Hi,

It seems the question has not been posted yet, and is more relevant when Links SQL runs on shared server than on dedicated server. When the server runs in safe mode, it is not clean to build pages via web browser ("Build Static Pages"). It is better to use a telnet SSH/Telnet account in order to keep the ownership of pages and repertories.

With Php, I know it is possible to bypass that restriction, either using a ftp connection to build pages/repertories, either using some tips that permit to build pages from the web keeping the ownership.

Well, but with Perl ...

Do you think it would be possible to hardcode a Links SQL 2 installation in order to let it build the static pages and repertories keeping the right ownership ? Do you think that question makes sense for the users that are on shared server with safe mode ?

Any opinion about this would be much appreciated. Thanks !

Amicalement / Regards,
Gautier Girard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
French Partner of Gossamer Threads
Articles, conseils sur le Marketing internet, le référencement et la promotion de sites.

Did you try Fileman? It can execute commands, however I don't know what user will use...
You can start Fileman in Admin/Build/FileMan.
There is a Command link at the top. Click on it, and type the command at the bottom of page.

But please note, I'm not Apache guru, so you should ask the idea from others, too.
I just tell you my idea. Responsibility is yours.

Best regards,
Webmaster33

---

Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

Hi Webmaster33,

Thanks for the reply . I didn't try Fileman indeed. I'm sure more people should be interested in this, once I have tried I will post a reply to say what happens for those who would like to do a search in the future.

Thanks !

Amicalement / Regards,
Gautier Girard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
French Partner of Gossamer Threads
Articles, conseils sur le Marketing internet, le référencement et la promotion de sites.

This is a Unix problem. There is no way to "hard code" a user into the build, since the build runs as the user it runs as. If you could do that, you would have a M$-like security system, where anyone could change anything they wanted to at any time.

Have you asked your ISP to set up a cron job for you?

The cron job should run as "you" and all pages built by the cron job will be owned by you, not the webserver.


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.

Well that's not totally true :) ...especially with NT and Win2K

Win NT??? are you *kidding* ???? List of security holes was so big they quit counting. Kind of like Jean Reno to Matt Broderick in Godzilla, after they entered Madison Square Garden.

I had a friend on the "inside" of the "fix the holes" industry, and had a running list of what was going on almost daily, since we each ran networked BBS's. I used OS2 and he was using DOS on separate processor cards because NT *was* so bad it was cheaper to do it that way. I was using OS/2 because it ran 8 digiboard ports, 2 internal serial ports, and 12 DOS windows on a 386/486 without ever crashing, or suffering performance problems with 8 14.4 modems and 2 28.8 modems (that was the speed king of the day).

Windows NT -- which I was beta testing the "new" BBS software on, kept crashing, and even booted up one time and told me since I was not using my communications subsystem, it would remove it -- out of kindness -- and if I ever needed it again, I could reinstall it.

That was nice of it. Considering I was running a dial-up BBS at the time, and the only software I *was* using was communications software, it was a little off base, but it was still polite about it.

It was at that point, I realized I could not trust M$ in *any* wan to run my business, and switched to *nix based OS's.

In all fairness, I have not used Win 2000, but I can't believe it was much better, since XP* is so much worse.

One thing you need to realize, is I've been around for 40 years, and was there for most of this stuff. My university was instrumental in developing software for the Internet, and early protocols. I worked at IBM in Yorktown's TJ Watson Research division for almost a year right after the PC was released, and I've been "on-line" since the top speed of modems was 110 baud on a teletype. I paid a king's ransom for my Hayes 1200B internal modem, and was happy as could be I didn't have suffer through 300kbs downloads any more. I was there for all the hype, broken promises, and flat-out lies these jokers told. I have a back room filled with software that is worthless, mostly due to M$ and their obsolescene philosophy. I'v spent hours (years?) trying to bypass their bugs, make incompatible hardware work, and get things up and running -- and I was *good* at it. I got TSR's to stack and function when the companies said it was impossible. I was there for the 640k boundary, and the moron who said "640k is all a person will ever need," and then tried for a couple of years to *proove* he was right. Well, I'm depressing myself again. And dating myself.

If you want a real OS, look at OS/2 or Unix. Don't ever mistake Windows for an OS. For years it was only a "shell." Now it's pretending to be an OS, and it's very bad at it.

If you had to reboot Unix every time you added a piece of software, the Internet would die.

How many times did you have to reboot Windows to install Office ?? Then there was the "updates" from on-line. That was another 3 or 4.

Anyway, I've got work to do, and Windows just gets in the way.


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.

Well what can I say, I've been using XP for over a year now and I really can't remember it crashing once.

XP is built on the NT kernel as you probably know.

The question of bugs didn't seem to be related to the point you originally made. I was replying to your remark that anyone can change anything on windows, which isn't the case.

Also regarding reboots - linux and windows are two different operating systems intended for two different purposes (in general) and as we all know they have vast differences. I don't think windows was ever intended to be a platform for web serving in the same way linux was, it was a home computing system and so the need for installing an application or registering application extensions without a reboot was not necessary. I'm sure the *nix developers made a conscious effort to change this knowing that the constant reboot of servers was not viable for internet servers.

I don't really think it is wise to tell people what platform to use and what not to use. There are lots of factors to consider when choosing the platform. When properly configured there are advantages to both genres of operating systems. I find it hard to bear when people force their own greivances onto others. That is probably how the whole Microsoft hatred wave started. It is human instict to be part of a group and to follow a leader. If someone tells you something is bad, you avoid it. I prefer to make up my own mind based on past experiences, necessity and requirements and as of yet I don't have anything bad to say about microsoft, nor linux. I use both and find both appealing in different way. Infact I currently prefer XP to any other operating system I've used, but I wouldn't try to force everyone to use XP, I'd let them make up their own mind.