Yes, this is my camp đ.
Every layer or tool adds many cool features (their raison d'ĂȘtre) which you
donât need for the "easy" setup.
You typically need only a handful of the configuration parameters at most
(imagine PostgreSQL, Apache, Jenkins etc.).
Yet, all the myriad of super-duper feature settings add to confusion and are
nice traps for interesting bugs.
The complexity of a system is probably exponential to the number of tools or
layers...
And each one of them wants to be updated...
And each has its own documentation (which you have to read when you get
unlucky) with its own conventions...
No thanks. I try to keep my stack as simple as possible.
Thatâs also a good reason for Smalltalk, because it makes it much easier to
keep all pieces together.
Happy hacking,
Christian
> -----UrsprĂŒngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: jtuc...@objektfabrik.de <jtuc...@objektfabrik.de>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. April 2021 18:15
> An: pharo-users@lists.pharo.org
> Betreff: [Pharo-users] Re: Whats the easiest/cheapest way to run a Pharo
> web app in 2021?
>
> Norbert,
>
> you nailed it ;-) Easy and cheap and lots of layers of magic infrastructure
> nailed and hammered onto each other don't go well with each other. I am
> still a fan of having some server - virtual or physical
> - that I can reinstall from scratch and as little moving parts as possible on
> top
> of that. I rather have a little collection of sheets on which I wrote down
> each
> single step of installing what's needed and a good backup of ini files and
> whatnot than a pile of "stuff" that makes things "easy".
>
> I know, that's so 90ies, but hey, we're using Smalltalk from the 70ies ;-)
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
> Am 13.04.21 um 18:09 schrieb Norbert Hartl:
> > I read the title which contains âeasiest/cheapestâ and then you drop
> > names âdockerâ, "CI which injectsâ and âstages" ⊠this invalidates at
> > least âeasiestâ and maybe âcheapestâ as well. I think I missed the
> > intent of this mail. So can you give a few more details otherwise it
> > is hard to meet the âeasiest on this level of requirementsâ
> >
> > Norbert
> >
> >> Am 12.04.2021 um 10:36 schrieb Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works>:
> >>
> >> That is cheap 3e/m is definitely worth considering⊠but I guess you do
> have to take care of your own patching etc right (which isnât necessarily
> horrible, but does require a bit of extra effort to track things). I was
> interested in whether the next step up in the food chain using Docker images
> that are hosted for you, might lessen the burden a bit? E.g. if your CI
> injects a
> pharo image into the latest âsafeâ docker image from the community - then
> hopefully you are insulated from all of this. It does look like this is
> becoming
> a reality if that dockerize.io soln plays out (I got that working, its cheap -
> however they havenât answered any of my email queries⊠so I do wonder
> how real it actually is). The fallback would definitely be something like
> Hetzner or Digital Ocean I guess.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>> On 12 Apr 2021, at 08:47, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Am 12.04.2021 um 04:02 schrieb Jeff Gray <j...@rogerthedog.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Considering easiest and cheapest, there's always self hosting, or
> >>>> are you discounting that idea?
> >>>> Most geeks have a bit of spare hardware laying around and broadband
> >>>> up-speeds aren't too bad.
> >>>> I'm guessing that if we are in the $5 a month ball park then we
> >>>> aren't needing a guaranteed up time.
> >>>>
> >>> My cloud instance is 3âŹ/month. With an additional 20% amount the
> instance has a backup. And setting it up is way simpler then getting dynamic
> DNS updates and all of that configured. Times have changed a bit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Norbert
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuc...@objektfabrik.de
> Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de
> D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com
> Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
