Comments for Greg Whitescarver's Blog http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog web application development and command-line tomfoolery Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:37:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 Comment on Yahoo! Mail has finally pushed me into the arms of GMail by Rakesh http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/07/23/yahoo-mail-has-finally-pushed-me-into-the-arms-of-gmail/#comment-85389 Rakesh Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:29:39 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=379#comment-85389 hello could u please send the onforce ajax server monitor software u downloaded to me at rocky5v@yahoo.com hello

could u please send the onforce ajax server monitor software
u downloaded to me at rocky5v@yahoo.com

]]> Comment on Yahoo! search is pretty great these days. Why does Yahoo Mail search suck? by Bill Aprea http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/01/23/yahoo-search-is-pretty-great-these-days-why-does-yahoo-mail-search-suck/#comment-80466 Bill Aprea Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:44:32 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=180#comment-80466 I completely agree! It dumbfounds me. I've been a loyal Yahoo! mail user for 10 years, and even pay $20 a year for POP3 access and no ads. This needs to be fixed or I may have to switch to gmail... I completely agree! It dumbfounds me. I’ve been a loyal Yahoo! mail user for 10 years, and even pay $20 a year for POP3 access and no ads. This needs to be fixed or I may have to switch to gmail…

]]> Comment on Yahoo! Mail has finally pushed me into the arms of GMail by Wil Moore III http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/07/23/yahoo-mail-has-finally-pushed-me-into-the-arms-of-gmail/#comment-76960 Wil Moore III Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:33:26 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=379#comment-76960 I hear you. I've tried them all and nothing (currently) beats Google Mail (via Google Apps) for me. I like using my own domain, being able to share a calendar with my wife, and having web + IMAP (wife likes outlook) access. Actually, I was sold on just the spam filtering alone. The rest was a bonus. -Wil Moore III I hear you. I’ve tried them all and nothing (currently) beats Google Mail (via Google Apps) for me. I like using my own domain, being able to share a calendar with my wife, and having web + IMAP (wife likes outlook) access. Actually, I was sold on just the spam filtering alone. The rest was a bonus.

-Wil Moore III

]]> Comment on Doing my first talk: The Command Line Ecosystem… hidden on your Mac by Meatleg http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/04/07/doing-my-first-talk-the-command-line-ecosystem-hidden-on-your-mac/#comment-69111 Meatleg Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:08:12 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=366#comment-69111 Is there a discount for those of us who are Apple Certified? (^o^) Is there a discount for those of us who are Apple Certified?
(^o^)

]]> Comment on Interesting Craigslist bug: ‘amp’ finds & (ampersand) by sam http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/03/26/interesting-craigslist-bug-amp-finds-ampersand/#comment-68336 sam Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:23:17 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=351#comment-68336 Haha -- I guess pre tags don't work on &! & escaped as & Haha — I guess pre tags don’t work on &!

& escaped as &

]]> Comment on Interesting Craigslist bug: ‘amp’ finds & (ampersand) by sam http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/03/26/interesting-craigslist-bug-amp-finds-ampersand/#comment-68335 sam Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:21:38 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=351#comment-68335 Doubtless because they're escaping ampersands in their HTML as &, and doing a plain old full text search. Doubtless because they’re escaping ampersands in their HTML as &, and doing a plain old full text search.

]]> Comment on Let’s get mod_wsgi on Dreamhost by Graham Dumpleton http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/03/06/lets-get-mod_wsgi-on-dreamhost/#comment-66348 Graham Dumpleton Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:27:29 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=323#comment-66348 Google is not using mod_wsgi for anything that I know of. They certainly aren't using it for App Engine, instead they have developed their own custom solution. Google is not using mod_wsgi for anything that I know of. They certainly aren’t using it for App Engine, instead they have developed their own custom solution.

]]> Comment on The iPhone App Store is nothing new by Meatleg http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/03/02/the-iphone-app-store-is-nothing-new/#comment-66347 Meatleg Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:42:23 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=194#comment-66347 http://www.macworld.com/article/139245/2009/03/iphone_beats_windows_mobile_boasts_of_25000_applications.html?lsrc=rss_news I think this should prove that the App store is definitely something new. In spite of how long the windows mobile platform has been around, and the limited time that the iPhone has been around, developers have far and away decided that the iPhone platform and the iTunes app store is THE mobile platform to write for. Even if you subtract the 1,000 fart applications in the iTunes store, there are still well over double the amount of applications available for the iPhone than for windows mobile. Maybe that is why Microsoft is releasing its one iTunes-Store-like app store now. http://www.macworld.com/article/139245/2009/03/iphone_beats_windows_mobile_boasts_of_25000_applications.html?lsrc=rss_news

I think this should prove that the App store is definitely something new. In spite of how long the windows mobile platform has been around, and the limited time that the iPhone has been around, developers have far and away decided that the iPhone platform and the iTunes app store is THE mobile platform to write for.

Even if you subtract the 1,000 fart applications in the iTunes store, there are still well over double the amount of applications available for the iPhone than for windows mobile.

Maybe that is why Microsoft is releasing its one iTunes-Store-like app store now.

]]> Comment on Let’s get mod_wsgi on Dreamhost by Greg http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/03/06/lets-get-mod_wsgi-on-dreamhost/#comment-66342 Greg Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:56:04 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=323#comment-66342 My apologies for the misattribution of mod_wsgi to Google. That page is so heavily 'Google' branded, and I know Google is big into Python, so I suppose I wrongly assumed. As to whether Dreamhost can handle additional per-user configuration of mod_wsgi, they demonstrate an impressive ability to automate all kinds of normally manual activities, so it would not surprise me if Dreamhost found a way to configure each user on-demand. If they've got FastCGI chugging, and they've also got Passenger working for Ruby and Python (which I don't think it was built for at all), how far off could it be? Is Google using mod_wsgi for App Engine? If so, isn't that a commodity situation? If not, what are they using? Surely they've proven WSGI apps can run side-by-side on shared hardware efficiently. My apologies for the misattribution of mod_wsgi to Google. That page is so heavily ‘Google’ branded, and I know Google is big into Python, so I suppose I wrongly assumed.

As to whether Dreamhost can handle additional per-user configuration of mod_wsgi, they demonstrate an impressive ability to automate all kinds of normally manual activities, so it would not surprise me if Dreamhost found a way to configure each user on-demand.

If they’ve got FastCGI chugging, and they’ve also got Passenger working for Ruby and Python (which I don’t think it was built for at all), how far off could it be?

Is Google using mod_wsgi for App Engine? If so, isn’t that a commodity situation? If not, what are they using? Surely they’ve proven WSGI apps can run side-by-side on shared hardware efficiently.

]]> Comment on Let’s get mod_wsgi on Dreamhost by Graham Dumpleton http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/2009/03/06/lets-get-mod_wsgi-on-dreamhost/#comment-66341 Graham Dumpleton Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:44:04 +0000 http://www.gregwhitescarver.com/blog/?p=323#comment-66341 Google has NOT implemented mod_wsgi. There is even a disclaimer on the mod_wsgi saying this. The code is merely hosted on the Google Code hosting service and Google otherwise has nothing to do with it. Also, as far as I understand DreamHost, in that they aren't a specialist in providing support for Python web applications, and are instead more in the commodity web hosting market, I would suggest that mod_wsgi isn't ready for them yet. These sorts of companies want practically zero configuration to bring a new customer online. Preferably this configuration would be in a central database which Apache consults in real time such that Apache doesn't need to be restarted for every new customer. With that sort of requirement, mod_wsgi isn't going to be for them, as it requires configuration for each new host to be setup. There are some slightly clunky ways that one can reduce the need for this by preconfiguring groups of daemon process groups, but still probably not friendly enough for them. As a result, mod_wsgi is probably not going to be of interest to commodity web hosting companies and still only suitable to web hosting companies who provide a level of specialisation for Python web hosting, such as WebFaction. This may change when dynamically configurable transient daemon processes are implemented for mod_wsgi, but this isn't going to be done until mod_wsgi version 4.0. Google has NOT implemented mod_wsgi. There is even a disclaimer on the mod_wsgi saying this. The code is merely hosted on the Google Code hosting service and Google otherwise has nothing to do with it.

Also, as far as I understand DreamHost, in that they aren’t a specialist in providing support for Python web applications, and are instead more in the commodity web hosting market, I would suggest that mod_wsgi isn’t ready for them yet. These sorts of companies want practically zero configuration to bring a new customer online. Preferably this configuration would be in a central database which Apache consults in real time such that Apache doesn’t need to be restarted for every new customer.

With that sort of requirement, mod_wsgi isn’t going to be for them, as it requires configuration for each new host to be setup. There are some slightly clunky ways that one can reduce the need for this by preconfiguring groups of daemon process groups, but still probably not friendly enough for them.

As a result, mod_wsgi is probably not going to be of interest to commodity web hosting companies and still only suitable to web hosting companies who provide a level of specialisation for Python web hosting, such as WebFaction. This may change when dynamically configurable transient daemon processes are implemented for mod_wsgi, but this isn’t going to be done until mod_wsgi version 4.0.

]]>