From: Thursday <nospam@...>
Date: 2005-04-09T08:29:48+09:00
Subject: Re: New fcgi gem sorely needed

Aredridel wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 05:04:13AM +0900, Tobias Luetke wrote:
> 
>>There is no gem for the new fcgi release. Can anyone help out? Tom? 
>>This is very very important because of the recent popularity of rails.
>>Memory leaks in the suggested production setup are not cool.
>>
>>Also I think fcgi should get a version bump to 1.0 . Version numbers
>>like 0.8.6 are just confusingly smelling like beta software. There are
>>several companies (37signals, snowdevil...) futures being trusted to
>>this code so I really think it deserves the production ready tag :)
> 
> 
> Let me suggest something. The best mark of "production ready" is to look
> at the source and judge for yourself, or test and get usage data. One's
> beta is another's release quality. And more eyes on the code and actual
> -reports- from operational experience help a lot.
> 
> Kirk is using FastCGI with Enigo, and I know that 37 signals is using it
> too -- that's where two of the last bug-fixes started life.  More
> reports are a good thing -- even if it's just "I'm using it with ____
> kinds of loads for ___" are the real mark of confidence. 
> 
> While 1.0 might be nice, It would be even better to have publically
> visible input on its stability. That goes for all software, in my
> opinion. Actual usage is the best claim to stability, not a claimed
> version number. There's no race to 1.0, since the next thing after that
> is 1.1 to fix its bugs, of course. It's an ongoing process. The real
> trick is to know it works for others in your situation, and when. 
> 
> Since I'm using FastCGI in a production environment, and will admit to
> starting the "use lighttpd!" trend, I've a vested interest in making it
> work right. Let's get some declarations of problems and declarations of
> success out in public and make ruby-fcgi some trusted software that way,
> and let's uncover any remaining bug there might be.
> 
> Ari
> 
> 

In principal, I agree with you 100%.  But this world is full of people 
that make technology decisions based on PERCEPTION or outdated policies 
rather than technical merit or common sense.

Sadly, we live in a world where MANY companies do not allow ANY software 
with a version number <= 1.0 to be installed on their hardware.  They 
won't allow 1.0 so advocating 0.x software is akin to getting an "I'm an 
irresponsible & reckless employee" tatooed on one's forehead.  Not 
exactly the smart thing to do when an Indian with a masters degree in 
Comp Sci can do your job at 1/10th your salary these days without 
advocating 0.x software.

I know of one company that wouldn't allow Apache 1.3 to replace IIS 4.0 
solely on the basis of IT policy not allowing software with version 1.x 
to be installed.

So while I agree with you in principal, I think fcgi going 1.0, 1.1 or 
2.1 (better still) would make it SUBSTANTIALLY easier to convince many 
companies to use Ruby+Rails in the enterprise.  Keeping it at 0.x means 
that it has zero chance of getting installed in many places.