Hi Markus,
On 11 June 2013 17:05, Markus Teich wrote:
> is there a particular reason for using (f)cgi scripts to serve a purely
> static website?
> Wouldn't plain html suck less?
As the name swerc indicates, the s not only stands for "simple", but
is also intended to stand for "static" -- the la
>>On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:36 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.afaik.de/usenet/faq/zitieren/
>
> And yes, this is *also* valid for eMail.
Did you try to give an example of how not to quote? I don't get it.
Andrew Gwozdziewycz dixit:
>But how often does stuff actually get updated? You can simply pregenerate
>all the content and serve it... For a site with 50 pages, that's nothing.
FWIW, the MirBSD website is kept in CVS and generated with
some (BSD) make and mksh scripts, then rsync’d to a webserver
get a job.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> alright if we are dreaming and scheming...
>
> Why not have static pages which are all within a git repository? When
> there is a change pushed to the server, a git hook could run the
> re-generate script to recreate the static
http://shebang.ws/fugitive-readme.html
seems to do exacty that. It might be worth looking into.
--Markus
Am 2013-06-11 18:45, schrieb Calvin Morrison:
alright if we are dreaming and scheming...
Why not have static pages which are all within a git repository? When
there is a change pushed to t
alright if we are dreaming and scheming...
Why not have static pages which are all within a git repository? When
there is a change pushed to the server, a git hook could run the
re-generate script to recreate the static files in the appropriate
directories with the headers and such.
Calvin
On
Greetings.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:30:36 +0200 Markus Teich
wrote:
> is there a particular reason for using (f)cgi scripts to serve a purely
> static website?
> Wouldn't plain html suck less?
If you volunteer to do implement this, contact me. For now suckless.org
is still using the werc remnan
werc itself doesn't tell anyone to use fastcgi. stupid suckless.
i don't know anything about fastcgi or "suckless", I thought you just
asked why we use any CGI at all.
_who gives a shit_
For a site with 50 pages, fcgi is nothing.
On 11 June 2013 11:59, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> But how often does stuff actually get updated? You can simply pregenerate
> all the content and serve it... For a site with 50 pages, that's nothing.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at
I really don't give a shit.
The real question is why is FastCGI "suckless" approved. It's a pretty
shitty and complicated protocol for what it does, especially when compared
to SCGI.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> _who gives a shit_
>
> For a site with 50 pages, fcgi
But how often does stuff actually get updated? You can simply pregenerate
all the content and serve it... For a site with 50 pages, that's nothing.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:36 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example because people didn't want to worry about having to update
> stuff th
For example because people didn't want to worry about having to update
stuff that gets included on multiple pages.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:11:03 -0400 Jacob Todd
wrote:
> No, not having a website would suck less.
Not having a website would suck more...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
No, not having a website would suck less.
Heyho,
is there a particular reason for using (f)cgi scripts to serve a purely
static website?
Wouldn't plain html suck less?
--Markus
16 matches
Mail list logo
