The same people that shut off cookies also shut off javascript - often shutting off javascript INSTEAD of cookies. The only real option is to put everything in the URL, which is damn ugly. Also, imo, increases the chance that someone will try to play around with the session ID in the URL, simply because it's there.
While I like it for some things, CTRL-C brings up a freakin' color wheel. Come on! Call me a MS lover all you want (I'm not) but CTRL-C is a defacto standard to copy stuff to a clipboard. GAIM overrides this with the most annoying thing that could happen when you press CTRL-C - an unrelated pop-up window.:(
You're saying it's better for Apple to bend over for Microsoft than to invite Corel to play in the sandbox?
That's exactly what he's saying. MS has pretty much nothing to lose by not releasing any future MS Office for Mac. Just the prospect of that will be enough to prevent people from buying Macs. Doesn't matter what it is - the majority of people at the present time and in the near forseeable future won't make purchasing commitments unless MS Office is available for that system.
I'm not talking Joe Art Guy who is a hardcore Mac fan - he's going to buy one or two machines. I'm talking larger institutions with art departments. If a company has to outfit and update Mac machines for a dept, but they can't exchange Office docs with them, they'll probably just force them to run Intel hardware with Windows. Why not? Photoshop runs on that just fine.
Apple potentially has much more to lose than MS by inviting other players in to develop office suites for OSX.
"Open source" is a huge expansive field. Some products will be easiers/cheaper to administrate and support, and some will be more difficult. The 'commercial' vendors have an advantage because they are spreading the support costs (all the infrastructure that goes with support as well) across many customers. Taking a DIY approach means most or all of those costs are born in your company, even if it's a small amount.
Shameless plug: My company offers professional PHP support via phphelpdesk.com (PHP itself and most of the packages around PHP, including Apache, MySQL, etc) as well as hands-on training courses. There are other companies that provide similar services for other languages (probably more for Java than PHP, for example).
Doesn't surprise me too much that the PHP is faster. We tried to come up with benchmarks that showed Java faster than PHP for the type of work we do - web-based applications - and it was pretty hard to ever show that. PHP was nearly always faster, or it was a dead heat. I can imagine in some cases Java will be faster, but we had a hard time thinking of ways to show it, dealing in situations we deal in (web-based apps - no doubt there are scenarios where Java beats PHP).
Wasn't trying to be rude about it. PHP has a pretty good manual already, though, and this issue (quotes) is a pretty basic one to find if you search around - heck, there are references to the issue on the first page of google results for 'php quote' (or is it 'quotes'?)
The REASON it's done is a legacy issue - it was felt that it'd be easier for the language to add the slashes to incoming data before it was placed in a database, rather than having to manually add the slashes (for mysql). It's not a perfect system, but the thinking behind in it 1996 or so wasn't completely flawed.
Compiling - the primary reason nothing is cached by default is probably more commercial than anything else. Doing so would obviate the need for the commercial Zend accelerator product ($900/CPU or so). There are free options too, but it's more a political issue, not having it done by default - having a commercial company so intertwined with the basics of PHP is a drawback, imo.
MOST languages don't cache their code by default. The servers they run with may handle that, but the languages themselves don't often do that. IIS/ASP may cache compiled VBScript, for example, but VBScript on its own wouldn't know anything about caching. Yes Python can do that (I guess - haven't used Python much in months) - it's one of only a few. You seem to REALLY like Python a lot - no one is stopping you from using that instead of PHP. BTW, Python's got its own problems too.
I disagree on the 'relative including' issue - I see what you're getting at more now than before, and I think it would confuse the matter moreso than it might be now. Moving one file which includes others would require moving all the other files as well, or recoding the one file to point to the new (relative) location of all the included files. Seems like a lot of work to go through when something as minor as moving a file needs to happen.
I agree on the passing by reference issue - that's something which will be addressed in the future, but I'm not sure how well it will be addressed. Not being able to cycle through an array with while(list($k,$v) = each($arr)) { and change the values in the $arr array directly is a pain, for example.
What would cause someone to rewrite a working app? If it was a performance issue, then perhaps your code wasn't performing well? If it was 'rewritten' in the middle of development, that's possible more strange, but maybe at least justifiable (not done with the PHP one, so switching is easier than waiting until after the PHP project is done).
These aren't really problems.
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 5, Informative
1) This one is really annoying. Certain pre-defined variables (I'm not sure which, maybe only user-inputted data) are pre-slashed. So if a user inputs the string 'My name is "Jon"', you get it as 'My name is \"Jon\"'. WTF is up with that? That's not what he said! I can't find the reason for this or anything else about it in the documentation (maybe it's there somewhere, but I can't find it).
It's also pretty annoying when you don't read the manual - and this one is NOT obscure to find. Section 8 - "Variables" (which is what you're dealing with) has a section about 'Variables from outside PHP': http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.varia bles.ex ternal.php
2) Every time a page is loaded, it has to be re-parsed, as well as any included scripts that it uses. This is very inefficient. Then design a better language yourself that has nifty things like variable variables (echo $$b[0]->foo;) and is still faster than most other languages. Or just get a host that will use one of the many caching products available (zend, ioncube, etc)
3) It's a real pain to include scripts that are in different directories which include other scripts, because they will try to open them relative to the location of the original page.
Seems pretty damn logical to me. Of course, PHP will also look for files in the 'include_path' which is set in the php.ini file, so it's really looking in multiple places. And it wouldn't kill you to just use a predefined constant like DOCUMENT_ROOT and include files relative to that so your scripts would be portable and a bit easier to move around internally if you need to.
PHP does have problems - nothing you've mentioned here is a 'problem' beyond the level of mere annoyance to a handful of people.
Slight plug - those who've taken our PHP training course have never complained about the issues you brought up as 'problems'.
From what I gather, this isn't specifically a EULA issue in that the 'end user' agreement wouldn't necessarily state anything about this. I'm going out on a limb to guess that - as with most big companies - Kmart negotiated a blanket licensing deal with MS. THOSE terms most likely dictate that in consideration for 'less than market rates' for the software, certain terms apply. If Kmart actually paid 100% 'retail' price for each desktop, each SQL server, and everything else, they could probably simply abide by the 'transfer' clause in the standard EULA (you can transfer, but remove the original copy on first machine). I don't think anything's that cut and dried when you're talking millions of dollars and MS (or any other sufficiently large software house - could you easily transfer millions of dollars of Norton AV from one company to another? Or Adobe stuff?)
If the developers won't give it the label 'stable', then it's not worth it. Funny, they think it's good enough to win head-to-head competitions via eweek against big db players, but they don't have enough confidence to label it 'stable'. Seems a bit hypocritical. What would the outcry be if MS 'won' benchmarks with 'alpha' software?
It says it'll ship in 2003, but a beta is available.
WHEN will MySQL 4 get out of 'development' and into 'stable'? The infoworld article was already mentioning MySQL 5, but 4 is still alpha/beta, not 'production', and the 3.23 series seems to be progressing still.
But that doesn't mean that they don't want the ability to say "hey, computer, I'd like to continue with this program on the screen in my study".
*MOST PEOPLE* don't have a study, or multiple computers in one house. Windows/Mac are more successful because they accomodate the basic needs of the majority of people. Yes, X has nifty features - those are features that won't be needed by the majority of people anywhere in the near future. Do you honestly think MS couldn't add in exported displays somehow if the demand was really there? With more money in the bank than most South American countries combined, they could figure out a way somehow. Note that if they did this, it'd put PCAnywhere and similar products out of business, and everyone would complain about the evil monopoly expanding their empire, but that's another story...:)
FrontPage - these are about the only guys left still running that stupid logo. Still, if it keeps fat contracts from MS coming in, it's probably worth it.:)
Try to tell him it's 'impossible' with this 'open source' stuff that's supposedly better than MS, but his 14 year old nephew can drag/drop to coordinate positions with VB in 4 seconds. Yeah, that'll fly really well.
It's not web sites we're talking about, but desktop applications people are talking about using Mozilla for.
It's certainly not cool XUL apps you simply point your browser to - the security Nazis in the mozilla camp have ensured this won't happen. Mozilla apps will only ever be useful in closed intranet environments, nothing more.
McDonald's isn't in the burger business - it's in the softdrink business. McDonald's is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) resellers of Coke. Where's more profit?
$1 burger that costs 35 cents to make? $1.19 drink and 9 cents of syrup/water?
But, how do you create a lesson plan for this class? How do you teach word processing on a computer that's inexpensive from installation to support? Not to mention having the attempt for the class material to be applicable in the lives of the student.
True, it's only been recently, but for a BASIC 101 type class, a low-end Linux workstation with OpenOffice should be more then sufficient.
For wordprocessing, you want to teach how to enter data, change fonts, do envelopes, make table-based data, spellcheck, edit a new document, do basic revision checking and maybe a couple other things. OO has all that. The CONCEPTS will transfer just fine to MS Word or WP or whatever. The exact keystrokes may change, but that's not the purpose of a 'basic computing skills' class, is it? Or is it concepts with some hands-on demonstrations.
A basic RedHat box with KDE would be sufficient for teaching concepts (here's a file, here's how to edit it, here's how to send an email, etc). Yes, it's not outlook/office, but the concepts are the same. Actually, teaching both in the same class would be the most beneficial, because people would more easily see - in a structured environment - how similar basic GUI systems and concepts are.
The basic RedHat system, with machine and monitor, can be had for under $400/seat. True, it's not the $6 for MSOffice someone else mentioned, but it's still a cost-effective solution if you want to offer a general computer skills class.
For CF, FB is about it. Not that it's bad, but you don't really have anything else to point to re: a structured, methodical approach to web development. Mind you, what's there is pretty good, if still a bit sketchy in some areas.
It doesn't leverage whatever OO might be available in CF. It can't, because FB has a history, and the latest CF is, well, the latest. FB will eventually catch up - I've heard the core fusebox team is working on this issue. Timeframe to 'recommended' specs? Dunno. If you're sticking with CF, stick with FB, or come up with something else which suits you better. If you want to migrate to PHP, consider having us come out and give your developers some custom courses in PHP, suited to the topics you need to brush up on. (subtle plug, but what the hey!):)
Reduz, I think you'll need to learn that posting something nominally thought out, or even just basically against the 'Linux rules! Unix rules!' mindset is frowned upon here. Obviously you didn't read the parent post well enough. EVERYTHING should be dynamically linked. EVERYTHING. ALL THE TIME. Because to suggest static linking OBVIOUSLY implies that it must be done ALL THE TIME. The parent poster must know what he's talking about, right? After all, he's probably a 50 year Unix veteran and Linux kernel hacker who's contributed much to the current way of doing things (that's why he knows so much about the way things work).
Suggesting using a technique in moderation and in instances where it would make things easier for end users - or even worse, suggesting doing anything like MS or Apple - is just not the done thing here. I hope you can internalize these points and remember them in the future when you post.
If I'm reading this issue correctly, it's the idea of dependancies themselves that are the problem.
I kinda hate having to install 10 or so other programs just to get the intended one to work.
All you debian people will start screaming about 'apt-get' here, but that's not the point. ONE program shouldn't necessarily require the installation of 4-5 other programs, regardless of how the installations are done. Just because your 'apt-get' downloads and installs them for you doesn't mean you're not having to install other packages, you're just not thinking about it. There's still extra bandwidth and diskspace taken up, and more security considerations to consider. Having package X installed to run package Y means I have to be worried about security for 2 packages, even though I only want to use one package. We bitch at MS for this - tying multiple programs to IE - but it often happens in the linux world as well with packages - package X requires package A, B & C be installed. Why can't just the required bits of A, B & C be rolled into package X by the author? Or - heaven forbid - just provide a binary with all the necessary libraries bundled together.
It's not his model the poster was writing about, but the actual sentence. "He didn't have to worry since he'd decided that he just needed a way to fund the operation" (or something like that). Every business has to find a way to fund themselves. The writing in the article itself was poor.
Slashdot Mirror
The same people that shut off cookies also shut off javascript - often shutting off javascript INSTEAD of cookies. The only real option is to put everything in the URL, which is damn ugly. Also, imo, increases the chance that someone will try to play around with the session ID in the URL, simply because it's there.
While I like it for some things, CTRL-C brings up a freakin' color wheel. Come on! Call me a MS lover all you want (I'm not) but CTRL-C is a defacto standard to copy stuff to a clipboard. GAIM overrides this with the most annoying thing that could happen when you press CTRL-C - an unrelated pop-up window. :(
You're saying it's better for Apple to bend over for Microsoft than to invite Corel to play in the sandbox?
That's exactly what he's saying. MS has pretty much nothing to lose by not releasing any future MS Office for Mac. Just the prospect of that will be enough to prevent people from buying Macs. Doesn't matter what it is - the majority of people at the present time and in the near forseeable future won't make purchasing commitments unless MS Office is available for that system.
I'm not talking Joe Art Guy who is a hardcore Mac fan - he's going to buy one or two machines. I'm talking larger institutions with art departments. If a company has to outfit and update Mac machines for a dept, but they can't exchange Office docs with them, they'll probably just force them to run Intel hardware with Windows. Why not? Photoshop runs on that just fine.
Apple potentially has much more to lose than MS by inviting other players in to develop office suites for OSX.
"Open source" is a huge expansive field. Some products will be easiers/cheaper to administrate and support, and some will be more difficult. The 'commercial' vendors have an advantage because they are spreading the support costs (all the infrastructure that goes with support as well) across many customers. Taking a DIY approach means most or all of those costs are born in your company, even if it's a small amount.
Shameless plug: My company offers professional PHP support via phphelpdesk.com (PHP itself and most of the packages around PHP, including Apache, MySQL, etc) as well as hands-on training courses. There are other companies that provide similar services for other languages (probably more for Java than PHP, for example).
heh :)
Doesn't surprise me too much that the PHP is faster. We tried to come up with benchmarks that showed Java faster than PHP for the type of work we do - web-based applications - and it was pretty hard to ever show that. PHP was nearly always faster, or it was a dead heat. I can imagine in some cases Java will be faster, but we had a hard time thinking of ways to show it, dealing in situations we deal in (web-based apps - no doubt there are scenarios where Java beats PHP).
Wasn't trying to be rude about it. PHP has a pretty good manual already, though, and this issue (quotes) is a pretty basic one to find if you search around - heck, there are references to the issue on the first page of google results for 'php quote' (or is it 'quotes'?)
The REASON it's done is a legacy issue - it was felt that it'd be easier for the language to add the slashes to incoming data before it was placed in a database, rather than having to manually add the slashes (for mysql). It's not a perfect system, but the thinking behind in it 1996 or so wasn't completely flawed.
Compiling - the primary reason nothing is cached by default is probably more commercial than anything else. Doing so would obviate the need for the commercial Zend accelerator product ($900/CPU or so). There are free options too, but it's more a political issue, not having it done by default - having a commercial company so intertwined with the basics of PHP is a drawback, imo.
MOST languages don't cache their code by default. The servers they run with may handle that, but the languages themselves don't often do that. IIS/ASP may cache compiled VBScript, for example, but VBScript on its own wouldn't know anything about caching. Yes Python can do that (I guess - haven't used Python much in months) - it's one of only a few. You seem to REALLY like Python a lot - no one is stopping you from using that instead of PHP. BTW, Python's got its own problems too.
I disagree on the 'relative including' issue - I see what you're getting at more now than before, and I think it would confuse the matter moreso than it might be now. Moving one file which includes others would require moving all the other files as well, or recoding the one file to point to the new (relative) location of all the included files. Seems like a lot of work to go through when something as minor as moving a file needs to happen.
I agree on the passing by reference issue - that's something which will be addressed in the future, but I'm not sure how well it will be addressed. Not being able to cycle through an array with while(list($k,$v) = each($arr)) { and change the values in the $arr array directly is a pain, for example.
What would cause someone to rewrite a working app? If it was a performance issue, then perhaps your code wasn't performing well? If it was 'rewritten' in the middle of development, that's possible more strange, but maybe at least justifiable (not done with the PHP one, so switching is easier than waiting until after the PHP project is done).
1) This one is really annoying. Certain pre-defined variables (I'm not sure which, maybe only user-inputted data) are pre-slashed. So if a user inputs the string 'My name is "Jon"', you get it as 'My name is \"Jon\"'. WTF is up with that? That's not what he said! I can't find the reason for this or anything else about it in the documentation (maybe it's there somewhere, but I can't find it).
a bles.ex ternal.php
It's also pretty annoying when you don't read the manual - and this one is NOT obscure to find. Section 8 - "Variables" (which is what you're dealing with) has a section about 'Variables from outside PHP':
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.vari
2) Every time a page is loaded, it has to be re-parsed, as well as any included scripts that it uses. This is very inefficient.
Then design a better language yourself that has nifty things like variable variables (echo $$b[0]->foo;) and is still faster than most other languages. Or just get a host that will use one of the many caching products available (zend, ioncube, etc)
3) It's a real pain to include scripts that are in different directories which include other scripts, because they will try to open them relative to the location of the original page.
Seems pretty damn logical to me. Of course, PHP will also look for files in the 'include_path' which is set in the php.ini file, so it's really looking in multiple places. And it wouldn't kill you to just use a predefined constant like DOCUMENT_ROOT and include files relative to that so your scripts would be portable and a bit easier to move around internally if you need to.
PHP does have problems - nothing you've mentioned here is a 'problem' beyond the level of mere annoyance to a handful of people.
Slight plug - those who've taken our PHP training course have never complained about the issues you brought up as 'problems'.
Cheers
From what I gather, this isn't specifically a EULA issue in that the 'end user' agreement wouldn't necessarily state anything about this. I'm going out on a limb to guess that - as with most big companies - Kmart negotiated a blanket licensing deal with MS. THOSE terms most likely dictate that in consideration for 'less than market rates' for the software, certain terms apply. If Kmart actually paid 100% 'retail' price for each desktop, each SQL server, and everything else, they could probably simply abide by the 'transfer' clause in the standard EULA (you can transfer, but remove the original copy on first machine). I don't think anything's that cut and dried when you're talking millions of dollars and MS (or any other sufficiently large software house - could you easily transfer millions of dollars of Norton AV from one company to another? Or Adobe stuff?)
Thank you - doesn't clear it up too much, but thanks.
Any approximate time frame on when 4.0x series might be deemed 'stable'?
I didn't know HIPAA dictated screen savers. Can someone point me to the legislation online somewhere?
If the developers won't give it the label 'stable', then it's not worth it. Funny, they think it's good enough to win head-to-head competitions via eweek against big db players, but they don't have enough confidence to label it 'stable'. Seems a bit hypocritical. What would the outcry be if MS 'won' benchmarks with 'alpha' software?
It says it'll ship in 2003, but a beta is available.
WHEN will MySQL 4 get out of 'development' and into 'stable'? The infoworld article was already mentioning MySQL 5, but 4 is still alpha/beta, not 'production', and the 3.23 series seems to be progressing still.
Were they going to ship both, or only ship mysql, and have postgres as a 'supported' but not 'shipped' system?
But that doesn't mean that they don't want the ability to say "hey, computer, I'd like to continue with this program on the screen in my study".
:)
*MOST PEOPLE* don't have a study, or multiple computers in one house. Windows/Mac are more successful because they accomodate the basic needs of the majority of people. Yes, X has nifty features - those are features that won't be needed by the majority of people anywhere in the near future. Do you honestly think MS couldn't add in exported displays somehow if the demand was really there? With more money in the bank than most South American countries combined, they could figure out a way somehow. Note that if they did this, it'd put PCAnywhere and similar products out of business, and everyone would complain about the evil monopoly expanding their empire, but that's another story...
The source code is all there - write it yourself. Isn't that the standard open source rejoinder to everything? :)
FrontPage - these are about the only guys left still running that stupid logo. Still, if it keeps fat contracts from MS coming in, it's probably worth it. :)
Try to tell him it's 'impossible' with this 'open source' stuff that's supposedly better than MS, but his 14 year old nephew can drag/drop to coordinate positions with VB in 4 seconds. Yeah, that'll fly really well.
It's not web sites we're talking about, but desktop applications people are talking about using Mozilla for.
It's certainly not cool XUL apps you simply point your browser to - the security Nazis in the mozilla camp have ensured this won't happen. Mozilla apps will only ever be useful in closed intranet environments, nothing more.
McDonald's isn't in the burger business - it's in the softdrink business. McDonald's is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) resellers of Coke. Where's more profit?
$1 burger that costs 35 cents to make?
$1.19 drink and 9 cents of syrup/water?
But, how do you create a lesson plan for this class? How do you teach word processing on a computer that's inexpensive from installation to support? Not to mention having the attempt for the class material to be applicable in the lives of the student.
True, it's only been recently, but for a BASIC 101 type class, a low-end Linux workstation with OpenOffice should be more then sufficient.
For wordprocessing, you want to teach how to enter data, change fonts, do envelopes, make table-based data, spellcheck, edit a new document, do basic revision checking and maybe a couple other things. OO has all that. The CONCEPTS will transfer just fine to MS Word or WP or whatever. The exact keystrokes may change, but that's not the purpose of a 'basic computing skills' class, is it? Or is it concepts with some hands-on demonstrations.
A basic RedHat box with KDE would be sufficient for teaching concepts (here's a file, here's how to edit it, here's how to send an email, etc). Yes, it's not outlook/office, but the concepts are the same. Actually, teaching both in the same class would be the most beneficial, because people would more easily see - in a structured environment - how similar basic GUI systems and concepts are.
The basic RedHat system, with machine and monitor, can be had for under $400/seat. True, it's not the $6 for MSOffice someone else mentioned, but it's still a cost-effective solution if you want to offer a general computer skills class.
For CF, FB is about it. Not that it's bad, but you don't really have anything else to point to re: a structured, methodical approach to web development. Mind you, what's there is pretty good, if still a bit sketchy in some areas.
:)
It doesn't leverage whatever OO might be available in CF. It can't, because FB has a history, and the latest CF is, well, the latest. FB will eventually catch up - I've heard the core fusebox team is working on this issue. Timeframe to 'recommended' specs? Dunno. If you're sticking with CF, stick with FB, or come up with something else which suits you better. If you want to migrate to PHP, consider having us come out and give your developers some custom courses in PHP, suited to the topics you need to brush up on. (subtle plug, but what the hey!)
Reduz, I think you'll need to learn that posting something nominally thought out, or even just basically against the 'Linux rules! Unix rules!' mindset is frowned upon here. Obviously you didn't read the parent post well enough. EVERYTHING should be dynamically linked. EVERYTHING. ALL THE TIME. Because to suggest static linking OBVIOUSLY implies that it must be done ALL THE TIME. The parent poster must know what he's talking about, right? After all, he's probably a 50 year Unix veteran and Linux kernel hacker who's contributed much to the current way of doing things (that's why he knows so much about the way things work).
Suggesting using a technique in moderation and in instances where it would make things easier for end users - or even worse, suggesting doing anything like MS or Apple - is just not the done thing here. I hope you can internalize these points and remember them in the future when you post.
Thanks!
If I'm reading this issue correctly, it's the idea of dependancies themselves that are the problem.
I kinda hate having to install 10 or so other programs just to get the intended one to work.
All you debian people will start screaming about 'apt-get' here, but that's not the point. ONE program shouldn't necessarily require the installation of 4-5 other programs, regardless of how the installations are done. Just because your 'apt-get' downloads and installs them for you doesn't mean you're not having to install other packages, you're just not thinking about it. There's still extra bandwidth and diskspace taken up, and more security considerations to consider. Having package X installed to run package Y means I have to be worried about security for 2 packages, even though I only want to use one package. We bitch at MS for this - tying multiple programs to IE - but it often happens in the linux world as well with packages - package X requires package A, B & C be installed. Why can't just the required bits of A, B & C be rolled into package X by the author? Or - heaven forbid - just provide a binary with all the necessary libraries bundled together.
It's not his model the poster was writing about, but the actual sentence. "He didn't have to worry since he'd decided that he just needed a way to fund the operation" (or something like that). Every business has to find a way to fund themselves. The writing in the article itself was poor.
This is not to say people who sell code are 'bad guys' but I fail to understand how they hope to compete with those commie open source hackers.
By making stuff that no commie open source hacker has an 'itch' to 'scratch', or at least 'scratch' well enough to appeal to common end users.
Sure your start out with an edge and a superior product, but how long are you going to stay that way?
Maybe only 4-5 years. That's enough for me for one product.