magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Richard
2007-03-16 16:48:25 UTC
Permalink
I have heard of it and most providers want nothing to do with it. I
know a VERY good rails programmer that had spent 2 full days to get it
working OK. The reality is rails is a nightmare to set up unless you
are VERY knowledgeable on server setups which most website people are
not. SOME internet providers MIGHT let you set up rails and then run
like hell when it comes to ANY support or knowledge. The overwhelming
majority of providers are well aware of rails and HAVE NO PLANS to
implement it whatsoever due to the issue I mentioned. This difficulty
in acceptance by providers and deployment, for me, has made rails a hard
sell when people can see other templates like Joomla and other CMS that
set up in 5 minutes by running one script.
I was taught once there are concept people and implementation people.
They are inseparable, yet always think they don't need each other. I
think the whole ruby/rails idea could take a lesson from that. I
haven't given up on rails but the practically is - the market place,
given all the other options, is NOT racing to rails for the reasons I
mentioned and I don't see a hell of a lot of movement coming either. I
set up a rails site on site5 and if it wasn't for documents I found on
the internet, no one could answer my questions. With rails it is all
about, "Look what I can build and how fast." But in DEPLOYMENT all that
goes to hell fast. To rails folks I would say, run your own servers and
become a server expert or pay more for a specialized rails host. If you
don't do that, all your excitement will change with the realities of
deployment.

The
Post by Kevin Williams
I second that suggestion. Capistrano is so good that it makes
deploying Java or .NET look archaic. Deployment is one of the easiest
parts of Rails work IMHO.
Post by Ian J Cottee
Tried capistrano?
Post by Richard
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Richard
2007-03-16 16:50:13 UTC
Permalink
I have heard of it and most providers want nothing to do with it. I
know a VERY good rails programmer that had spent 2 full days to get it
working OK. The reality is rails is a nightmare to set up unless you
are VERY knowledgeable on server setups which most website people are
not. SOME internet providers MIGHT let you set up rails and then run
like hell when it comes to ANY support or knowledge. The overwhelming
majority of providers are well aware of rails and HAVE NO PLANS to
implement it whatsoever due to the issue I mentioned. This difficulty
in acceptance by providers and deployment, for me, has made rails a hard
sell when people can see other templates like Joomla and other CMS that
set up in 5 minutes by running one script.
I was taught once there are concept people and implementation people.
They are inseparable, yet always think they don't need each other. I
think the whole ruby/rails idea could take a lesson from that. I
haven't given up on rails but the practically is - the market place,
given all the other options, is NOT racing to rails for the reasons I
mentioned and I don't see a hell of a lot of movement coming either. I
set up a rails site on site5 and if it wasn't for documents I found on
the internet, no one could answer my questions. With rails it is all
about, "Look what I can build and how fast." But in DEPLOYMENT all that
goes to hell fast. To rails folks I would say, run your own servers and
become a server expert or pay more for a specialized rails host. If you
don't do that, all your excitement will change with the realities of
deployment.
Post by Ian J Cottee
Tried capistrano?
Post by Richard
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Kevin Williams
2007-03-16 18:01:42 UTC
Permalink
First, STOP WITH THE ALL CAPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, PLEASE.

Second, there are many Rails hosting providers who support Capistrano.
If you think most Rails-friendly hosting providers don't support
Capistrano, then you haven't looked around well enough. I've used four
different hosting providers, all with Capistrano, and didn't have too
much trouble with any of them.

Lastly, I was taught once that there are people who complain and
people who get things done. They are completely separable, and are
rarely the same person.
Post by Richard
I have heard of it and most providers want nothing to do with it. I
know a VERY good rails programmer that had spent 2 full days to get it
working OK. The reality is rails is a nightmare to set up unless you
are VERY knowledgeable on server setups which most website people are
not. SOME internet providers MIGHT let you set up rails and then run
like hell when it comes to ANY support or knowledge. The overwhelming
majority of providers are well aware of rails and HAVE NO PLANS to
implement it whatsoever due to the issue I mentioned. This difficulty
in acceptance by providers and deployment, for me, has made rails a hard
sell when people can see other templates like Joomla and other CMS that
set up in 5 minutes by running one script.
I was taught once there are concept people and implementation people.
They are inseparable, yet always think they don't need each other. I
think the whole ruby/rails idea could take a lesson from that. I
haven't given up on rails but the practically is - the market place,
given all the other options, is NOT racing to rails for the reasons I
mentioned and I don't see a hell of a lot of movement coming either. I
set up a rails site on site5 and if it wasn't for documents I found on
the internet, no one could answer my questions. With rails it is all
about, "Look what I can build and how fast." But in DEPLOYMENT all that
goes to hell fast. To rails folks I would say, run your own servers and
become a server expert or pay more for a specialized rails host. If you
don't do that, all your excitement will change with the realities of
deployment.
Post by Ian J Cottee
Tried capistrano?
Post by Richard
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.
--
Cheers,

Kevin Williams
http://www.almostserio.us/

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
Magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Ian J Cottee
2007-03-16 18:13:31 UTC
Permalink
seconded :)

googling for "ruby on rails hosting" is a good place to start. Make a
list of the those who come back and do some more googling for peoples
experiences.

I've deployed a lot of sites for work but we host them ourselves (and
they're mostly private, low volume internal sites for clients). I use
textdrive.com for my personal blog.
Post by Kevin Williams
First, STOP WITH THE ALL CAPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, PLEASE.
Second, there are many Rails hosting providers who support Capistrano.
If you think most Rails-friendly hosting providers don't support
Capistrano, then you haven't looked around well enough. I've used four
different hosting providers, all with Capistrano, and didn't have too
much trouble with any of them.
Lastly, I was taught once that there are people who complain and
people who get things done. They are completely separable, and are
rarely the same person.
Post by Richard
I have heard of it and most providers want nothing to do with it. I
know a VERY good rails programmer that had spent 2 full days to get it
working OK. The reality is rails is a nightmare to set up unless you
are VERY knowledgeable on server setups which most website people are
not. SOME internet providers MIGHT let you set up rails and then run
like hell when it comes to ANY support or knowledge. The
overwhelming
majority of providers are well aware of rails and HAVE NO PLANS to
implement it whatsoever due to the issue I mentioned. This
difficulty
in acceptance by providers and deployment, for me, has made rails a hard
sell when people can see other templates like Joomla and other CMS that
set up in 5 minutes by running one script.
I was taught once there are concept people and implementation people.
They are inseparable, yet always think they don't need each other. I
think the whole ruby/rails idea could take a lesson from that. I
haven't given up on rails but the practically is - the market place,
given all the other options, is NOT racing to rails for the reasons I
mentioned and I don't see a hell of a lot of movement coming
either. I
set up a rails site on site5 and if it wasn't for documents I
found on
the internet, no one could answer my questions. With rails it is all
about, "Look what I can build and how fast." But in DEPLOYMENT all that
goes to hell fast. To rails folks I would say, run your own
servers and
become a server expert or pay more for a specialized rails host.
If you
don't do that, all your excitement will change with the realities of
deployment.
Post by Ian J Cottee
Tried capistrano?
Post by Richard
I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view, until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better but VHS
won.
--
Cheers,
Kevin Williams
http://www.almostserio.us/
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
Magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Richard
2007-03-16 18:30:58 UTC
Permalink
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"><font face="Arial">Exactly, check out people's
experience and you will see to host rails you really should have your
own servers or pay more for a rails specific provider.&nbsp; That is all I
was saying.&nbsp; Rails, at present, is not at the point it can be called
"mass marketable."&nbsp; The problem is I don't see that changing.</font></font><br>
<br>
Ian J Cottee wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midF12D4674-5555-4F00-95D3-***@bluefountain.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">seconded :)

googling for "ruby on rails hosting" is a good place to start. Make a
list of the those who come back and do some more googling for peoples
experiences.

I've deployed a lot of sites for work but we host them ourselves (and
they're mostly private, low volume internal sites for clients). I use
textdrive.com for my personal blog.

On 16 Mar 2007, at 18:01, Kevin Williams wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">First, STOP WITH THE ALL CAPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, PLEASE.

Second, there are many Rails hosting providers who support Capistrano.
If you think most Rails-friendly hosting providers don't support
Capistrano, then you haven't looked around well enough. I've used four
different hosting providers, all with Capistrano, and didn't have too
much trouble with any of them.

Lastly, I was taught once that there are people who complain and
people who get things done. They are completely separable, and are
rarely the same person.

On 3/16/07, Richard <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:***@cox.net">&lt;***@cox.net&gt;</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have heard of it and most providers want nothing to do with it. I
know a VERY good rails programmer that had spent 2 full days to
get it
working OK. The reality is rails is a nightmare to set up unless you
are VERY knowledgeable on server setups which most website people are
not. SOME internet providers MIGHT let you set up rails and then run
like hell when it comes to ANY support or knowledge. The
overwhelming
majority of providers are well aware of rails and HAVE NO PLANS to
implement it whatsoever due to the issue I mentioned. This
difficulty
in acceptance by providers and deployment, for me, has made rails
a hard
sell when people can see other templates like Joomla and other CMS
that
set up in 5 minutes by running one script.
I was taught once there are concept people and implementation people.
They are inseparable, yet always think they don't need each other. I
think the whole ruby/rails idea could take a lesson from that. I
haven't given up on rails but the practically is - the market place,
given all the other options, is NOT racing to rails for the reasons I
mentioned and I don't see a hell of a lot of movement coming
either. I
set up a rails site on site5 and if it wasn't for documents I
found on
the internet, no one could answer my questions. With rails it is all
about, "Look what I can build and how fast." But in DEPLOYMENT
all that
goes to hell fast. To rails folks I would say, run your own
servers and
become a server expert or pay more for a specialized rails host.
If you
don't do that, all your excitement will change with the realities of
deployment.

Ian J Cottee wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Tried capistrano?

On 16 Mar 2007, at 06:15, Richard wrote:


</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept
of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest
and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never
had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying
rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view,
until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells
and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better
but VHS
won.



</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Cheers,

Kevin Williams
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.almostserio.us/">http://www.almostserio.us/</a>

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
Magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->



</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;RadRails&quot; group. <br> To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com <br> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com <br> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en <br> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br>
</body>
</html>
<br>
dharana
2007-03-16 19:09:05 UTC
Permalink
I thought this googlegroup was about radrails.
Exactly, check out people's experience and you will see to host rails
you really should have your own servers or pay more for a rails specific
provider. That is all I was saying. Rails, at present, is not at the
point it can be called "mass marketable." The problem is I don't see
that changing.
It has been doing very well for not being mass marketable. I think that
most people using ror today will spend enough time developing
applications with it as to be able to afford their own server and tune
it to their needs.

I have only worked with php, mod_python and ror but of all three ror
isn't much harder to setup, db + ror + mongrel + development time.

As for your other email where you say "more difficult than necessary" I
bet David and company aren't exactly lovers of the "let's make it more
complex than it needs to be".
--
dharana

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Richard
2007-03-16 19:25:37 UTC
Permalink
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"><font face="Arial">Excellent program and I hope the
latest changes will work out for the best!</font></font><br>
<br>
dharana wrote:
<blockquote cite="***@dharana.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I thought this googlegroup was about radrails.

Richard wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Exactly, check out people's experience and you will see to host rails
you really should have your own servers or pay more for a rails specific
provider. That is all I was saying. Rails, at present, is not at the
point it can be called "mass marketable." The problem is I don't see
that changing.

</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It has been doing very well for not being mass marketable. I think that
most people using ror today will spend enough time developing
applications with it as to be able to afford their own server and tune
it to their needs.

I have only worked with php, mod_python and ror but of all three ror
isn't much harder to setup, db + ror + mongrel + development time.

As for your other email where you say "more difficult than necessary" I
bet David and company aren't exactly lovers of the "let's make it more
complex than it needs to be".

</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<h3>Sincerely,<br>
Richard</h3>
</div>
<br>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;RadRails&quot; group. <br> To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com <br> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com <br> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en <br> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br>
</body>
</html>
<br>
Kevin Williams
2007-03-16 19:54:09 UTC
Permalink
There is a forum for Rails deployment over at
http://www.ruby-forum.com/forum/23. Perhaps there is more useful info
there.
Excellent program and I hope the latest changes will work out for the best!
I thought this googlegroup was about radrails.
Exactly, check out people's experience and you will see to host rails
you really should have your own servers or pay more for a rails specific
provider. That is all I was saying. Rails, at present, is not at the
point it can be called "mass marketable." The problem is I don't see
that changing.
It has been doing very well for not being mass marketable. I think that
most people using ror today will spend enough time developing
applications with it as to be able to afford their own server and tune
it to their needs.
I have only worked with php, mod_python and ror but of all three ror
isn't much harder to setup, db + ror + mongrel + development time.
As for your other email where you say "more difficult than necessary" I
bet David and company aren't exactly lovers of the "let's make it more
complex than it needs to be".
--
Sincerely,
Richard
--
Cheers,

Kevin Williams
http://www.almostserio.us/

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
Magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RadRails" group.
To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Richard
2007-03-16 18:29:11 UTC
Permalink
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"><font face="Arial">I use a large font because I have
trouble seeing.&nbsp; The reality is unless you have your own servers or you
are willing to pay more for a rails specific site there are more
obstacles than necessary in deployment of rails applications.&nbsp; That is
a fact and that was all I was saying.</font></font><br>
<br>
Kevin Williams wrote:
<blockquote
cite="***@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">First, STOP WITH THE ALL CAPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, PLEASE.

Second, there are many Rails hosting providers who support Capistrano.
If you think most Rails-friendly hosting providers don't support
Capistrano, then you haven't looked around well enough. I've used four
different hosting providers, all with Capistrano, and didn't have too
much trouble with any of them.

Lastly, I was taught once that there are people who complain and
people who get things done. They are completely separable, and are
rarely the same person.

On 3/16/07, Richard <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:***@cox.net">&lt;***@cox.net&gt;</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have heard of it and most providers want nothing to do with it. I
know a VERY good rails programmer that had spent 2 full days to get it
working OK. The reality is rails is a nightmare to set up unless you
are VERY knowledgeable on server setups which most website people are
not. SOME internet providers MIGHT let you set up rails and then run
like hell when it comes to ANY support or knowledge. The overwhelming
majority of providers are well aware of rails and HAVE NO PLANS to
implement it whatsoever due to the issue I mentioned. This difficulty
in acceptance by providers and deployment, for me, has made rails a hard
sell when people can see other templates like Joomla and other CMS that
set up in 5 minutes by running one script.
I was taught once there are concept people and implementation people.
They are inseparable, yet always think they don't need each other. I
think the whole ruby/rails idea could take a lesson from that. I
haven't given up on rails but the practically is - the market place,
given all the other options, is NOT racing to rails for the reasons I
mentioned and I don't see a hell of a lot of movement coming either. I
set up a rails site on site5 and if it wasn't for documents I found on
the internet, no one could answer my questions. With rails it is all
about, "Look what I can build and how fast." But in DEPLOYMENT all that
goes to hell fast. To rails folks I would say, run your own servers and
become a server expert or pay more for a specialized rails host. If you
don't do that, all your excitement will change with the realities of
deployment.

Ian J Cottee wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Tried capistrano?

On 16 Mar 2007, at 06:15, Richard wrote:


</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I wonder if someone can comment on this. I loved the whole concept
of rails
and went crazy with it at first. But I have discovered the biggest
and, to
me, the most absurd obstacle to rails is DEPLOYMENT. I have never
had such
problems with servers and providers when it comes to deploying rails
applications. I have had to back off because of this. In my view,
until
rails is more concerned with ease of DEPLOYMENT instead of bells and
whistles, it will go the way of Beta versus VHS. Beta was better
but VHS
won.



</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->

</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;RadRails&quot; group. <br> To post to this group, send email to ***@googlegroups.com <br> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radrails-***@googlegroups.com <br> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radrails?hl=en <br> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---<br>
</body>
</html>
<br>
Loading...