How many support ... FastCGI with Perl support?
What is there that makes you think more accounts would support mod_perlite? How would it be easier or safer for them to use or offer? I've read (what I believe are) all the articles on the subject, and asked questions, but still am unable to see any added functionality that mod_perlite brings (and, honestly, it's not for want of trying, I personally don't find shooting down criticising open-source projects to be an enjoyable pastime).
Technical superiority is not the only kind of superiority.
So what superiority does mod_perlite bring? Can't be early adopterism or ubiquity, so is it a marketing drive for mindshare? That's got to be based on something. What is that something? Ease of use, ok, fine, but where exactly is it easier to use? Fastcgi is an "apt-get install libapache2-mod-fastcgi" away on my platform, where does mod_perlite get easier than that?
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Fastcgi is an "apt-get install libapache2-mod-fastcgi" away on my platform....
... and thus you're not using a $4.95/month host.
For $4.95/month, hosts aren't going to grant shell access, or install custom software, or even configure software such as FastCGI or mod_perl such that it works for all of their shared hosting customers on a single server. I believe mod_perlite has the opportunity to be a very small module, easily distributed, easily installed, and requiring almost no configuration. If it takes 30 seconds to install and configure, that's too much.
That doesn't make FastCGI bad or mod_perl bloated or useless. mod_perlite has very different goals. Once you're capable of running your own server, I'm sure you can think of lots of ways to achieve those goals. mod_perlite is not intended for people who run their own servers.
| [reply] |
... and thus you're not using a $4.95/month host.
No, I'm not. But I am a hosting provider. Not on a huge (or even large) scale mind you, so my acceptance or rejection of mod_perlite is hardly going to matter to the project. But I am part of the intended target user base ("user" here being the hosting provider). For me FastCGI is exactly as painless to install as mod_php, neither of these come bundled with Apache, they both require me to install them, for both it is a single command, no more configuration required. So, why should I install mod_perlite?
For that matter, why should I install mod_perlite over having users employ simple CGI? The touted performance benefit of mod_perlite (over CGI) does not seem to amount to much even theoretically (see my comment higher up), or else I'm missing something and noone can be bothered to explain it to me (and other people who have asked the same question). Why should anyone run new code, written by people who (by their own admission in your interview) are only now learning how Apache modules work, and doing so by copying mod_php? All for a minuscule performance benefit?
I'll be happy if you or anyone correct me on any concrete points. But so far mod_perlite is just handwaving and hype to me.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
It's the host that's going to install mod_fastcgi or mod_perlite (not the user), so it doesn't matter whether the user has shell access or not.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |