[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] website maintainers needed

On Monday, 11 September 2006, at 11:41:51 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:

> And it requires giving everyone who wants to add a simple little
> news item access to everything in CVS (should normally be a
> problem... but.)

So?  Like write access is any big deal.  Raster wants it given out
like candy.

> Ben is quite fond of Ruby and Rails.  Here's a quote from his blog:
> "But the appeal of Ruby is just unresistable and I admit I'm headed
> in that direction more and more all the time."

Apparently you're confused.  I was providing advantages of CVS, not
disadvantages of Ruby or whatever else it is you're trying to rebut.

> Ruby can serve static pages, for that matter, what web server can't?

Still confused.

> So could a Rails site.

Still confused.

> Rephorm made his site in Rails, so did Atmos. Tilman is quite
> comfortable with it.  Add to that, Eugen, me, and I'm sure quite a
> few others...


> Rails is not a CMS.


> > - Gobs and gobs of tools exist to work with CVS in any number of ways
> For building a website?!?!

Ah, finally something relevant to my comments.  Tools for CVS allow
for editing of content in CVS and committing said content to CVS.  So
yes, in that sense, for building a website.

> This is silly.   Content revision control is quite easy to do.

You'd think that...but you'd be wrong.  Even with tools like Trac,
which supposedly "integrate" with SVN, content versioning is always
linear.  No branching.  No tagging.  No annotation.

> It's silly to get CVS access to do web updates.  Welcome to 2006.


On Monday, 11 September 2006, at 21:52:55 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:

> I can cache pages with Rails (quite easily). That should pretty much
> give you the same speed and is better because it keeps the data in
> the database too.

Static pages mean no database.

> We could also do a dozen things which would take a million years to
> do with something like PHP. There is lots of code already written
> for Rails, which can easily be plugged in.

There's also lots of code written for PHP which could be easily
plugged in.  And you'll find hyperbolic arguments carry little weight
with me.

> You've told me this before. Rake works for me and just about anyone
> else I know. True, I use gems but I've used debian packages in the
> past and it still works fine. What exactly is wrong with it?

If I ever decide to try packaging it again, I'll let you know.

> Ruby is 11 years old. It's as stable as stable gets.

heh  PHP is 12 years old, so by your argument, PHP wins, right?  No,
wait, Perl is 19 years old, so it must be more stable than either PHP
or Ruby.  So we should use that!  No, wait, what about C...

One of two things needs to happen:  Choice 1, we bring back the CVS
stuff and edit content that way.  Choice 2, we have some type of
online CMS with wiki-like capabilities so that anyone can contribute
(with certain "editors" having veto authority).  In the case of choice
2, it makes very little difference what the system is under the hood
as long as it's easy to use and to contribute to.


Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <mej@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
 "To err is human; to really louse things up requires Microsoft
  products."                   -- Alexander Pope, slightly paraphrased