Honestly, neither of these guys need us feeding their egos. They've contributed some decent infrastructure for web hacking, but if they want to have a he-said/she-said argument, that's their business. I personally don't want to waste any more time on their little ego-fest.
Let's turn this into a thread about Passenger, instead, since both of them seem to be blessing it as the next great thing for Rails deployment. Personally, I've been nervous about using it in production, mainly because I don't yet trust that it isn't going to interact poorly with my rewrite rules and authN/Z setup. Apache configurations can feel a bit like voodoo even when modules aren't stomping all over each other, and the interaction of Passenger with mod_rewrite, in particular, seems like it could cause breakage.
That being said, once you get the thing packaged and installed (which wasn't as easy under Debian as I'd like), it does save a lot of resources compared to a Mongrel-based deployment. I've seen a drastic reduction in RAM usage, as well as a major decrease in the number of idle database connections lying around in inactive Mongrel backends.
I hear it's possible to install it on a spare box and see if it works with your rewrite rules or not. Let's call it "testing".
I'm not attacking you, mind you, just pointing out that it's a better general principle to treat others based on what you believe is civil and acceptable rather than based on whether other people think this particular person deserves it.
We are using Passenger + mod_rewrite where I work with no problems.
Also I want to say Zed was very helpful debugging problems when we were using Mongrel in the early days and I appreciate his contributions.
Let's settle it now:
* Mongrel wasn't leaking.
* DHH clearly appears to have misspoken.
* But DHH also clearly said the leaks were in his application code.
The rest of this post is just more-of-the-same drama from Zed.
This time, instead of bizarro rants about Ruby security, or the play-by-play of the crank calls he gets, we get to hear about how Mongrel destroyed his career and how Rails will destroy the Passenger team. I can't see how this stuff has any relevance to me, as a professional developer, at all. If you can't make time to contribute to open source projects without screwing up your career, don't do it.
Zed just wrote a whole blog post about how DHH's "mythbusting" post was wrong.
As evidence, he cited a factual error in DHH's post that was not relevant to DHH's argument.
Logic seems to show how Zed was wrong. Innuendo and personality drama is all that implied DHH was wrong.
Well, all the code is available, right? You should base your decisions on the design and implementation of Rails, not on one of the author's blog. This is a really scary pattern emerging that I've noticed. It seems like people want to base their infrastructure decisions on things that don't matter. "Well, I would use $foo, but the website doesn't look very nice." "$foo seems nice, but the main author can be mean." If this is how you make IT decisions, I pity you.
(A while back, someone posted to my blog a comment that read, "Because you were so mean on CPAN Ratings, I've suggested to my clients that they use PHP instead of Catalyst." That doesn't seem like a very sound way of evaluating infrastructure decisions, especially since I am not the author of Catalyst. If they want to make more work for themselves because they don't like me, all I can do is point and laugh. Clearly I'm mentally ill, though.)
I can stare at the code all I want and still be no closer to knowing how rails performs under load, or how much memory it leaks. That isn't just about the code, it's about behavioral interactions with the OS, level of traffic, other layers in the stack. To address those issues I could run a million performance evaluation experiments, or I could try to gauge how the community is doing, who's using it that is kinda in the same situation as me, and what issue's they're dealing with. And I refuse to believe you don't do the same.
He's not talking about what words DHH uses in a blog. He's talking about DHH's credibility in saying rails was production-ready. That is relevant to platform choices.
The blog post comment that you refer to seems to reflect a poor thought process. However, mine has a little more reasoning behind it.
Don't let it.
Put it this way, I'm definitely no unconditional member of the DHH fan club, but his contributions to the Ruby world are streets ahead of Zed's. Whether you think Zed is great or not, none of that detracts from what DHH has done. DHH is pretty direct and a "good guy" (usually - Rails logo idiocy overlooked). DHH has not, in my experience, tended to be passive aggressive - though there are many in the Ruby and Rails pantheon who are.
I concur with tptacek's opinion above - all of his posts in this thread are on the money. On ZS's part, as interesting and amusing as these cries are, he's crying in a showman-esque way - just sit back and enjoy the show. (Don't believe me? Try: The one thing that pissed me off about the Mongrel project was how it destroyed my career path. -- Destroyed his career path? It was a semi-popular project for a minor language - get a grip.)
My qualifications to make these statements? Not as strong as those for some others, but I've been a Rails coder since 2004 and run the largest Ruby blog so I believe I've seen a lot of what's gone on.
I've also gone back and re-read the original Zed rant and when he says "That’s a production application that can’t stay up for more than 4 minutes on average", it is clearly wrong (even according to the very conversation that he posted,) and he should issue the retraction, if he has not already.
I've been on rails for 3 years now. http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/7008-aaron-blohowiak
* Who cares?
The reason I think this is interesting, though, is because this behavior apparently rubs off on Rails users. I know someone who switched from Perl to Ruby (on Rails) a while back. He came back to the Perl community by writing his own super-great web framework. When anyone gives it any technical criticism, he immediately replies with something like "I had a friend like you. I hope you get help and get better." blood pressure rising
In conclusion, everyone that uses Rails is mentally ill :)
But yes, I definitely need help!
It's as easy to use as Rails, plus has no such toxic people hanging around it.
"Normally I wouldn’t give a shit. Ruby on Rails is so far from my world right now that I don’t even really care. I play guitar and write with maybe some coding to pay the bills and that’s about it."
Man, Zed's too cool for Rails. He plays guitar. He doesn't care what those Rails people think. But let him post this one long rant to "clear something up"...
And Zed is by no means alone. I seem to remember that Guido Van Rossum wasn't paid for his work on Python for many many years, until 2005 actually when he was hired by google. (Of course I don't know whether he actually tried to get paid for python work) During all those years, python was one of the most popular programming languages.
In the commercial space, someone who makes something as popular as Mongrel, let alone Python, does get paid more than enough for one person. Something's very wrong with this business model.
Although this little feud is getting old, I'm also looking forward to DHH's response. It will be interesting to see if his comment about Mongrel was simply an oversight or a cheap shot lie. I think it shows a total lack of class on the part of DHH to publicly speculate on a blog about Zed's mental well-being so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was the latter.
"But still an inconvenience, naturally. Nobody likes a memory leak. So I was happy when a patch emerged that fixed it and we could stop doing that. I believe the fix appeared some time in 2006. So even when Zed published his implosion at the end of 2007, this was already ancient history."
I assumed the patch he referred to was for Rails, not Mongrel. And why would Zed make such a big deal about this in the first place if it were his own software's fault?
Memory leaks in Mongrel that were fixed in 2006 are the at the center of DHH's argument that RoR crashes are ancient history. Yet Zed shows that the application DHH is referring to that previously needed to be restarted 400 times a day wasn't even running on Mongrel.
It is easy and more fun to assume malice, but honest mistakes happen.
Edit: I agree 100% with jm4's elaboration down below.
Edit: please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=365020
Who's picking on Obie Fernandez?
this kind of refutes the idea that you can make a good living by writing an open source package and selling support for it.