So as long as there is a legtimate business interest in being provably, significantly, insecure, that's better than no business interest in something that has not been proven to be insecure at all?
Um, OK.
If this dweeb wants to investigate and remove the use of programs that pose potential security risks, how about starting with Explorer and Outlook.
What a complete waste of time and money.
Yes, it is a 2.0 release. Look at the distribution name yourself, it is right there. And you are lying when you say I doubt it could handle production use, because I use it in production every day. Of course, you are an anonymous coward, so it is easy to lie.
The traffic on slashcode.org can't even be in the same order of magnitude as on slashdot.org.
Yes, and? Slash 2.0 probably couldn't handle the traffic of Slashdot, though we don't know for sure. That is one of the several reasons Slashdot is not running Slash 2.0.
You can change the moderations in Slash yourself. You can add the article read count too, just by changing the templates, I believe. Never tried it, but the data should be available to the template.
Turning off related links would be trivial, but would require a code change, just to allow the user to save the option. Once the code is there to allow the user to save that option, a slight change to the template is all that is required to enable it.
Well, individual users cannot have themes. But you can easily distribute a set of "templates" (see Template Toolkit for your theme and a site can install them. Pretty much all the layout is controlled through templates, and it is very flexible.
CaptTofu, Krow, and I are the core coders. Cliff and Jamie and CowboyNeal have helped us out a lot along the way. So have a bunch of other people, some of who are listed in the docs.
Slash, 1.0 or 2.0, can work fine on a shared system for smallish sites. But it needs to be tuned for it, and that can be difficult if you don't know what you are doing. You'd probably want to lower the template cache (heck, maybe turn off the caching, which would slow it down, but conserve memory), shrink the number of processes for Apache, the number of threads for MySQL, etc.
Slash 2.2 will likely see a bunch of performance improvements, too, like page caching in RAM.
Yes, under various scenarios, it will not be very efficient in comparison to some other systems. But most systems won't be as efficient as plain small CGIs, either. Or static HTML.
There is nothing psuedo-compiled about the perl code cached in the Apache process. It is compiled code in RAM, just like any other compiled code. Perl is not interpreted in the traditional sense of the word; it is compiled and then executed, on the fly. With mod_perl caching, the compilation happens once, and you're good to go.
Slash 2.0 has some support for PostgreSQL, and some people are actively working on it. It really works pretty well under PostgreSQL, I believe, but there are a few kinks to work out.
Slashdot will never run Slash 2.0. Slashdot will run Slash 2.2. Slash 2.0 was phase one of the rewrite. Now we need to add a few more features and optimize. We do eat our own dogfood, in that Slashcode has been running 2.0 (in various forms) for a couple of months now.
Yes indeedy. It works a little better now than it did (mostly in that the sites share the same command line utils, and it is much easier to set up the httpd configs), but the essence is the same as it was. The problem the original poster was addressing was needing daemon processes, which hasn't changed, either.
On Mac OS 9.1, I have a five-button mouse, a command shell, and the icons are where they belong, on the right side of the screen, as I am right-handed, so they are closest to my hand when I reach for my mouse. Although it would be cool to make that as a pref.
Not strictly true (if at all true). I run the Apple DVD player on my Mac, and have MacsBug running all the time. I do have the hardware DVD decoding though, so that might make a difference.
Um. Darwin IS ported to x86. The code is all there. It won't install or run, because Apple's not been working on it. But the "open source community" is free to download and work on it.
Well, it would be easy to modify that yourself, with Slash 2.0, on your own site. You'd have to ask Rob if we would want it on Slashdot, I'd guess no...
Many sales like TPJ's and Slashdot's often include contractural obligations for the new owner to continue the production. I don't know any details of TPJ's or Slashdot's contracts, but it wouldn't surprise me if neither EarthWeb nor VA was legally disallowed from killing them off entirely. Of course, contract disputes are often settled in courts of law (and Orwant said something about courts in his letter); we'll just have to wait and see.
I was doing HTTP file uploads when this book was still in diapers!:-) It is just something that hasn't been a priority. Rob already had the code in there, it was just not tested, not used, etc.
Use the File::Spec module and you don't even need to remember a path separator if it is different. See the perlport manpage for all your portability needs.
Slashdot Mirror
So as long as there is a legtimate business interest in being provably, significantly, insecure, that's better than no business interest in something that has not been proven to be insecure at all? Um, OK.
If this dweeb wants to investigate and remove the use of programs that pose potential security risks, how about starting with Explorer and Outlook. What a complete waste of time and money.
Yes, it is a 2.0 release. Look at the distribution name yourself, it is right there. And you are lying when you say I doubt it could handle production use, because I use it in production every day. Of course, you are an anonymous coward, so it is easy to lie.
Yes, and? Slash 2.0 probably couldn't handle the traffic of Slashdot, though we don't know for sure. That is one of the several reasons Slashdot is not running Slash 2.0.
You can change the moderations in Slash yourself. You can add the article read count too, just by changing the templates, I believe. Never tried it, but the data should be available to the template.
Turning off related links would be trivial, but would require a code change, just to allow the user to save the option. Once the code is there to allow the user to save that option, a slight change to the template is all that is required to enable it.
Yes, polls have always been included with the Slash distribution (since 0.9 anyway).
Well, individual users cannot have themes. But you can easily distribute a set of "templates" (see Template Toolkit for your theme and a site can install them. Pretty much all the layout is controlled through templates, and it is very flexible.
CaptTofu, Krow, and I are the core coders. Cliff and Jamie and CowboyNeal have helped us out a lot along the way. So have a bunch of other people, some of who are listed in the docs.
Slash 2.2 will likely see a bunch of performance improvements, too, like page caching in RAM.
Yes, under various scenarios, it will not be very efficient in comparison to some other systems. But most systems won't be as efficient as plain small CGIs, either. Or static HTML.
There is nothing psuedo-compiled about the perl code cached in the Apache process. It is compiled code in RAM, just like any other compiled code. Perl is not interpreted in the traditional sense of the word; it is compiled and then executed, on the fly. With mod_perl caching, the compilation happens once, and you're good to go.
Slash 2.0 has some support for PostgreSQL, and some people are actively working on it. It really works pretty well under PostgreSQL, I believe, but there are a few kinks to work out.
Slashdot will never run Slash 2.0. Slashdot will run Slash 2.2. Slash 2.0 was phase one of the rewrite. Now we need to add a few more features and optimize. We do eat our own dogfood, in that Slashcode has been running 2.0 (in various forms) for a couple of months now.
That wasn't the README that is included in the distribution.
Yes indeedy. It works a little better now than it did (mostly in that the sites share the same command line utils, and it is much easier to set up the httpd configs), but the essence is the same as it was. The problem the original poster was addressing was needing daemon processes, which hasn't changed, either.
Erm, yeah. :)
On Mac OS 9.1, I have a five-button mouse, a command shell, and the icons are where they belong, on the right side of the screen, as I am right-handed, so they are closest to my hand when I reach for my mouse. Although it would be cool to make that as a pref.
Yes and no, IIRC: HFS+ is case-sensitive, UFS is not. So I guess it would depend on which filesystem you're using.
Not strictly true (if at all true). I run the Apple DVD player on my Mac, and have MacsBug running all the time. I do have the hardware DVD decoding though, so that might make a difference.
Um. Darwin IS ported to x86. The code is all there. It won't install or run, because Apple's not been working on it. But the "open source community" is free to download and work on it.
use D'oh;
Heh!
...
Well, it would be easy to modify that yourself, with Slash 2.0, on your own site. You'd have to ask Rob if we would want it on Slashdot, I'd guess no
Wait ... you used to work for Apple??
Many sales like TPJ's and Slashdot's often include contractural obligations for the new owner to continue the production. I don't know any details of TPJ's or Slashdot's contracts, but it wouldn't surprise me if neither EarthWeb nor VA was legally disallowed from killing them off entirely. Of course, contract disputes are often settled in courts of law (and Orwant said something about courts in his letter); we'll just have to wait and see.
If it were from the company, it surely would have said "I bought this and it is GREAT! you have to get one!"
I was doing HTTP file uploads when this book was still in diapers! :-) It is just something that hasn't been a priority. Rob already had the code in there, it was just not tested, not used, etc.
Use the File::Spec module and you don't even need to remember a path separator if it is different. See the perlport manpage for all your portability needs.