4 ms·
Why not just run a single web server and set it up to serve public_html from people's home folders? The difference to that multiuser system is that we want peo
by FeepingCreature 9y ago
Why not just run a single web server and set it up to serve public_html from people's home folders?
The difference to that multiuser system is that we want people to manage their own infrastructure. That's the real reason for the bloat - no matter how much that VM server costs, I bet you it costs less than paying people to administer a shared infrastructure. It has nothing to do with ports.
- catern 9y ago>Why not just run a single web server and set it up to serve public_html from people's home folders? Doesn't work with dynamic content beyond CGI, which is too slow and usually not supported by modern web frameworks.
- pmoriarty 9y agoCould you elaborate on why it doesn't work with dynamic content beyond CGI? Is this some kind of insurmountable limit, or is it just the web frameworks don't care to support it?
- catern 9y agoIt's not an insurmountable limit; it's not the web framework's fault either. It's that there's not a way for a individual user to indicate to a shared system-wide webserver, "Here is the FastCGI (or whatever) socket that you should connect to, to generate dynamic content for my home directory." But certainly a way to express that could be created.
- kalleboo 9y agoHaven't home folders worked fine with PHP for ages and ages? They even used to have safemode to work around permissions issues.
- catern 9y agoPHP is either CGI or a specially-supported special-case in the shared webserver.