I think the stats speak for themselves. Very few people like Cherokee. Advertising it isn't going to help. The devs need to understand why people tend not to like it and change it so that people do like it. (They've already been told the way they handle configuration is not very good, and they reject that... good for them, but as a result and perhaps for a few other reasons too Cherokee won't be doing well on any web server survey for the foreseeable future.)

I would argue that the GUI model of configuring complex server-type services is generally wrong. At most, GUIs are good for tweaking configurations, not for setting up a baseline config to begin with.

After trying to help a friend to make Cherokee, Rack and Shotgun (yes, he insisted on reloading using shotgun) work together, I abandoned the server as "ungoogleable".

Did you mean http://cherokee-project.com/ ? Your link goes to a nonexistent GitHub Page.

We tested it for a project and actually liked it. However the configuration interface is a bit tricky to get your head around. It looks nice and works just fine for most things, we just found it to complex when working with we started adding multiple Django application, domains, rewrite rules and so on.

In the end just firing up Nginx was quicker to configure, easier to understand and most of all easier to debug.

Still it a webserver I like to pull out and play with every now and then, even if I end up just using Nginx.

I remember when I was moving off of Apache, I gave Cherokee a try. It was harder to configure than writing an Nginx conf.

Server is down for me. Not a good sign...

Wow, poor reputation and a racially charged name with a historically insulting pictograph. I wasn't aware that such poor taste even existed in open source projects.