Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
but very little little feedback.
This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
(which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
having any problems, I’d like to here from you just to get that
feedback.
The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the
first of the year because I want it to include the released version of
Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0.
My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains
Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help
me with a couple of decisions/priorities here:
Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache
1.3.33 for the time being?
Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently
4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x?
I’m using the application successfully and have been very pleased with
it’s ease of use. It has helped me to understand Ruby and Ruby on
Rails, as I am new to this environement.
As to your question, I’m ok with Apache 1. I’d prefer MySQL to be
upgraded to 5.x
Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
but very little little feedback.
This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
(which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
having any problems, I’d like to here from you just to get that
feedback.
The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the
first of the year because I want it to include the released version of
Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0.
My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains
Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help
me with a couple of decisions/priorities here:
Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache
1.3.33 for the time being?
Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently
4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x?
I've received a couple inquiries from people who missed the original
announcement of Instant Rails. If you are in category and want to know
more, go here:
On 11/7/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
but very little little feedback.
This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
(which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
having any problems, I'd like to here from you just to get that
feedback.
The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the
first of the year because I want it to include the released version of
Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0.
My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains
Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help
me with a couple of decisions/priorities here:
1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache
1.3.33 for the time being?
2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently
4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x?
Being stuck in a windows world I definetly love the concept but I have not
tried out the app yet as I heard that everything was not yet runnable as a
service. If this has been fixed (or was never broke) then please let me
know.
As far as Apache/MySQL version. I'd prefer Apache 2 + MySQL 5.
Josh
···
On 11/7/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
but very little little feedback.
This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
(which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
having any problems, I'd like to here from you just to get that
feedback.
The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the
first of the year because I want it to include the released version of
Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0.
My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains
Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help
me with a couple of decisions/priorities here:
1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache
1.3.33 for the time being?
2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently
4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x?
Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
but very little little feedback.
This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
(which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
having any problems, I'd like to here from you just to get that
feedback.
The final 1.0 release for Instant Rails will be sometime after the
first of the year because I want it to include the released version of
Ruby 1.8.4 and the final release of Rails 1.0.
My plans also include upgrading to Apache 2 (currently it contains
Apache 1.3.33) as well as a more recent release of MySQL. Please help
me with a couple of decisions/priorities here:
1) Is moving to Apache 2 important to you, or or you happy with Apache
1.3.33 for the time being?
2) Should MySQL be upgraded to the latest 4.x release (currently
4.1.15) or would you prefer it be upgraded to 5.0.x?
Thanks,
Curt
Im in the "Downlodaded-but-hadn't-tried-yet" category. For me, Firebird support a key feature. The "Instant Rails with Firebird" would also be smaller would consume less resources compared with a MySQL-based version. The size of the unpacked archive didn't make me happy at all. The PHP could also go away. (And yes, since I'm definitely interested in Rails development, I'm going to to write a Firebird admin interface for Rails. If I had to deploy a Rails solution anywhere outside my computer, I wouln't certainly want to deploy "PHP on Rails". :-D)
I would love to give it a shot but it's windows only. Something like Instant
Rails would be awsome for packaging with existing rails apps. A great way to
distribute software that you can pretty much just unzip and run anywhere.
One thing I found out fairly quickly is that your typical linux user isn't
going to have all the bits and pieces that rails needs, such as fastcgi or
scgi. Webrick is way too unstable. Application bugs can cause webrick to
just die quite often, and what good is a webserver that absolutely requires
no bugs in your application before it will run without crashing?
Chris
···
On 11/7/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
but very little little feedback.
This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
(which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
having any problems, I'd like to here from you just to get that
feedback.
Curt,
in Rails terms you are my hero! I have had many tries to get Rails
working, but without sucess until I installed Instant Rails. Thank you
for the time and effort you put into the project.
David Moore.
I think webrick is being unfairly maligned here. I use webrick all the time
when developing applications, and it is both adequately fast and completely
stable.
I can throw 10 million requests through it (I've done so in application
testing before). I can intentionally or accidentally cause every conceivable
type of application error. I can hit it with massive numbers of concurrent
requests. I have delivered standalone instances of sites and apps to
customers, running just on webrick, that they have let random people play
with at trade shows. It has never crashed on me. Ever.
If it crashes with Rails, that is a Rails problem, not a webrick problem.
Kirk Haines
···
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 4:04 pm, snacktime wrote:
such as fastcgi or scgi. Webrick is way too unstable. Application bugs can
cause webrick to just die quite often, and what good is a webserver that
absolutely requires no bugs in your application before it will run without
crashing?
Version 2 of Instant Rails will be designed to run on Linux, BSD, and
OSX (as well as Windows).
Curt
···
On 11/8/05, snacktime <snacktime@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/7/05, Curt Hibbs <curt.hibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Its been a little over three weeks since I released the first preview
> of Instant Rails. In that time there have been over 3,000 downloads,
> but very little little feedback.
>
> This tells me either that it is not being used (which would be bad) or
> that it is being used but no one is having any significant problems
> (which would be very good). So, if you are using it, but are just not
> having any problems, I'd like to here from you just to get that
> feedback.
>
I would love to give it a shot but it's windows only. Something like Instant
Rails would be awsome for packaging with existing rails apps. A great way to
distribute software that you can pretty much just unzip and run anywhere.
One thing I found out fairly quickly is that your typical linux user isn't
going to have all the bits and pieces that rails needs, such as fastcgi or
scgi. Webrick is way too unstable. Application bugs can cause webrick to
just die quite often, and what good is a webserver that absolutely requires
no bugs in your application before it will run without crashing?
Im in the "Downlodaded-but-hadn't-tried-yet" category.
Same here. I'm probably more interested in learning how Instant Rails was created, so I can create my own Instant Apps, such as Instant Nitro.
As with Linux Live scripts that allow you to creat a live linux media from almost any source, it would extremely cool to have a "metadistribution" that would allow one to create Instant-Anything from source packages. I got an average 50% performance boost with Ruby interpreter just with using proper GCC switches on my Sempron 2500+ machine. The same for Rails, the "hello world" page (i mean the RoR welcome screen) througput was 130% higher. (I'm sure this is no measure of real performance, but I'm sure it _will_ be noticeable as well.) And you could alway get the latest package versions - Ruby, Rails, DB. Sounds nice to me. :-)))
For me, Firebird support a key feature. The "Instant Rails with Firebird" would also be smaller would consume less resources compared with a MySQL-based version. The size of the unpacked archive didn't make me happy at all. 
The PHP could also go away. (And yes, since I'm definitely interested in Rails development, I'm going to to write a Firebird admin interface for Rails. If I had to deploy a Rails solution anywhere outside my computer, I wouln't certainly want to deploy "PHP on Rails". :-D)
I got an average 50% performance boost with Ruby interpreter just with using proper GCC switches on my Sempron 2500+ machine. The same for Rails, the "hello world" page (i mean the RoR welcome screen) througput was 130% higher. (I'm sure this is no measure of real performance, but I'm sure it _will_ be noticeable as well.) And you could alway get the latest package versions - Ruby, Rails, DB. Sounds nice to me. :-)))