[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I still like C#/ASP.NET for it. ;-)

We use PHP, and the POVCOMP code is written in it. The server runs Apache 2
on FreeBSD.

If, however, as a few in this thread have suggested, it is possible to run
C#/ASP.NET on a Linux system I would be happy to set this up, and in fact
would even be quite interested in seeing if it would work well. I am not a
great fan of PHP, even though it's used extensively throughout the POV
site. (Basically I don't mind it but I would welcome something better).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> > I still like C#/ASP.NET for it. ;-)

> I am not a
> great fan of PHP, even though it's used extensively throughout the POV
> site. (Basically I don't mind it but I would welcome something better).

ruby and rails?

Post a reply to this message

Hello,

While I have never attempted to use the .NET framework on linux, I 
understand it is possible, and seems to be growing in popularity.
Hell, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

Like I said, I am more than willing to throw in my share of code on this.
I *do* have most of the code needed for the features I laid out sitting on 
my hdd in chunks right now from other projects and web apps I've built.

Note that I do not want to be the only one working on this though!
(bathed in gastly light from the baleful eye of the entire pov community) 
:-D

It would be nice to get a few devs together and establish some sort of 
consensus on the lang/platform/db/framework to be used(*without* infinite 
debate), and throw some code together in a quick/dirty/small proof of 
concept, and then go from there.  Sort of a feasibility study.

You know where I am going with the operation of the site, and know where my 
vote is cast.

I can be of most use to the project if it uses .NET, but honestly I don't 
even care if the app is written in sumerian slashed into the burning flesh 
of the damned by Abezithibod himself...

I just want the IRTC back and wouldn't at all mind helping. :-p

So whats next? :-)

Ian

"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote in 
message news:47afa4a2$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> I still like C#/ASP.NET for it. ;-)
>
> We use PHP, and the POVCOMP code is written in it. The server runs Apache 
> 2
> on FreeBSD.
>
> If, however, as a few in this thread have suggested, it is possible to run
> C#/ASP.NET on a Linux system I would be happy to set this up, and in fact
> would even be quite interested in seeing if it would work well. I am not a
> great fan of PHP, even though it's used extensively throughout the POV
> site. (Basically I don't mind it but I would welcome something better).
>
> -- Chris

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> So whats next? :-)

If I may...

What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can 
certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in 
some ways--but I don't see anyone arguing that. People are just 
pretending that the TC-RTC doesn't exist.

Is the problem that the TC-RTC has a name that starts with TC instead of I?

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

There are no problems which cannot be solved by judicious use of high 
explosives.
    -- British commando, circa WWII

Post a reply to this message

Hi, (nice forest macro, by the way..it looks great)

I intend no offense to the TC-RTC, and wish to avoid tertiary debate, but I 
do feel the need to state you made a very good case for the re-animation of 
the IRTC:

>People are just pretending that the TC-RTC doesn't exist.

That is a big problem. If people will not use something for any number of 
reasons it should/must be replaced.

I didn't even know the TC-RTC existed, its bookmarked now, but the above 
point is still very valid.

Additionally:

>What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can 
>certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in some 
>ways

There are many RTCs out there, I guess its just a matter of exposure, niche 
and user preference.
Perhaps the TC-RTC is a step back, I don't know. I'll trust you there.

In the end, since we *can* ressurect the IRTC with improvements, and people 
*would* use it and *do* want it back ....I say, why not?
:-D

However I guess you could put a poll on the povray and/or irtc homepage.

Ian

"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message 
news:47aff755$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> So whats next? :-)
>
> If I may...
>
> What problem are we trying to address that the TC-RTC does not? You can 
> certainly argue that the TC-RTC is a step backwards from the IRTC in some 
> ways--but I don't see anyone arguing that. People are just pretending that 
> the TC-RTC doesn't exist.
>
> Is the problem that the TC-RTC has a name that starts with TC instead of 
> I?
>
> -- 
> William Tracy
> afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
>
> There are no problems which cannot be solved by judicious use of high 
> explosives.
>    -- British commando, circa WWII

Post a reply to this message

[GDS|Entropy] escribió:
>> People are just pretending that the TC-RTC doesn't exist.
> 
> That is a big problem. If people will not use something for any number of 
> reasons it should/must be replaced.

No, it should be improved.

Post a reply to this message