From diogenes at xenodochy.org Sun Jul 20 16:35:05 2008 From: diogenes at xenodochy.org (Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr.) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:35:05 -0400 Subject: what is the latest release In-Reply-To: <200804141546114533691@iovst.com> References: <200804140726.m3E7QW4P011227@mx3.redhat.com> <200804141546114533691@iovst.com> Message-ID: I searched this question so that I could upgrade my RedHat 9 to Fedora, but I could not find any updates for tux. The latest document for Tux is copyright 2002 and is version 2.2. The last version of Redhat which lists documentation for Tux is RHEL 4. In my research, I discoverd that the kernel must specifically support Tux. It worked great in RedHat 9. As near as I can tell, Tux, per se, is no longer available for more recent versions of Redhat Linux. The Tux.org ftp site is no longer functional. My conclusion is that two stage static (tux) and dynamic (apache) web serving is no longer an option. It looks like I'll have to run Fedora as a server with just apache - no tux. Best of luck, Ralph On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:46:12 -0400, sunlei wrote: > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/tux/ > You can look this links. > Maybe it can help you;) > > > 2008-04-14 > > > > sunlei > > > > ???? Benny Frishberg > ????? 2008-04-14 15:28:31 > ???? 'TUX discussion list' > ??? > ??? RE: what is the latest release > It is not compiled with the REHL5 kernel. > How do I patch it? > > > > From: tux-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:tux-list-bounces at redhat.com] > On Behalf Of sunlei > Sent: ? 14 ????? 2008 09:17 > To: TUX discussion list > Subject: Re: what is the latest release > Hi: > I'm sorry. I don't know yet. > But I think the TUX is contained in RHEL5 now > 2008-04-14 > > > > sunlei > > > > ???? Benny Frishberg > ????? 2008-04-13 20:28:37 > ???? tux-list at redhat.com > ??? > ??? what is the latest release > Hi > What is the latest stable release of tax and where can I download it > from? > -- Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. http://www.xenodochy.org/ralph.html 191 White Oaks Road Williamstown, MA 01267-2259 Phone: 413-458-3597 Home pages: http://www.xenodochy.org http://www.ballroomdances.org ------------------------------------------------------- FIGHT SPAM http://www.xenodochy.org/diogenes/antispam.html (If you are thinking about collecting my email address, read the above page first!) ------------------------------------------------------ Plain text markup: *bold*, /italic/, _underline_, LOUD -------------------------------------------------------- Keep our semantic environments and cyberspace clean. Always report errors discovered while surfing the web. ------------------------------------------------------ My favorite saying (from general semantics): It's not that seeing is believing, believing is seeing, and we're much better at believing than we are at seeing. http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/quotes/santayana.html From kyrian at ore.org Mon Jul 21 21:20:39 2008 From: kyrian at ore.org (Kyrian) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:20:39 +0100 Subject: "two stage" web serving - Not dead, just resting. In-Reply-To: <20080721160050.9527061AA87@hormel.redhat.com> References: <20080721160050.9527061AA87@hormel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4884FDA7.6090405@ore.org> > > My conclusion is that two stage static (tux) and dynamic (apache) web > serving is no longer an option. > > It looks like I'll have to run Fedora as a server with just apache - > no tux. I'll bite on this one. I'm going to be quite vague, though ;-) As I understand it, the gist of the argument is that since various changes in the 2.6 kernel allow for serving of static content much faster in eg. Apache ("sendfile" IIRC), it is no longer necessary to have TUX in-kernel, and hence development has been largely suspended. That is not to say, however, that "two stage" web serving is redundant or should be abandoned, even with multiple IP addresses on the same physical server. You only have to look at the memory footprint of a php or mod_perl enabled Apache server to see why. My personal experience on several projects is that it is well worth pursuing a "two stage" method. However I'm not going to do all your work for you (and by virtue of the list archive, a lot of other people's work for them), so it will have to suffice to say that there are at least three different web servers which are well supported, cater for static content service, fast, and without a bloated memory footprint. I'll give you a little hint, and say that the keyword you are probably looking for is 'comparison' rather than 'static', though...? Beyond that, talk to me off-list and I can help more, probably for a fee though ;-) K. -- Kev Green, aka Kyrian. E: kyrian@ore.org WWW: http://kyrian.ore.org/ Linux/Security Contractor/LAMP Coder/ISP, via http://www.orenet.co.uk/ DJ via http://www.hellnoise.co.uk/