Talk:Roxen (web server)
|This page was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
a list of articles and sites that can be used to source material to rewrite this page:
" English was only a second language to the people documenting it."
The explanation for why we're not all running Roxen in 2013:
- Roxen's largest obstacle was probably that English was only a second language to the people documenting it.
We swedes are overall better at English than most people outside .us/.ca/.uk/.au, including the rest of W Europe. I haven't read the Roxen documentation, but it seems probable that if it is hard to understand, that has more to do with the authors' writing skills (or focus on documentation) in general. /JöG (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- i concur, the language of the documentation is actually quite good.
- the real reason is more likely to be meager support for the user and developer community./184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. I worked there 1997-2001; we were all much more interested in building cool tech than supporting beginner users.
- (this is not really a wikipedia question, but a user support question for the roxen forums). make the webinterface available only to internal ip's via https? how secure do you want it to be?—220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Roxen is more than a webserver
it is really an application server and web development framework. it just isn't called that way because it was written like that in the early 90s before any other web development frameworks in existance. a similar example is CL-HTTP which was written around the same time. (Spinner was written in 1994 or earlier) and also calls itself a Web Server but includes a whole Web Application Framework.
The Web Development article does not support the claim that "programmers involved with web sites had little need for Roxen's specialized features". Just because programmers do not care about server administration, and server administrators do not care about programming, does not mean that it would be a bad idea for having both functions combined into one application. the advantages are rather in the different architecture this results in, affecting performance for example. i see therefore no basis for this statement within the Web Development article. if you want to stand by it, please provide a citation.—(eMBee)18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
i restored the history section with added citations (and removed stuff that didn't make sense) but then decided that this paragraph is more a general description than history.
a real history section should talk about the beginning as spider and then spinner, the incorporation of the company and renaming to roxen. the rewrite of roxen 2.0 and the subsequent "fork" of roxen 1.3 as caudium. the addition of non-free components such as roxen platform (later renamed to roxen cms) and newer products like roxen editorial portal. ending with its currently apparent focus on online newspapers. (eMBee)22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)