5 ms·

Not a single Cherokee server :(: http://cherokee-project.org http://cherokee-project.org

by joyinsky 13y ago

bithive123 13y ago
Did you mean http://cherokee-project.com/ http://cherokee-project.com/ ? Your link goes to a nonexistent GitHub Page.
windsurfer 13y ago
Server is down for me. Not a good sign...
- smokestack 13y ago
  It's actually .com, not .org
Argorak 13y ago
After trying to help a friend to make Cherokee, Rack and Shotgun (yes, he insisted on reloading using shotgun) work together, I abandoned the server as "ungoogleable".
- mrweasel 13y ago
  Yep, it's just to hard to get help. Perhaps because it's easier to just post a config snippet for Nginx or Apache that having to take a bunch of screenshots.
codexon 13y ago
I remember when I was moving off of Apache, I gave Cherokee a try. It was harder to configure than writing an Nginx conf.
harshreality 13y ago
I think the stats speak for themselves. Very few people like Cherokee. Advertising it isn't going to help. The devs need to understand why people tend not to like it and change it so that people do like it. (They've already been told the way they handle configuration is not very good, and they reject that... good for them, but as a result and perhaps for a few other reasons too Cherokee won't be doing well on any web server survey for the foreseeable future.) I would argue that the GUI model of configuring complex server-type services is generally wrong. At most, GUIs are good for tweaking configurations, not for setting up a baseline config to begin with.
bdamm 13y ago
Wow, poor reputation and a racially charged name with a historically insulting pictograph. I wasn't aware that such poor taste even existed in open source projects.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  unlike, you know, apache's logo and name
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
mrweasel 13y ago
We tested it for a project and actually liked it. However the configuration interface is a bit tricky to get your head around. It looks nice and works just fine for most things, we just found it to complex when working with we started adding multiple Django application, domains, rewrite rules and so on. In the end just firing up Nginx was quicker to configure, easier to understand and most of all easier to debug. Still it a webserver I like to pull out and play with every now and then, even if I end up just using Nginx.

Not a single Cherokee server :(: http://cherokee-project.org http://cherokee-project.org

bithive123 13y ago

Did you mean http://cherokee-project.com/ http://cherokee-project.com/ ? Your link goes to a nonexistent GitHub Page.

windsurfer 13y ago

Server is down for me. Not a good sign...

smokestack 13y ago
It's actually .com, not .org

Argorak 13y ago

After trying to help a friend to make Cherokee, Rack and Shotgun (yes, he insisted on reloading using shotgun) work together, I abandoned the server as "ungoogleable".

mrweasel 13y ago
Yep, it's just to hard to get help. Perhaps because it's easier to just post a config snippet for Nginx or Apache that having to take a bunch of screenshots.

codexon 13y ago

I remember when I was moving off of Apache, I gave Cherokee a try. It was harder to configure than writing an Nginx conf.

harshreality 13y ago

I think the stats speak for themselves. Very few people like Cherokee. Advertising it isn't going to help. The devs need to understand why people tend not to like it and change it so that people do like it. (They've already been told the way they handle configuration is not very good, and they reject that... good for them, but as a result and perhaps for a few other reasons too Cherokee won't be doing well on any web server survey for the foreseeable future.) I would argue that the GUI model of configuring complex server-type services is generally wrong. At most, GUIs are good for tweaking configurations, not for setting up a baseline config to begin with.

bdamm 13y ago

Wow, poor reputation and a racially charged name with a historically insulting pictograph. I wasn't aware that such poor taste even existed in open source projects.

throwaway2048 13y ago
unlike, you know, apache's logo and name
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

mrweasel 13y ago

We tested it for a project and actually liked it. However the configuration interface is a bit tricky to get your head around. It looks nice and works just fine for most things, we just found it to complex when working with we started adding multiple Django application, domains, rewrite rules and so on. In the end just firing up Nginx was quicker to configure, easier to understand and most of all easier to debug. Still it a webserver I like to pull out and play with every now and then, even if I end up just using Nginx.