IIS 7, php and fastcgi

It all started with this:

HTTP Error 500.0 - Internal Server Error
C:\Program Files (x86)\PHP\v5.3\php-cgi.exe - The FastCGI process exited unexpectedly

And Faulting application name: php-cgi.exe, version: 5.3.8.0, time stamp: 0x4e537f4b
Faulting module name: MSVCR90.dll, version: 9.0.30729.4940, time stamp: 0x4ca2ef57
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0003aefe
Faulting process id: 0xcbc
Faulting application start time: 0x01ccba9ed76d7828
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\PHP\v5.3\php-cgi.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Windows\WinSxS\x86_microsoft.vc90.crt_1fc8b3b9a1e18e3b_9.0.30729.4940_none_50916076bcb9a742\MSVCR90.dll
Report Id: 158dd077-2692-11e1-9344-000c29f76d8e

1. Opened up permissions for the iusr account on web.config as recommended by MS

2. Checked Event Viewer and saw this:
http://forums.iis.net/p/1181446/1995260.aspx

3. Googled and found this:
http://forums.iis.net/p/1181446/1995260.aspx

4. Which led me to this
http://drupal.org/node/1300312

5. Which then got me thinking about how the hell you apply a patch:
http://bri-space.com/content/how-patch-drupal-module-windows

6. And I downloaded this:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuwin32/files/patch/2.5.9-7/patch-2.5.9-7-setup.exe/download

7. Except it didn't work with the --binary switch, I got "**** cannot read binary data from tty on this platform'

8. So I opened the patch file and added this code to database.inc, replacing

'/^RELEASE SAVEPOINT (.*)$/' => 'SELECT 1 /* $0 */',

9. Which led to an error in menu.inc
SELECT TOP(1) * FROM {menu_router} WHERE path IN () ORDER BY fit DESC; Array ( ) in menu_get_item() (line 445 of

10. So I went through and did it all again after deleting the db tables (the install configuration will error out if it finds the tables have already been created.)

11. And I got this message:
SQLSTATE[23000]: [Microsoft][SQL Server Native Client 10.0][SQL Server]Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'registry_pkey'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.registry'.
http://drupal.org/node/1210862

12. Googled it, found people with the same problem but no fix.

13. Threw my hands up and said fuck it.

14. Looking for new Open Source CMS platform that works and allows me to skip steps during the install process :D.


Moral of the story: Jesus Christ Drupal is a pain in the ass and I'm ditching it for another CMS platform. Way too buggy and the install file is crap and won't let you skip steps (yes the db is already created.)

Configuration:
Windows 2008 server R2 SP1
SQL Server 2008
Commerce Guys Drupal
IIS 7

(Also if you plan on coming here going "HERP STOP USING IIS/MSSQL" I don't want to hear it. I'm not building another damned server because the Commerce Guys Drupal install doesn't work with a pretty typical config, thanks. I'm also starting to think Drupal is just buggy. I spent most of the day dealing with the regular Drupal package yesterday and couldn't get it to work then either. But I'll take any help. For now I'm scrapping the whole thing. At least I learned how to set up the php handlers in IIS :))

Edit: After my ranting I thought I'd give the Acquia install a go. Perfect, took 5 minutes.

The Crystal Cox verdict

Crystal sent me her briefs and legal docs a few weeks ago. I read through them and thought about what that meant in regards to my case and how mine pertained to her. Today the Oregonian reported on her verdict.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I was advised against using the retraction statute in Oregon as it hasn't been clarified to apply to bloggers. Disappointingly Judge Hernandez's ruling supports that, even though it seems like common sense. I believe the retraction statute should apply. Perhaps it's time to petition the legislature. Think about the amount of time and money that could be saved if it was clarified that the retraction statute does apply.

2. This is a double edged sword:

(3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking or disclosures of conflicts of interest

It should be noted that I had to respond to questions about conflicts of interest with Dr. Darm. 100% of the journalists I spoke to asked me outright if I had any. I was honest, I don't and didn't. If I had, I wouldn't have posted it in the first place. Or I would have disclosed.

To claim bloggers don't fact-check or edit is a little off. Some journalists don't fact-check well. For example, several publications referred to Dr. Darm as a plastic surgeon.He isn't. He doesn't outright claim to be. To say traditional journalists can make mistakes because of "credentials" and bloggers can't disrupts the playing field.

And where do you draw this line? Would say Mike Benner have more protections over his personal blog than me? Just because he has a press pass through KGW? How about Lars Larson who operates in mostly opinion (and in my own opinion, fantasy?) It seems like there was a very arbitrary line drawn that hopefully a court of appeals will toss.

But then if I was obliged to uphold journalistic standards, what would that look like? My blog is obviously opinion based. While I try to adhere to ethics, I don't have the training to be a true journalist and uphold those standards all the time. I have to rely on personal protections like the First Amendment and special motions like anti-SLAPP

And how would a retraction statue apply to people with Twitter accounts? Would it just be a blanket "I'm so sorry" law?

So would we be asking for more protection than just our basic rights to free speech? Just because we can set up a blog/tumblr and hit publish post?

3. Cox didn't file an anti-SLAPP.

4. Her blogs are obviously opinion to a layman.

I'm disappointed in the ruling. I haven't really had a chance to wade through all the briefs and the suit itself. But I feel like a lot of what Judge Hernandez said puts bloggers rights back about three steps. We also need the retraction clause to apply to online media. But that would mean we'd have to step it up and be more than just citizens with Internet access.

Even with my ambivalence the whole issue with the retraction clause, I hope the decision is eventually overturned. Good luck to Ms Cox in the court of appeals!

It's worth noting the comments were more sympathetic in my case than hers. And I'm not entirely sure why. Except for the one conspiracy loon. That was weird.