Slashdot Mirror

Which major company uses PHP?

I'm sure there are several, but one I can think of off the top of my head is Yahoo. The second link has PowerPoint and PDF files explaining why Yahoo chose PHP, which some might find interesting since this has become quite some debate...

I don't use PHP much these days, but it does have good documentation and every language has its pros and cons I suppose. I tend to be a Perl monk now, and I'm sure we could start just as large a flame war about that, so I'll shut-up now. :]

Which major company uses PHP?

I'm sure there are several, but one I can think of off the top of my head is Yahoo. The second link has PowerPoint and PDF files explaining why Yahoo chose PHP, which some might find interesting since this has become quite some debate...

I don't use PHP much these days, but it does have good documentation and every language has its pros and cons I suppose. I tend to be a Perl monk now, and I'm sure we could start just as large a flame war about that, so I'll shut-up now. :]

Which major company uses PHP?

I'm sure there are several, but one I can think of off the top of my head is Yahoo. The second link has PowerPoint and PDF files explaining why Yahoo chose PHP, which some might find interesting since this has become quite some debate...

I don't use PHP much these days, but it does have good documentation and every language has its pros and cons I suppose. I tend to be a Perl monk now, and I'm sure we could start just as large a flame war about that, so I'll shut-up now. :]

Please post again when it's a platform at Yahoo, rather than a platform decision.

OK, I'm posting again. I'm a little late since this has been a platform at Yahoo for a while now:
http://www.radwin.org/michael/blog/2005/10/php_at_ yahoo_presentation_.html

Read the PowerPoint (I know, PowerPoint, yuck), it's quite interesting for PHP naysayers. Maybe you don't understand that just because you don't see a .php extension doesn't mean it's not running PHP.

"Ultimately think this a showdown between "Process / Fork" (LAxP) vs. "Runtime / Thread" (J2EE / .NET). When asking "does PHP scale?" you're really asking "does Process / Fork + X persistent store scale?".

In many ways that questioning whether *Nix scales..."

We also don't know how much it will cost for Yahoo to completely handle Yahoo's load.

Actually, we do. Update your sources. Yahoo is ~3x as large as ebay, and all their presentation logic is in php.

"For example Yahoo!, which serves up 2.85 billion page views a day and supports 345 million visitors a month, uses PHP for all its presentation logic."

And of course their processing isn't all PHP. In fact one of Radwin's core points was that you can take repeatedly run php scripts, and turn them into php extentions to improve performance. It would be foolish to do heavy processing in php (or jsp).

Their servers are Sun servers running Solaris. eBay gets something like 1Billion hits a day

Rather goes to the heart of this issue, I think:

If x 'sux' on your servers (and remember you have hundreds of them), and x is required for y to work well, and you would need to buy expensive commercial servers to use y on your site, and z does as well or better on your existing servers than y could with servers that supported x, you would be pretty silly to replace your servers (or to run around trying to figure out who's fault it all is).

So the question was what servers would be required to get jsp to compete on scalability with php, and your answer is Solaris? Or do you just not have any idea?

they're using ioncube's php accelerator which is free but not open source.

So that IS kind of like java, then:-). On the other hand, Yahoo could switch to an open source accelerator if they wanted/needed to.

When is Sun going to open source java?

This blog article was written in response to a discussion some coworkers and I were having:

My proposal is to do sender authentication at the SMTP level, with a compatible extension to the implementation.

1) SMTP server receives delivery request
2) SMTP server looks at envelope sender
3) SMTP server contacts "mailkey.senderhostmx.com" to get mailkey
4) If mailkey host exists, SMTP server validates message signature with mailkey and accepts or rejects message. If mailkey host does not exist, SMTP decides what to do based on its own policy.
5) Any time a server sends a bounce message (spam, unknown user, etc) to the envelope sender, it should include a note about how to prevent others from forging their addresses by setting up mailkey.

This proposal is simple because it does not change the SMTP protocol, or mail clients at all. This proposal is incremental, because it does not disturb existing mailflow. Most of all this proposal has viral incentive, because it is within each domain's power to stop others from forging their domain. The additional requirement that bounces to spam messages be sent to the envelope sender assures that an authenticated sender has responsibility for handling the spam they originate, and it assures an unauthenticated sender has incentive and information about how to become authenticated.

I enjoyed reading about this event last week. Thanks to Micheal Radwin's blog

and hey, thanks for the tips!

Unfortunately, the link is slightly misdone. Try http://www.radwin.org/michael/projects/voting.html

An untraceable, universally verifiable voting scheme

Recent electronic voting schemes have shown the ability to protect the privacy of voters and prevent the possibility of a voter from being coerced to reveal his vote. These schemes protect the voter's identity from the vote, but do not do so unconditionally. In this paper we apply a technique called blinded signatures to a voter's ballot so that it is impossible for anyone to trace the ballot back to the voter. We achieve the desired properties of privacy, universal verifiability, convenience and untraceability at the expense of receipt-freeness.

and it can be found here:

http://www.radwin.org/michael/projec ts/eudora/ by Michael J. Radwin.

It makes me laugh _all_ the time !