I'm always disappointed when an open source-ish tool has to market itself. Unicorn didn't market itself. Its users marketed Unicorn because it worked/works so well.

I also don't think the comparisons Raptor is doing are fair. You're comparing an application server with a cache against just application servers. Also, I would expect Raptor's memory usage to be higher once that cache starts to fill up, or maybe you've created a super small cache just for "Hello World" apps.

People aren't avoiding Passenger because "it's too easy to use", a lot of people avoid Passenger because you're a weird company. Application servers are very important, perhaps too important to be tied to a commercial entity.

I applaud you on the work (code-wise) you've put into this and I hope the entire Ruby community as a whole benefits from it, like you claim we have with older versions of Passenger (which kinda seems like revisionist history to me, but oh well).