Squeak Hosting

Stephen Pair spair at advantive.com
Thu Apr 18 13:30:14 UTC 2002


Speaking of this issue...there are some technical problems with hosting
Squeak+Comanche servers.  If you have something relatively small that
you want to host, Squeak can be a bit of overkill.  You'd probably have
a difficult time squeezing more than a few dozen servers on a single
box.  On the other hand, if you try to go the route of running a single
Squeak process with multiple services running in it, then you get into
all sorts of thorny security issues (because Squeak has no security
mechanism available).  You certainly couldn't allow customers to each
have access to the image.

Hosting apache + cgi (or equivalent) has an advantage because it uses
the security model provided by the Unix platform.  People can use shell
and ftp access to upload their cgi programs and manipulate their
content.  If you had 100 accounts all running Squeak servers, it might
not work so good.

What would be great is to have a Squeak system with its own security
capability.  You could then allow multiple users to gain remote access
to Squeak in order to upload their software and content.  Then you only
need to run a single Squeak image.

- Stephen

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> > Behalf Of John Hinsley
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:16 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: Squeak Hosting
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, German S. Arduino wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Someone know some provider offering Squeak+
> > > Comanche hosting?
> > 
> > No
> > > 
> > > I've a friend that have a hosting Linux company,
> > > and I'm insisting for him start offering Squeak
> > > hosting? You think that may be useful?
> > 
> > Yes. I'm looking to run Comanche when I finally save up the
> > money to put together (and collocate) my webserver (anyone 
> > got a 1U case going cheap?). I see the main advantage in 
> > being able to do swiki - like things with next to no input 
> > from administrators, very much the kind of thing small 
> > communities and interest groups could benifit from. And as 
> > such, I think it might be a good selling point for a provider.
> > 
> >  Cheers
> > 
> > John
> > --
> > Microsoft to abandon HailStorm? 
> > http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/04/12/> story/0000131621
> > 
> > Windows XP bad for eyesight?
> > http://www.pcplus.co.uk/article.asp?id=32134&CAT=NEWS
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list