Eh, i don’t mean to spam, but i’m really just polling demand for such a thing.
If someone were to host a ruby enabled shell, with full tcp access and 1,
starting at 1 proccess, and 1 ip per account, would anyone be interested in?
Were concidering $15 a month, its on an oc12 network, and depending on demand,
maybe even a dedicated machine. Ill post details if enough people reply, maybe
even ruby web hosting is in order.
Thanks,
Jesse
Scripsit illud loats205 loats205@aol.com:
Eh, i don’t mean to spam, but i’m really just polling demand for such a thing.
If someone were to host a ruby enabled shell, with full tcp access and 1,
starting at 1 proccess, and 1 ip per account, would anyone be interested in?
One process? Who can live with that? You wouldn’t be able to execute
any command from the shell except the builtins. In particular, you
couldn’t execute the Ruby interpreter.
–
Musik wird oft nicht schön gefunden, weil sie stets mit Geräusch
verbunden. [Wilhelm Busch]
ruby occupies more than one proccess? im looking for sugestions, so feel free
to suggest how it could be livable, im just taking the poll, not administrating
the host.
would 5 proccesses work? Only thing we are worried about is people actually
going for ruby hosting, and breaking even on hosting costs. which would be 8
users at $15 at month.
well i know it’s a stupid thought, but surely the login process takes upon at
least two processes just to get to a shell 
charles
On Sat, 2002-11-02 at 23:17, loats205 wrote:
ruby occupies more than one proccess? im looking for sugestions, so feel free
to suggest how it could be livable, im just taking the poll, not administrating
the host.
Scripsit illud loats205 loats205@aol.com:
ruby occupies more than one proccess?
I don’t think it’s well-suited as a login shell…
Also it should be possible to run an editor like a vi clone or at least
a pico-like editor.
To the other posting: 5 processes would be possible.
But I still wonder who would want to use that…
–
Koroshiteyaru. Koroshiteyaru. Koroshiteyaru. Koroshiteyaru…
[Asuka in Neon Genesis Evangelion - english: “I’ll kill you”]
Hehe , the shell its self doesnt count, these are back ground proccesses im
talking about, of course you are going to get the proccesses nessesary to get
the damn shell running. i probably should have been more descriptive. But, in
any case, a shell with ruby access, 5 background proccesses and one ip per
account. I didn’t think any one actually charged for insession proccesses.
here, maybe if i explained my position and the guys position it will be a
little clearer. The guy has a relatively large network. I was talking to him
about ruby, and how it would be nice if he hosted my ruby mud. We got to
talking about who else would be interested in paying for him to host ruby
services. If he could get atleast an 8 user base at 15 a month, he would have
no problem with setting up a new machine for it. I run the interpreter off of
my windows machine, on an aol connection for that matter, so having a network
service in ruby hosted at 15 a month seemed pretty cheap to me. So i said id
look into it an see if anyone would be interested. Resource overhead is a
secondary concern, and network overhead a distant 3rd. if a pentium 3 512 meg
machine running redhat can handle 40 ruby proccess id dont know, 8 clients at
15$ a month is the magic number. If thats thinkable at 5 (background) process
great, maybe 3, half a process, whatever. Im more interested if anyone would
PAY for the shells than the ammount of (background) processes delegated.
Managment is an after thought at this point, what i get out of this is
somewhere to host my services if it happens.
If he could get atleast an 8 user base at 15 a month, he would have
no problem with setting up a new machine for it.
I’ll help out with the userbase part
There are only 10 types of people in the world:
~ Those who understand binary, and those who don’t
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x833BB9E4