Report problems, make suggestions, request features here.
If I set up a fossil repository when I switch server, is that fine?
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:06
Why can't you set one up here for now, then when you get the new server, you copy the partitions/files over?
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:15
>>2 There is a reason. Also, I'd rather not duplicate work. Since I never use Apache, getting random things to work with nginx takes a good amount of messing around with configs.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:16
Is this a local problem or is the new /prog/ displayed smaller than the new one?
>>4 It's not just you, I set the font size a bit smaller.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:24
>>4 We are using table cat's software for now. We are going to switch right? What should we switch to?
Also, I'm posting from tor. Would it be ok to leave tor unbanned? Pretty pretty please? I don't trust you the owners of the infrastructure leading to your server and/or the owners of the physical server machine with my ip address.
Name:
Admin2013-09-02 18:27
>>7 I'll leave it unbanned if it doesn't cause problems. I probably won't ever really ban IPs anyway, I'll just delete / filter / prevent spam using my EXPERT PROGRAMMER skills.
I plan to switch to my own textboard eventually. Though, there's also Kareha? Tablecat really isn't bad, though.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:29
>>8 I'd rather stay with Tablecat. I like it a lot, and I don't see any reason to switch to Kareha.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:30
>>8 Sounds good. It'll be fun to develop one in (scheme)
Name:
Admin2013-09-02 18:36
>>10 I actually wrote an interpreter to use with nginx because 1. I couldn't actually find a server-side Scheme thing anyway, and 2. the ones I could find in Lisp required you to use an entire web server / interpreter monstrosity. Whereas I'd rather just use nginx and then summon the interpreter through FastCGI.
I'm more or less done with the interpreter itself. It's more than fast enough to be used for something like this. I'll look at the FastCGI spec soon and write an interface for it, then we can put it all together and use it with the Scheme BBS.
>>11 Interpreters are fun to do as well. You probably could have just hooked in chicken. It's pretty easy to do stuff like that when you can just inline C, but I don't know much about nginx.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 18:56
>>8 Can you make a hidden service? You know, it's funner to use Tor to browse a hidden service than to browse a clear site.
There's little point right now since I already registered the domain and everyone already knows the IP of the server.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 21:35
>>13 None of the interpreters I looked at were extensible to the point that I needed. I have to integrate a FastCGI module into the interpreter if I don't want it to be horribly slow.
I'll release the code for everything when I'm done with it all.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 21:44
>>16 Hmm, something tells me it might be possible to compile all the cgi to native code. I don't know if that's a sane way of doing it or not, but it seems doable.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 21:48
>>17 Well, the point is not compiling it to native code. You can compile Scheme code into a pretty efficient representation for most purposes. The point is that if you don't write integrate a sort of FastCGI daemon into the interpreter (as some sort of extension), then every time that the page loads the interpreter needs to start, load the environment, load the script, set up the connections, etc, etc. And there's no possibility of caching anything if it's starting up from zero every time.
That's the real issue, and that's why I wrote my own interpreter and am writing my own FastCGI daemon for this. It would basically just do what php-fastcgi and perl-fastcgi do, it runs as a daemon on a port and nginx feeds it the script to run along with the HTTP parameters passed, and the daemon fetches the script from the disk / cache, evals it, and returns the body to nginx which then relays it to the client. Much better overall.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 22:12
>>18 Ah, I understand the architecture now. Yeah, if you are keeping them separate like that, that is the best way. I noticed the same problem when I was looking at implementations to use for this. There wasn't anything out there like perl-fastcgi. There was mod-lisp, but it has more overhead of passing data through a local socket.
I was assuming something like compiling the whole thing, cgi and the web server, into one monolithic binary or a bundle of shared libraries.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-02 22:20
>>19 That's annoying if you have to change or update stuff, though. If I wanted to go that route, I'd probably just use straight C. I'm more than comfortable enough in C to do that, but I think Scheme lends itself really well to server-side scripting and so I wanted to write this. As you said, there isn't really anything like this out there, which is a shame. So perhaps if I can pull it off well enough it might find many uses, and make Scheme a little more used in general.
There is a reason. Also, I'd rather not duplicate work. Since I never use Apache, getting random things to work with nginx takes a good amount of messing around with configs.
I am confused, shouldn't it just be a simple migration/copy of two jailed processes on the same server, with the switch of DNS zone? >>15 I see, so you are worried about the IP address being exposed, since you may have things on this server already; which maybe why you looking into running hidden services. Try Gnunet and/or Freenet. Tor if you want to risk it like you already have.
>>21 That isn't my repo. Don't worry about the reasons. I'll migrate this when needed. I've already half completed the FastCGI interface, so it's all fine, anyway.
>>22 I plan to set up a repo and put the code on it when I have it at a respectable level so you can all contribute if you like. That's what I was thinking, as well, with the security thing. Plus, it's always better to separate things and have one thing do its thing well, rather than have something try to handle everything at once.
Much more useful if the parts can be combined in whichever way.
What's with the timestamps? Doesn't seem to be UTC {-7, -5} (murrika times), UTC {-6, -4} (murrika summer time) nor UTC 0 (DA ISO STANDARD). So what timezone is it?
>>28 What if ``Don't bump'' just turned the name blue? I can't really think of another use for emails aside from having johhnyizcool1997@outlook.com be a tip-off for irony.
>>27 I'll get around to it. Self-signed because I'm not paying for the nonsense CA web of retardation.
>>28,29 I'm reluctant to actually change the board software itself. Perl is one of the few languages I've done very little with because I despise. It's also usually hard to read due to VALID PERL CODE. I'll look into it but if it takes me more than 5 minutes it's probably not happening. I'm also fairly busy with work so I don't have time to look after this 24/7, I figure I'll need to appoint a moderator to help me out eventually.
Name:
Admin2013-09-03 6:10
>>24 I'm not really sure why the time zone is like that since the server is in the US. Doesn't concern me much, really. >>25 Looks fine to me. If I change the size it might start messing with kopipe.
Seems like Tablecat just appends a number inside the post class (class="post [10][timestamp]") that it then parses again on read / index build to figure out which posts were sages or not. If 1 the post was a sage, otherwise it was a normal post.
>>39 I don't understand why it happens. I think Tablecat only allows one post for every 10 seconds no matter the IP. I'll change it now, I guess. Really weird.