Re:Posting anon to protect the guilty
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
$ man php No manual entry for php
Oh you meant read the online wiki. Where do I quickly and easily find those command line options?
As for dying because of problems with types. There are problems with some built in functions that don't properly convert. Try pulling numbers out of a regex match and then plugging them into checkdate(). It treats them as strings and returns false (PHP 4). Hopefully this is just a bug and will be eventually resolved.
As for references, no I didn't know you could do that. I knew you could pass a string of a function name to several built-ins so I assume this is the same mechanism. Still its stupid syntax, what's wrong with $x = &foo();?
Re:Posting anon to protect the guilty
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 3, Informative
While I agree that PHP isn't all that great I think you have the reasons wrong.
OO isn't a silver bullet. You almost always trade performance for development time and maintainability when you use it. That's not a bad thing and PHP minimizes the performance hit well enough to make it useful. In PHP its nice when the developer sticks to one or the other, though its obvious that most people don't because PHP is easy and the people writing it tend to be new to programming.
Strong typing isn't a silver bullet either, and I don't see how it makes your code more reliable. PHP tends to die when you perform numeric calculations on a string or vice-versa so problems can be fixed before going to production. I'd prefer it handle more like Perl where usually it does the "right thing" (it doesn't die at the very least).
Here's my problem list that I hoped would be fixed or at least improved in 5. (no such luck it seems)
Error handling is one of my biggest beefs with PHP. There are simply too many options and none of them are sane. Why can't we have a class as an error handler? Why is it that the error messages are spewed the screen as HTML by default? Why doesn't the command line mode revert to text only error messages? Why doesn't PHP just use the server error log like other languages and give you options to change it if you need to? That's what its there for!
References: Worse than PHP 4's objects are its references. Why can't I have references to objects or code? Why can't I pass a reference to any user defined or built-in function? (it used to work for user defined functions then they depricated it)? Seriously why does the function care if it has a reference or a value? To be fair I've heard some of these things have been fixed in 5 but I've still not found definitively if you can have code or object references.
Scoping: I suspect part of the problem with references are due to limitations in scoping. On the surface, having all locally scoped variables and specifying when you want to use a global one makes sense and keeps new programmers out of trouble. The problem is it leads to undefined variables everywhere when the programming forgets to use 'global $foo' in a function. This is also a problem that can be hard to spot initially because PHP doesn't bother to warn you if you've done that. The 'global' keyword also looks like a declaration so when I was first learning the language it was extremely confusing. PHP would be much more tolerable if they adopted something similar to Perl's strict mode where you declare your variable in the global, package, or local scope and it dies when you have variables that are undefined. This method is much better than having silently undefined variables.
Namespace polution: Why are there 14 billion functions I'll never use all in the same scope? Its silly. C came up with the idea of including what you need 35 years ago! Why are we regressing? Even if you don't like having separate namespaces, at the very least functions that go together could all be in a common file to be included and then you only import functions you need. And no OO won't solve this problem because all the core functions are still imported in, even in PHP 5.
Compiled modules: Why do I have to recompile PHP if I want to add image functions or some other module written in C?
HTML Centric: PHP centers around HTML (see my beef about the error messages above) This is a real annoyance if you want to output other things. Also the default embedding in presentation is irritating too. It was a bad idea with ASP, it was a bad idea with ColdFusion and its still a bad idea now and while the developers keep saying "you no longer have to embed it", so what? Make it where it can't be embeded. (yeah yeah, backward compatability and all that) Sure you can cause other languages to print out HTML using print statements, but its not the same. PHP is designed around embedding it within HTML. Print statements make obvious the need for templates. PHP makes a mess without making it obvious un
Re:From the Incredibly Obvious Dept...
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
Learning a programming language is better than doing it half-assed.
If that's the case why aren't people out learning real programming languages instead of messing with PHP?
2. Programmers are writing extensive web applications entirely in Perl cgi, often taking months to do simple tasks that PHP or ASP can do in days.
Myth #4349: Perl takes longer to develop than PHP
Obviously you've never heard of CPAN or done anything more than pull some data out of a database and put it on a webpage. Anyone doing anything more than that on the web has to know something besides PHP since doing anything complex in PHP simply isn't very easy at all.
Personally I really hope the PHP fad will be over soon since I'm not holding my breath for it to become a better language. ( PHP is barely better than 4. They still didn't fix some of the biggest beefs that many people have with the language ). Of course when it is over we'll all be subjected to the Next Big Thing (tm) instead of using something serious for once.
(and I hope beyond hope the next big thing isn't Ruby on Rails)
Well at risk of getting into a low UID war (hey mine's just over 100k!!!) I'll have to say even though the OP has a high UID he is quite correct./. is becomming more about the "bad stuff" that's going to take away all our freedom than it is about cool technology anymore. Personally I feel the tipping point was the Napster case.
Even when I am driving Standard I never really find the need to change gears when I am turning...
Brake, downshift, then turn while accelerating, especially in a front wheel drive car, the power pulls the car through the turn. If you brake or go powerless through it you have less control and must make a wider turn or slow down more than nessicary.
And since when you do need to fill childern's heads with your religion to teach them to share, have respect, and love?
I feel they need a basis for why. And I was responding your your beef that "religious people teach religion to their children: the idea being that I will teach religion to my own children (when I have some) not anyone else's. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
You people love to mix up your beliefs with concepts like "family," et. al.,
Concepts such as the importance of family are rooted in religious ideals. (multiple religions, not just Christian).
The rest of your post is simply nonsense. You fail to answer my question, WHO are these people bothering you? Who's holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to believe something?
Have you not examined that YOU might be treading on their rights to free speech/expression because you don't like what they have to say? Like it or not Christians have a right to say that they have the answer and that you need to be saved. You have the right to walk away from the conversation, ask them to leave, etc.
Seriously, what do you think I am? Some busy-body white southern, homophobic, republican house wife? I don't think there are too many of those types on/.;-). So in comparison, I'm white. That's about it. Really if anyone is blinded, it is you by your rampant generalizations.
To demand that I "leave people alone" (translation: never speak of faith) or that I suddenly believe that all religions lead to God is simply silly. It would be in direct conflict with what I say I believe in, and then I'd be labeled a hypocrite.
Since this is getting so far off topic, if you wish to continue the conversation, email me: cfreak - at - gmail DOT com
The problem with generalizations is they typically only apply to a very small vocal group of people in an attempt to demonize a larger one.
Who are these people who are knocking on your door, or stopping you the street to give you a pamphlet? Seriously I live in the Bible belt and I can think of maybe three times in the last 10 years that people did that.
Even if they are, what is forcing you to believe anything? You can tell them to go away, and if they don't you can have them arrested. You can throw their pamphlet away, you don't even have to read it.
And while I can't speak for all religions, it is a Christian's duty to tell others about it. Have you ever considered what we would have to gain by that? Nothing but ridicule mostly. We don't get gold stars in church for it. Why would we do that? Have you considered that many of us passionately believe what we are saying and want you to experience it to? Besides, since when does telling = forcing?
As for judgemental people. They will be judged too please remember that. They can also be ignored. As for teaching religion to children, Jesus said to do that. Jesus > Thomas Jefferson. Why does it bother you so much that children should learn to share, to have respect, to love people unconditionally? Such terrible things that religion teaches.
I'm glad you have religious friends. I only wish they would speak out enough to at least clear up your misconceptions instead of some random person on/.
But his love is meaningless if you don't know the problem he came to die for. And that problem is meaningless if the problem is simply an allegory.
Humans are sinful, the point of the creation story is to show us that God is soverign and all powerful and that we are imperfect because of our choice to sin. I don't see how a literal or metaphorical interpretation of that story changes the message.
TV is designed as a system of control of a population. It always has been. The most effective way to control the ignorant masses is to tell them there is someone getting more sex than you and they know it, and if you don't go buy stuff(tm) (conveniently through me) you shall have no sex and everyone will know you're a complete loser.
WW1? WW2? More people were killed in wars in the 20th Century than all other centuries combined. As the population has exploded so has the number of conflicts. And with Afganistan, Iraq, global terrorism, insane dictators who have nukes, countless civil wars in Africa, dwindling energy resources... the 21st isn't shaping up too well either.
So just because no one has sacked your neighborhood lately doesn't mean that our 'modern society' has somehow succeeded and we don't kill each other anymore.
Does it matter? Is the naturalism we see around us not a miracle? I certainly believe that it is. If evolution is true (and while not a perfect theory there is evidence for it) would it not be a miracle as well? There's nothing really definitive on what set it in motion.
Except that at the same time there _were_ evolutionary accounts of origins.
But the Genesis creation story could be taken as a metaphor for evolution. Secondly the son of a slave likely didn't know of these other accounts and finally even if he did its likely that the people he was writing wouldn't have understood or at least not have accepted such an explaination anyway.
Honestly I believe that people have God-given brains and that evolution or not, there is likely a scientific process behind God's creation simply because there are processes going on now. So to reverse your question, why would God create everything using supernatural power, then create observable processes to keep it going? And as a follow-up if God created our minds so powerful why would he prohibit us from learning about his processes?
The answer is that the whole system is inherently supernatural, without God there would be nothing. You seem to believe that the 'natural' processes are somehow not of God.
In the end it really doesn't matter anyway, because as Christians we should be reflecting Christ and telling of his love, not arguing divisive issues. The apostle Paul said in so many words: its a sin to turn people away (cause them to stumble) and in reality that's all this argument does.
The vast majority of "us" are leaving you alone. Its comments like yours and the OP that usually bring up discussion.
To the OP. If a teacher prays, what difference does that make. In a leftist view, is prayer not an ideal that you and your children should be tolerant of? Your child does not have to participate.
Prayer is also free-speech and last time I checked we could still have free-speech in public.
Honestly what would make the country a better place if people (Christians included) would stop being so insecure in whatever they believe to be offended when someone believes something different.
No they aren't, they have lobby groups that would like businesses to be able to run things as they see fit. If that means demanding that people work 60 hours or submit to rules about who they can see in off hours, I really don't care, I won't work for them, but it doesn't bother me if they do that.
If every worker would individually stand up and say "no" and be prepared to follow through with it, business would grind to a halt.
Trust me, there are still businesses that value their employees because they realize happy employees are more productive.
I don't want a group be it the government or a union to help me make those kinds of decisions or force my employer's hand, that just means the employer is going to appriciate me less and the group is probably going to make some agreement with my employer that I'm not going to like anyway.
I'll keep my freedom and my own bargaining power, thanks.
I had a boss like this too. It started after he got a new boss. Basically (small company) I wanted the company to succeed so at first I did it, I worked hard and worked extra. Then they decided that wasn't good enough and wanted to change it so it would be another year before I could even get a vaction.
So I walked into his office and told him that if he wanted to keep me he basically needed to double my salary. Yes I had a mortgage and a wife and responsibilities but sometimes you need to take these kinds of risks. Even if you lose everything you'll still be happier without a crappy job that sucks out your soul.
In my case they wouldn't budge, and I quit. I got a new job quickly (someone was already looking at me so that helped). A month later the company closed its doors, while I'm here with people who respect me and already making 1.5 times as much as I was before, all that and i'm working 40 hours, not 55 - 60.
Don't do it blindly, make a plan, get out of debt and stay out of it (especially credit cards) and stand up to your employer, they'll either give in and make your life better or tell you where the door is. Either way you're better off.
Ugh! What is it with you Opera heads? We're on the same team! You never hear Firefox users down on Opera but in any thread or forum remotely about browsers all you guys come out of the woodwork to inform us all how superior you are.
Get over yourself. Lots of people don't like the interface (its not really like firefox), its Javascript implementation (while getting better) is barely as good as IE and the fonts look terrible everytime I've tried to use it in Linux. Besides its not free as in speech or beer.
But you know what? If it works for you, fine, that's great because anything that destroys Microsoft's dominance is a good thing for all the alternatives.
Bigger population = Bigger economy. Why are people so fearful of that? Plus as their GDP and income per capita go their prices for exports go up as well. Less cheap labor means we aren't exporting so many dollars to them anymore.
The truth is that an equal playing field benefits everyone. The faster they grow the sooner everyone benefits including us.
Huh? Every major distrobution highly recommends you get their updates in the install process. Next every distro I've ever used asks you what services it should turn on and some, after you turn them on, warn you that they are on and could be a possible security risk especially if you don't intend to use them. Then a great deal of them still turn on the firewall for you, and its not a stupid firewall that gets in your way like the one in Windows XP.
I agree that windows can be secure in the hands of a good admin, I fail to see how its harder to do that in linux. From my perspective Linux is that secure out of the box.
I hate the BSD-style rc.scripts. The SysV style makes it much easier to find things IMHO. Also what's wrong with Apt-get or SuSE's YAST. Both very good tools.
What? Are the popular alternative browsers suddenly too popular to be cool anymore so we have to switch to some other obscure thing?
From the Google maps FAQ: Google Maps currently supports the following web browsers:
IE 5.5+
Firefox 0.8+
Safari 1.2.4+
Netscape 7.1+
Mozilla 1.4+
Opera 7+
Javascript (ECMAscript) is a W3C standard. I believe Google follows that standards aside from hacks to get it to work in IE of course.
Your complaint would be valid if Google was targeting one browser (IE) or using/creating propriety extensions. They aren't. So if your browser fails to follow a published standard, that's your browser's fault.
Javascript is very useful to creating rich web applications that don't have to reload the pages. Seen Google maps or Gmail? How do you think they did that?
I agree that Javascript should not nessicarily be required to view content on a general website but properly used it gives a whole new dimension to web apps.
People give the guns and P2P analogy all the time here: they both have proper uses and improper uses and banning them, or not using them because they have improper uses makes no sense. How is Javascript any different?
$2.3 million is nothing when your thinking in terms of large companies or foundations. Heck Opera claims to have had > 4 million downloads (from a quick google search). What do they charge $30 for their browser? If only 10% of those people paid for it that's $12 million right there.
AOL gave them that money 2 years ago. With just salaries alone its likely all gone.
Slashdot Mirror
$ man php
No manual entry for php
Oh you meant read the online wiki. Where do I quickly and easily find those command line options?
As for dying because of problems with types. There are problems with some built in functions that don't properly convert. Try pulling numbers out of a regex match and then plugging them into checkdate(). It treats them as strings and returns false (PHP 4). Hopefully this is just a bug and will be eventually resolved.
As for references, no I didn't know you could do that. I knew you could pass a string of a function name to several built-ins so I assume this is the same mechanism. Still its stupid syntax, what's wrong with $x = &foo();?
While I agree that PHP isn't all that great I think you have the reasons wrong.
OO isn't a silver bullet. You almost always trade performance for development time and maintainability when you use it. That's not a bad thing and PHP minimizes the performance hit well enough to make it useful. In PHP its nice when the developer sticks to one or the other, though its obvious that most people don't because PHP is easy and the people writing it tend to be new to programming.
Strong typing isn't a silver bullet either, and I don't see how it makes your code more reliable. PHP tends to die when you perform numeric calculations on a string or vice-versa so problems can be fixed before going to production. I'd prefer it handle more like Perl where usually it does the "right thing" (it doesn't die at the very least).
Here's my problem list that I hoped would be fixed or at least improved in 5. (no such luck it seems)
Error handling is one of my biggest beefs with PHP. There are simply too many options and none of them are sane. Why can't we have a class as an error handler? Why is it that the error messages are spewed the screen as HTML by default? Why doesn't the command line mode revert to text only error messages? Why doesn't PHP just use the server error log like other languages and give you options to change it if you need to? That's what its there for!
References: Worse than PHP 4's objects are its references. Why can't I have references to objects or code? Why can't I pass a reference to any user defined or built-in function? (it used to work for user defined functions then they depricated it)? Seriously why does the function care if it has a reference or a value? To be fair I've heard some of these things have been fixed in 5 but I've still not found definitively if you can have code or object references.
Scoping: I suspect part of the problem with references are due to limitations in scoping. On the surface, having all locally scoped variables and specifying when you want to use a global one makes sense and keeps new programmers out of trouble. The problem is it leads to undefined variables everywhere when the programming forgets to use 'global $foo' in a function. This is also a problem that can be hard to spot initially because PHP doesn't bother to warn you if you've done that. The 'global' keyword also looks like a declaration so when I was first learning the language it was extremely confusing. PHP would be much more tolerable if they adopted something similar to Perl's strict mode where you declare your variable in the global, package, or local scope and it dies when you have variables that are undefined. This method is much better than having silently undefined variables.
Namespace polution: Why are there 14 billion functions I'll never use all in the same scope? Its silly. C came up with the idea of including what you need 35 years ago! Why are we regressing? Even if you don't like having separate namespaces, at the very least functions that go together could all be in a common file to be included and then you only import functions you need. And no OO won't solve this problem because all the core functions are still imported in, even in PHP 5.
Compiled modules: Why do I have to recompile PHP if I want to add image functions or some other module written in C?
HTML Centric: PHP centers around HTML (see my beef about the error messages above) This is a real annoyance if you want to output other things. Also the default embedding in presentation is irritating too. It was a bad idea with ASP, it was a bad idea with ColdFusion and its still a bad idea now and while the developers keep saying "you no longer have to embed it", so what? Make it where it can't be embeded. (yeah yeah, backward compatability and all that) Sure you can cause other languages to print out HTML using print statements, but its not the same. PHP is designed around embedding it within HTML. Print statements make obvious the need for templates. PHP makes a mess without making it obvious un
Learning a programming language is better than doing it half-assed.
If that's the case why aren't people out learning real programming languages instead of messing with PHP?
(yes you may mark it flamebait now)
2. Programmers are writing extensive web applications entirely in Perl cgi, often taking months to do simple tasks that PHP or ASP can do in days.
Myth #4349: Perl takes longer to develop than PHP
Obviously you've never heard of CPAN or done anything more than pull some data out of a database and put it on a webpage. Anyone doing anything more than that on the web has to know something besides PHP since doing anything complex in PHP simply isn't very easy at all.
Personally I really hope the PHP fad will be over soon since I'm not holding my breath for it to become a better language. ( PHP is barely better than 4. They still didn't fix some of the biggest beefs that many people have with the language ). Of course when it is over we'll all be subjected to the Next Big Thing (tm) instead of using something serious for once.
(and I hope beyond hope the next big thing isn't Ruby on Rails)
Well at risk of getting into a low UID war (hey mine's just over 100k!!!) I'll have to say even though the OP has a high UID he is quite correct. /. is becomming more about the "bad stuff" that's going to take away all our freedom than it is about cool technology anymore. Personally I feel the tipping point was the Napster case.
Sad.
Even when I am driving Standard I never really find the need to change gears when I am turning ...
Brake, downshift, then turn while accelerating, especially in a front wheel drive car, the power pulls the car through the turn. If you brake or go powerless through it you have less control and must make a wider turn or slow down more than nessicary.
And since when you do need to fill childern's heads with your religion to teach them to share, have respect, and love?
/. ;-). So in comparison, I'm white. That's about it. Really if anyone is blinded, it is you by your rampant generalizations.
I feel they need a basis for why. And I was responding your your beef that "religious people teach religion to their children: the idea being that I will teach religion to my own children (when I have some) not anyone else's. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
You people love to mix up your beliefs with concepts like "family," et. al.,
Concepts such as the importance of family are rooted in religious ideals. (multiple religions, not just Christian).
The rest of your post is simply nonsense. You fail to answer my question, WHO are these people bothering you? Who's holding a gun to your head telling you that you have to believe something?
Have you not examined that YOU might be treading on their rights to free speech/expression because you don't like what they have to say? Like it or not Christians have a right to say that they have the answer and that you need to be saved. You have the right to walk away from the conversation, ask them to leave, etc.
Seriously, what do you think I am? Some busy-body white southern, homophobic, republican house wife? I don't think there are too many of those types on
To demand that I "leave people alone" (translation: never speak of faith) or that I suddenly believe that all religions lead to God is simply silly. It would be in direct conflict with what I say I believe in, and then I'd be labeled a hypocrite.
Since this is getting so far off topic, if you wish to continue the conversation, email me: cfreak - at - gmail DOT com
The problem with generalizations is they typically only apply to a very small vocal group of people in an attempt to demonize a larger one.
/.
Who are these people who are knocking on your door, or stopping you the street to give you a pamphlet? Seriously I live in the Bible belt and I can think of maybe three times in the last 10 years that people did that.
Even if they are, what is forcing you to believe anything? You can tell them to go away, and if they don't you can have them arrested. You can throw their pamphlet away, you don't even have to read it.
And while I can't speak for all religions, it is a Christian's duty to tell others about it. Have you ever considered what we would have to gain by that? Nothing but ridicule mostly. We don't get gold stars in church for it. Why would we do that? Have you considered that many of us passionately believe what we are saying and want you to experience it to? Besides, since when does telling = forcing?
As for judgemental people. They will be judged too please remember that. They can also be ignored. As for teaching religion to children, Jesus said to do that. Jesus > Thomas Jefferson. Why does it bother you so much that children should learn to share, to have respect, to love people unconditionally? Such terrible things that religion teaches.
I'm glad you have religious friends. I only wish they would speak out enough to at least clear up your misconceptions instead of some random person on
But his love is meaningless if you don't know the problem he came to die for. And that problem is meaningless if the problem is simply an allegory.
Humans are sinful, the point of the creation story is to show us that God is soverign and all powerful and that we are imperfect because of our choice to sin. I don't see how a literal or metaphorical interpretation of that story changes the message.
TV is designed as a system of control of a population. It always has been. The most effective way to control the ignorant masses is to tell them there is someone getting more sex than you and they know it, and if you don't go buy stuff(tm) (conveniently through me) you shall have no sex and everyone will know you're a complete loser.
There. Fixed it for you.
WW1? WW2? More people were killed in wars in the 20th Century than all other centuries combined. As the population has exploded so has the number of conflicts. And with Afganistan, Iraq, global terrorism, insane dictators who have nukes, countless civil wars in Africa, dwindling energy resources ... the 21st isn't shaping up too well either.
So just because no one has sacked your neighborhood lately doesn't mean that our 'modern society' has somehow succeeded and we don't kill each other anymore.
Were the means God used here purely naturalistic?
Does it matter? Is the naturalism we see around us not a miracle? I certainly believe that it is. If evolution is true (and while not a perfect theory there is evidence for it) would it not be a miracle as well? There's nothing really definitive on what set it in motion.
Except that at the same time there _were_ evolutionary accounts of origins.
But the Genesis creation story could be taken as a metaphor for evolution. Secondly the son of a slave likely didn't know of these other accounts and finally even if he did its likely that the people he was writing wouldn't have understood or at least not have accepted such an explaination anyway.
Honestly I believe that people have God-given brains and that evolution or not, there is likely a scientific process behind God's creation simply because there are processes going on now. So to reverse your question, why would God create everything using supernatural power, then create observable processes to keep it going? And as a follow-up if God created our minds so powerful why would he prohibit us from learning about his processes?
The answer is that the whole system is inherently supernatural, without God there would be nothing. You seem to believe that the 'natural' processes are somehow not of God.
In the end it really doesn't matter anyway, because as Christians we should be reflecting Christ and telling of his love, not arguing divisive issues. The apostle Paul said in so many words: its a sin to turn people away (cause them to stumble) and in reality that's all this argument does.
The vast majority of "us" are leaving you alone. Its comments like yours and the OP that usually bring up discussion.
To the OP. If a teacher prays, what difference does that make. In a leftist view, is prayer not an ideal that you and your children should be tolerant of? Your child does not have to participate.
Prayer is also free-speech and last time I checked we could still have free-speech in public.
Honestly what would make the country a better place if people (Christians included) would stop being so insecure in whatever they believe to be offended when someone believes something different.
No they aren't, they have lobby groups that would like businesses to be able to run things as they see fit. If that means demanding that people work 60 hours or submit to rules about who they can see in off hours, I really don't care, I won't work for them, but it doesn't bother me if they do that.
If every worker would individually stand up and say "no" and be prepared to follow through with it, business would grind to a halt.
Trust me, there are still businesses that value their employees because they realize happy employees are more productive.
I don't want a group be it the government or a union to help me make those kinds of decisions or force my employer's hand, that just means the employer is going to appriciate me less and the group is probably going to make some agreement with my employer that I'm not going to like anyway.
I'll keep my freedom and my own bargaining power, thanks.
I had a boss like this too. It started after he got a new boss. Basically (small company) I wanted the company to succeed so at first I did it, I worked hard and worked extra. Then they decided that wasn't good enough and wanted to change it so it would be another year before I could even get a vaction.
So I walked into his office and told him that if he wanted to keep me he basically needed to double my salary. Yes I had a mortgage and a wife and responsibilities but sometimes you need to take these kinds of risks. Even if you lose everything you'll still be happier without a crappy job that sucks out your soul.
In my case they wouldn't budge, and I quit. I got a new job quickly (someone was already looking at me so that helped). A month later the company closed its doors, while I'm here with people who respect me and already making 1.5 times as much as I was before, all that and i'm working 40 hours, not 55 - 60.
Don't do it blindly, make a plan, get out of debt and stay out of it (especially credit cards) and stand up to your employer, they'll either give in and make your life better or tell you where the door is. Either way you're better off.
I'm stating my reasons for not using Opera. I didn't say anyone shouldn't use it. In fact I said people using it is a good thing.
Ugh! What is it with you Opera heads? We're on the same team! You never hear Firefox users down on Opera but in any thread or forum remotely about browsers all you guys come out of the woodwork to inform us all how superior you are.
Get over yourself. Lots of people don't like the interface (its not really like firefox), its Javascript implementation (while getting better) is barely as good as IE and the fonts look terrible everytime I've tried to use it in Linux. Besides its not free as in speech or beer.
But you know what? If it works for you, fine, that's great because anything that destroys Microsoft's dominance is a good thing for all the alternatives.
So relax, there's no need for browser penis envy.
So?
Bigger population = Bigger economy. Why are people so fearful of that? Plus as their GDP and income per capita go their prices for exports go up as well. Less cheap labor means we aren't exporting so many dollars to them anymore.
The truth is that an equal playing field benefits everyone. The faster they grow the sooner everyone benefits including us.
Java != Javascript!!!
No Java in that page. Likely your 'noscript' plugin was the culprit.
It works in Linux and Mac as well. Also: holding ctrl and pressing + or - on the keyboard does the same thing.
Huh? Every major distrobution highly recommends you get their updates in the install process. Next every distro I've ever used asks you what services it should turn on and some, after you turn them on, warn you that they are on and could be a possible security risk especially if you don't intend to use them. Then a great deal of them still turn on the firewall for you, and its not a stupid firewall that gets in your way like the one in Windows XP.
I agree that windows can be secure in the hands of a good admin, I fail to see how its harder to do that in linux. From my perspective Linux is that secure out of the box.
Slackware's BSD-style rc.scripts
I hate the BSD-style rc.scripts. The SysV style makes it much easier to find things IMHO. Also what's wrong with Apt-get or SuSE's YAST. Both very good tools.
From the Google maps FAQ:
Google Maps currently supports the following web browsers:
Javascript (ECMAscript) is a W3C standard. I believe Google follows that standards aside from hacks to get it to work in IE of course.
Your complaint would be valid if Google was targeting one browser (IE) or using/creating propriety extensions. They aren't. So if your browser fails to follow a published standard, that's your browser's fault.
Javascript is very useful to creating rich web applications that don't have to reload the pages. Seen Google maps or Gmail? How do you think they did that?
I agree that Javascript should not nessicarily be required to view content on a general website but properly used it gives a whole new dimension to web apps.
People give the guns and P2P analogy all the time here: they both have proper uses and improper uses and banning them, or not using them because they have improper uses makes no sense. How is Javascript any different?
$2.3 million is nothing when your thinking in terms of large companies or foundations. Heck Opera claims to have had > 4 million downloads (from a quick google search). What do they charge $30 for their browser? If only 10% of those people paid for it that's $12 million right there.
AOL gave them that money 2 years ago. With just salaries alone its likely all gone.