I provided plenty. You Only want to see what you want to. If they shut off php.ini, and you don't wish to do your own legwork outside of this tiny little forum, then you don't truly wish to know now do you. You only wish to argue. To that I say feel free to remain ignorant. I have given you the key to free your mind... it is up to you to remain caged or not.
As stated, in the php.ini, you can turn 'show_php' off. You can state that I am wrong all you want but the cookies used to show (and in some cases still do), with a TINY amount of legwork, you will find that they still DO run PHP and if you ask them directly, they will state as much.
I'm constantly amazed at the state of denial in the RUBY community when even the maintainers state that they use other languages that their commnity just puts their fingers in their ears and starts going 'LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA'.
Seriously, if you want to remain ignorant, it's up to you. I'm not here to convince you of what even the maintainers of the language have stated repeatedly.
If you can no longer see them it's because they have show_php turned off in their php.ini. You can still spot what they are running on Netcraft and ask them why they are running PHP and they will tell you; they have responded in the past to such inquiries with what I am telling you.
Tell it to the ruby.com or rubyonrails.com websites. Tell it to 43things. They all rely upon PHP to scale their sites. This is a well known fact stated over and over again and that the RUBY maintainers are aware of but that the RUBY community calls a flame or FUD. Test it yourself if you think it's a lie; check those sites yourself if you think it's a lie (Note: some of the RUBY sites have turned 'show PHP' off in their php.ini config so it may not be showing anymore in Netcraft or with PHP hidden cookies but if asked, they will tell you that they are running it as it performs some things better than RUBY- and that's their official response).
Since you don't begin to define what you mean by scalability, I'll take that as FUD. However, scalability is one of the problems Ruby is trying to tackle
Um... so you agree that scalability is a problem but you say it's FUD?? By scalability, you must have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about to be able to agree with me and say it's a problem as well.
No, talking about the language not the MVC architecture. RUBY itself has trouble scaling; RAILS makes the problem a bit worse but if the problem wasn't there to begin with, it wouldn't be that noticeable with a good MVC framework.
But RUBY always seems to have to rely upon other languages to scale. The RUBY website uses PHP. The Rails website uses PHP.Seems every place that RUBY has to scale requires it to use another language and the RUBY maintainers have not tried to excuse this but the RUBY community has.
This is why most developer say that RUBY is still developing as a language as is good for small implementations that never ever intend to get bigger. But for those that want their applications to grow with them, they should implement in a language that can grow with them.
Answer: No. Ruby doesn't scale as well as PHP, Python, or PERL. The number of responses per second it can handle quickly drops off in comparison to the other languages; tack on Rails and it's even worse. Honestly, any MVC framework in Perl, PHP or Python is going to be more scalable and faster than RUBY; it may have a bit steeper of a learning curve for a newbie but so what.
Yes but th question that everyone will be asking is can it scale yet. To date, RUBY has been great with hype but most professional developers (once adopting RUBY) find out it's limitations within a matter of weeks. So while it may have improved upon speed, the question still is whether it can scale without having to rely upon PHP and JAVA and PYTHON consistently to help it out in this regard.
Who is to dispute the machine though? What happens in cases that are fuzzy?
My ex-girlfriend got nailed by one of these a while back while I was riding with her and it was another car identical to hers zipping on by us. But they nailed us because the cars looked identical and no one on the spot could have stated otherwise. I happen to know that she wasn't speeding too because I nagged at her that she could EASILY do 5 over the speed limit but she never would and it caused arguments. She got a ticket for doing 25 over the speed limit and couldn't dispute it because a machine took it.
This story is nothing to do with surveillance (despite the misleading summary), and nothing to do with giving up necessary freedom for temporary security
Oh really? what is the excuse for cameras and what the hell do cameras do? Think about it... you have enough braincells to figure this one out on your own I'm sure.
Hell all it would take it a bucket of water on an unprotected outlet. Not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas or anything... but that's one way to take them out. If I was his neighbor, I'd be turning on the sprinklers full blast.
If you are part of a botnet, they will notice something
Yep... every single owner of a computer that is owned and part of a botnet knows that they are part of a botnet. They are 100% aware that they are part of a botnet. Now who is being naive?
Well yeah. It makes you as secure as adding a jelly donut to your hub. It's the implementation of said hardware or software not said hardware or software in and of itself... naturally.
But again, leave a default install of the latest Linux, Mac and Windows box on an unsecured network and see what gets hacked first... we ALL know the answer to that puzzler.
so whats wrong with supporting more than one OS? Would you prefer one point of failure? A good sys admin can support multiple platforms. The only people I ever hear complain about this are Windows people who can't support anything else. Linux admins can ALWAYS support Windows and Mac platforms so why is it so hard for the vast majority of Windows admins to support the other platforms? Hmmm...? Do you just prefer having a single point of failure?
Yeah apparently. It's a pretty enormous figure. There is more than one botnet and Microsoft machines being ubiquitous on desktops around the world, you gotta figure that the their is probably more than 1% that researchers don't see behind firewalls and that the number is OBVIOUSLY an exaggeration but even with that it would mean that millions are still safe machines.
Still how many home users do you know that run as root? That run without updated antivirus? without ANY antiovirus? that open attachments? Etc? Remember that Joe Average is NOT a computer professional and this thing in front of them is STILL a magic box as far as they are concerned; even the next generation of kids who have actually grown up with computers still only know how to use the GUI but don't understand the basics of what the underlying mechanics are and only know basic issues of computer security which will not secure against exploits that allow access to your system to install a root kit.
And I'll bet only 1% of users do active searches for rootkits.
Show me the TOTAL number of vulnerabilities reported (not just the ones acknowledged) vs exploits reported and unreported. That's the problem. They do not like to report their vulnerabilities and large companies using their product do not like to report the vulnerabilities (bad for business you know). So these botnets just keep growing mysteriously for unknown reasons off the Microsoft backbone (Yes, 99% of Microsoft machines are being used for the botnets with Linux machines being used as the master nodes).
Reporting of exploits and reporting of security vulnerabilities requires full disclosure and some people who still believe in 'security through obscurity' as a viable model will never disclose these things.
Number of vulnerabilities in a product is not the same thing as the acknowledged number of vulnerabilities in a product. Secunia reports on the number of acknowledged vulnerabilities. Microsoft is known for NOT acknowledging vulnerabilities even though they have been reported to the company and then SUDDENLY fixing them in a patch.
And then unfortunately, their supporters like to bash Linux and Mac for actually working with security agencies and fixing their bugs as well as reporting them. This will forever be the bane of open source and it's benefit... that everyone gets to see its flaws but at the same time, everyone gets to contribute to fix them.
Slashdot Mirror
I provided plenty. You Only want to see what you want to. If they shut off php.ini, and you don't wish to do your own legwork outside of this tiny little forum, then you don't truly wish to know now do you. You only wish to argue. To that I say feel free to remain ignorant. I have given you the key to free your mind... it is up to you to remain caged or not.
I'm constantly amazed at the state of denial in the RUBY community when even the maintainers state that they use other languages that their commnity just puts their fingers in their ears and starts going 'LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA'.
Seriously, if you want to remain ignorant, it's up to you. I'm not here to convince you of what even the maintainers of the language have stated repeatedly.
If you can no longer see them it's because they have show_php turned off in their php.ini. You can still spot what they are running on Netcraft and ask them why they are running PHP and they will tell you; they have responded in the past to such inquiries with what I am telling you.
Never said it was written in PHP. Said they USE PHP in order to scale and that is their official response.
Tell it to the ruby.com or rubyonrails.com websites. Tell it to 43things. They all rely upon PHP to scale their sites. This is a well known fact stated over and over again and that the RUBY maintainers are aware of but that the RUBY community calls a flame or FUD. Test it yourself if you think it's a lie; check those sites yourself if you think it's a lie (Note: some of the RUBY sites have turned 'show PHP' off in their php.ini config so it may not be showing anymore in Netcraft or with PHP hidden cookies but if asked, they will tell you that they are running it as it performs some things better than RUBY- and that's their official response).
But RUBY always seems to have to rely upon other languages to scale. The RUBY website uses PHP. The Rails website uses PHP.Seems every place that RUBY has to scale requires it to use another language and the RUBY maintainers have not tried to excuse this but the RUBY community has.
This is why most developer say that RUBY is still developing as a language as is good for small implementations that never ever intend to get bigger. But for those that want their applications to grow with them, they should implement in a language that can grow with them.
Answer: No. Ruby doesn't scale as well as PHP, Python, or PERL. The number of responses per second it can handle quickly drops off in comparison to the other languages; tack on Rails and it's even worse. Honestly, any MVC framework in Perl, PHP or Python is going to be more scalable and faster than RUBY; it may have a bit steeper of a learning curve for a newbie but so what.
Yes but th question that everyone will be asking is can it scale yet. To date, RUBY has been great with hype but most professional developers (once adopting RUBY) find out it's limitations within a matter of weeks. So while it may have improved upon speed, the question still is whether it can scale without having to rely upon PHP and JAVA and PYTHON consistently to help it out in this regard.
Who is to dispute the machine though? What happens in cases that are fuzzy?
My ex-girlfriend got nailed by one of these a while back while I was riding with her and it was another car identical to hers zipping on by us. But they nailed us because the cars looked identical and no one on the spot could have stated otherwise. I happen to know that she wasn't speeding too because I nagged at her that she could EASILY do 5 over the speed limit but she never would and it caused arguments. She got a ticket for doing 25 over the speed limit and couldn't dispute it because a machine took it.
Well then I beg all the quote gods forgiveness. Lets hope the point of the quote can still be understood through the misquotation.
Hell all it would take it a bucket of water on an unprotected outlet. Not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas or anything... but that's one way to take them out. If I was his neighbor, I'd be turning on the sprinklers full blast.
Where's my BB Gun? I'm HOPING to put someones eye out.
Rock on Ben!
But again, leave a default install of the latest Linux, Mac and Windows box on an unsecured network and see what gets hacked first... we ALL know the answer to that puzzler.
and I prefer people who can state facts instead of partial truths but I'll take what I can get this christmas with a republican in the white house. :)
so whats wrong with supporting more than one OS? Would you prefer one point of failure? A good sys admin can support multiple platforms. The only people I ever hear complain about this are Windows people who can't support anything else. Linux admins can ALWAYS support Windows and Mac platforms so why is it so hard for the vast majority of Windows admins to support the other platforms? Hmmm...? Do you just prefer having a single point of failure?
Mac: Hi I'm a Mac
PC: and I'm a PC
Military Intelligence: And I'm no longer an oxymoron
Still how many home users do you know that run as root? That run without updated antivirus? without ANY antiovirus? that open attachments? Etc? Remember that Joe Average is NOT a computer professional and this thing in front of them is STILL a magic box as far as they are concerned; even the next generation of kids who have actually grown up with computers still only know how to use the GUI but don't understand the basics of what the underlying mechanics are and only know basic issues of computer security which will not secure against exploits that allow access to your system to install a root kit.
And I'll bet only 1% of users do active searches for rootkits.
Reporting of exploits and reporting of security vulnerabilities requires full disclosure and some people who still believe in 'security through obscurity' as a viable model will never disclose these things.
And then unfortunately, their supporters like to bash Linux and Mac for actually working with security agencies and fixing their bugs as well as reporting them. This will forever be the bane of open source and it's benefit... that everyone gets to see its flaws but at the same time, everyone gets to contribute to fix them.
Nice retort. Way to dodge the issue entirely by whining. Life is so unfair when people are logical isn't it?
Wooo... an editor. Way to go. Something that NO ONE can bypass by using an alternate editor. That will fix the problem. You are absolutely correct.