The sheer mind-numbing madness of Windows addiction was made apparent to me the other day when I was asked to troubleshoot a typical XP box on which an admin-level account was used to connect to a broadband account without the benefit of a router/NAT. This wasn't your average home PC but the sole computer within a business based on a membership database sitting on the same machine. One PC for the whole business with all its sensitive data wide open to the internet.
The owner complained that the box was grinding to a halt and could I do something to remove the inevitable infestation. I suggeted various remedies, one of which was to disconnect the machine from the internet and do all browsing and e-mail on a 2nd reconditioned PC running Linux with a SAMBA share to get files across to the XP machine. Surf in safety I guranteed him.
It was not to be. Not only could I not convince him that he had already suffered enough but I also showed him how to set his LCD monitor to the correct resolution, eliminating the fuzzy fonts and bringing clarity to his display for the first time. I even showed him how to retain the enlarged font size he'd been used to by using font size options instead of changing the resolution. Alas, it was all in vain. "Err, I'd like you put it back to how it was, if you don't mind". So I turned his display resolution back to the wrong, fuzzy setting and he was happy. Happy with his ailing, dysfunctional PC putting his whole business at risk. Such is the force of habit.
The code you produced and its attendant problems had nothing to do with it being written in Perl. Christ, it didn't even have any indentation. Let's at least lay out the code sensibly before we get into arguments about redundant syntax.
... like Amazon.com or the Internet Movie Database. So you present an example of badly written code and because it happens to be written in Perl you deduce that Perl is to blame. I think the logic went astray somewhere.
I'm a MacOS X, Linux and XP 'person' and despite shelling out for a Dual 2Ghz G5 with a 256Mb graphics card OS X is still slower than my 2.2Ghz AMD machines for simple things like cursor movement in the shell and Emacs. It's crazy. Press down arrow and wait while the cursor moves at a snail's pace. I've always considered the combination of Apple's BSD core and Aqua interface to be an uneasy alliance at best. That and the HFS+ legacy with its attendant "fix permissions" nonesense.
That would be fine if the ISPs had up-to-date versions of PHP but the opposite is usually the case. The casualty of PHP's fast pace of change is the ever-increasing number of legacy versions being offered with hosting deals. To service a number of clients using these kind of hosting deals one needs a complete history of PHP versions and feature history. This is the primary defect of packing so much into the language base. Although PHP presents itself as a common platform for web development version headaches and.ini variations make it a difficult platform to work with in practice, especially where your codebase is expected to last a long time. That the latest version of PHP is documented online means nothing because, a full year after its release, PHP5 isn't available with most hosting deals.
Maybe O'Reilly should have offered as a sample chapter one that clearly differed from the 3rd edition then? What I found particularly cynical in the downloadable chapter was virtually zero new content and the occasional arbitrary change of the first word in a paragraph to give the impression that it contained new material.
The text has been updated to reflect Perl 5.8, although this book doesn't introduce any 5.8 specific concepts.
So how exactly does this edition "reflect" Perl 5.8 then? Is is it enough just to drop a reference to 5.8 and leave it at that? This book is nothing more than a cynical O'Reilly marketing exercise. The sample chapter from O'Reilly is identical to the corresponding chapter in the 3rd edition while a brief look at the table of contents shows nothing more than a re-arrangement of the previous edition. Anyone who has the 3rd edition will be wasting their money buying this book.
Each time M$ announces a new idea it seems to get crazier and crazier. Go ahead M$, make my day. This is sure to put the nail in the coffin of M$'s desktop monopoly. Now, let's just pray that Linux and Apple are smart enough to capitalise on Billy G.'s blunders.
What the **** is all the noise about? So I start with a G4 running the wonderful OS X and I'm given the option of spending money to destroy it and put an Intel chip in the box so that I can...... run Windoze or Linux? Someone hit me on the head, please, and let me in on this one coz I just don't get it.
Best distro in the world. Is that why it won't install on a lot of the hardware I have? Debian's installer is THE WORST I've ever come across. It's release cycle is an absolute joke. For me Debian is The Worst Distro, hands down.
LCD inferior for colour AND resolution
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 1
LCD technology is ridiculously primitive in certain respects. Only the default resolution gives perfect clarity so you have the situation where ordinary users are looking at fuzzy screens because they've set the resolution to something non-standard and don't know the difference. Worse still, I've seen rows of LCDs in computer showrooms set to non-default resolutions to enlarge the size of text/images. If only the default resolution is meant to be used on an LCD the manufacturers should damned well produce them with only 1 option - the default. The current situation is utter madness. CRTs still offer multiple resolutions with equal clarity. Add to this the superior colour quality on top-end CRTs and I can't understand the fuss about LCDs. I have a Formac Gallery 19" LCD and a 21" Mitsubishi CRT both running on the same G5 and well calibrated. If I produce a graphic on one the colours can be totally different when viewed on the other. It's madness.
Isn't this missing the point. Just because the Windows/Firefox combination has some insecurities does not mean Firefox is equally insecure on Linux/OS X. How can it be? The exploits attributed to Firefox so far are largely confined to the Windows platform. That's the real issue. I'm tired of listening to claims that OSS is insecure simply because there are problems with the Windows version. OSS should be evaluated in its natural environment - Linux/*BSD/OS X.
Well, O'Reilly articles to the contrary, Linux is still by far the better OS for developers. Why? Because it takes a lifetime of adding and installing software on OS X to get it anywhere what comes with a full default installation of Fedora. I just spent days getting PHP4, PHP5 and mod_perl running with MySQL 4.0 and 4.1 on OS X Tiger with proxied Apache instances. On OS X PHP several necessary libraries wouldn't compile and even then PHP4 wouldn't recognise them - libexpat for example. So many missing libraries even after Developer Tools was installed. With a kitchen sink Fedora install it takes less than an hour and I have all the developer tools and libraries I'm going to need.
I'd be interested to know whether the same application coded as a CGI running under Apache::Registry runs any faster when coded as a mod_perl Apache::Request handler.
CGI is the Common Gateway Interface. Interface between what? The HTTP server and any seperate programme handling the request. If the HTTP server is handling the request internally, via mod_php or mod_perl for example, then the CGI interface doesn't come into it. Hence, with mod_perl and mod_php handling most dynamic content these days, it's true to say that CGI is in relative decline.
I was handed this site - www.worldwidehotelsonline.net - by a family startup who had some guy cobble it together for them in ASP/VBScript. Their business was suffering because it updated the XML as soon as a customer showed initial interest rather than on completion of the transaction (honest). The application also couldn't figure max. child ages properly. I hated pointing out to them that they were also losing 10% of potential business because the front page Country dropdown was coded for MSXML/IE only.
STILL the same problems with SMB in OS X? How can Apple tout their "seamless" integration with Windows when this has been going on for so long? How long before they finally sort out their appalling SMB support?
You shouldn't compare MySQL to M$ Access because Access isn't a client-server database. It's a desktop database for work with other desktop/office applications and the closest comparison is the new Java datbase which comes with OpenOffice 2. MySQL should be compared with M$ SQL Server, though it has less features at present, because both are distributed, client-server architectures.
Slashdot Mirror
The sheer mind-numbing madness of Windows addiction was made apparent to me the other day when I was asked to troubleshoot a typical XP box on which an admin-level account was used to connect to a broadband account without the benefit of a router/NAT. This wasn't your average home PC but the sole computer within a business based on a membership database sitting on the same machine. One PC for the whole business with all its sensitive data wide open to the internet.
The owner complained that the box was grinding to a halt and could I do something to remove the inevitable infestation. I suggeted various remedies, one of which was to disconnect the machine from the internet and do all browsing and e-mail on a 2nd reconditioned PC running Linux with a SAMBA share to get files across to the XP machine. Surf in safety I guranteed him.
It was not to be. Not only could I not convince him that he had already suffered enough but I also showed him how to set his LCD monitor to the correct resolution, eliminating the fuzzy fonts and bringing clarity to his display for the first time. I even showed him how to retain the enlarged font size he'd been used to by using font size options instead of changing the resolution. Alas, it was all in vain. "Err, I'd like you put it back to how it was, if you don't mind". So I turned his display resolution back to the wrong, fuzzy setting and he was happy. Happy with his ailing, dysfunctional PC putting his whole business at risk. Such is the force of habit.
The code you produced and its attendant problems had nothing to do with it being written in Perl. Christ, it didn't even have any indentation. Let's at least lay out the code sensibly before we get into arguments about redundant syntax.
Perl isn't bad for one-off crap
... like Amazon.com or the Internet Movie Database. So you present an example of badly written code and because it happens to be written in Perl you deduce that Perl is to blame. I think the logic went astray somewhere.
I'm a MacOS X, Linux and XP 'person' and despite shelling out for a Dual 2Ghz G5 with a 256Mb graphics card OS X is still slower than my 2.2Ghz AMD machines for simple things like cursor movement in the shell and Emacs. It's crazy. Press down arrow and wait while the cursor moves at a snail's pace. I've always considered the combination of Apple's BSD core and Aqua interface to be an uneasy alliance at best. That and the HFS+ legacy with its attendant "fix permissions" nonesense.
That would be fine if the ISPs had up-to-date versions of PHP but the opposite is usually the case. The casualty of PHP's fast pace of change is the ever-increasing number of legacy versions being offered with hosting deals. To service a number of clients using these kind of hosting deals one needs a complete history of PHP versions and feature history. This is the primary defect of packing so much into the language base. Although PHP presents itself as a common platform for web development version headaches and .ini variations make it a difficult platform to work with in practice, especially where your codebase is expected to last a long time. That the latest version of PHP is documented online means nothing because, a full year after its release, PHP5 isn't available with most hosting deals.
Maybe O'Reilly should have offered as a sample chapter one that clearly differed from the 3rd edition then? What I found particularly cynical in the downloadable chapter was virtually zero new content and the occasional arbitrary change of the first word in a paragraph to give the impression that it contained new material.
The text has been updated to reflect Perl 5.8, although this book doesn't introduce any 5.8 specific concepts.
So how exactly does this edition "reflect" Perl 5.8 then? Is is it enough just to drop a reference to 5.8 and leave it at that? This book is nothing more than a cynical O'Reilly marketing exercise. The sample chapter from O'Reilly is identical to the corresponding chapter in the 3rd edition while a brief look at the table of contents shows nothing more than a re-arrangement of the previous edition. Anyone who has the 3rd edition will be wasting their money buying this book.
Each time M$ announces a new idea it seems to get crazier and crazier. Go ahead M$, make my day. This is sure to put the nail in the coffin of M$'s desktop monopoly. Now, let's just pray that Linux and Apple are smart enough to capitalise on Billy G.'s blunders.
(shrinks away suitably chastened)
This here's a 48 Magnum that'll blow your head right off. Now you gotta ask yourself one question, "Do I feel lucky?". Well, DO YA, PUNK?
No, the REAL solution is Persistent Perl.
Read the article. It IS a PHP vuln. PHP's XML-RPC libraries are faulty.
If I was thinking of employing you and found your post you wouldn't have a chance.
What the **** is all the noise about? So I start with a G4 running the wonderful OS X and I'm given the option of spending money to destroy it and put an Intel chip in the box so that I can ...... run Windoze or Linux? Someone hit me on the head, please, and let me in on this one coz I just don't get it.
Best distro in the world. Is that why it won't install on a lot of the hardware I have? Debian's installer is THE WORST I've ever come across. It's release cycle is an absolute joke. For me Debian is The Worst Distro, hands down.
LCD technology is ridiculously primitive in certain respects. Only the default resolution gives perfect clarity so you have the situation where ordinary users are looking at fuzzy screens because they've set the resolution to something non-standard and don't know the difference. Worse still, I've seen rows of LCDs in computer showrooms set to non-default resolutions to enlarge the size of text/images. If only the default resolution is meant to be used on an LCD the manufacturers should damned well produce them with only 1 option - the default. The current situation is utter madness. CRTs still offer multiple resolutions with equal clarity. Add to this the superior colour quality on top-end CRTs and I can't understand the fuss about LCDs. I have a Formac Gallery 19" LCD and a 21" Mitsubishi CRT both running on the same G5 and well calibrated. If I produce a graphic on one the colours can be totally different when viewed on the other. It's madness.
Isn't this missing the point. Just because the Windows/Firefox combination has some insecurities does not mean Firefox is equally insecure on Linux/OS X. How can it be? The exploits attributed to Firefox so far are largely confined to the Windows platform. That's the real issue. I'm tired of listening to claims that OSS is insecure simply because there are problems with the Windows version. OSS should be evaluated in its natural environment - Linux/*BSD/OS X.
Well, O'Reilly articles to the contrary, Linux is still by far the better OS for developers. Why? Because it takes a lifetime of adding and installing software on OS X to get it anywhere what comes with a full default installation of Fedora. I just spent days getting PHP4, PHP5 and mod_perl running with MySQL 4.0 and 4.1 on OS X Tiger with proxied Apache instances. On OS X PHP several necessary libraries wouldn't compile and even then PHP4 wouldn't recognise them - libexpat for example. So many missing libraries even after Developer Tools was installed. With a kitchen sink Fedora install it takes less than an hour and I have all the developer tools and libraries I'm going to need.
I'd be interested to know whether the same application coded as a CGI running under Apache::Registry runs any faster when coded as a mod_perl Apache::Request handler.
CGI is the Common Gateway Interface. Interface between what? The HTTP server and any seperate programme handling the request. If the HTTP server is handling the request internally, via mod_php or mod_perl for example, then the CGI interface doesn't come into it. Hence, with mod_perl and mod_php handling most dynamic content these days, it's true to say that CGI is in relative decline.
I was handed this site - www.worldwidehotelsonline.net - by a family startup who had some guy cobble it together for them in ASP/VBScript. Their business was suffering because it updated the XML as soon as a customer showed initial interest rather than on completion of the transaction (honest). The application also couldn't figure max. child ages properly. I hated pointing out to them that they were also losing 10% of potential business because the front page Country dropdown was coded for MSXML/IE only.
STILL the same problems with SMB in OS X? How can Apple tout their "seamless" integration with Windows when this has been going on for so long? How long before they finally sort out their appalling SMB support?
You shouldn't compare MySQL to M$ Access because Access isn't a client-server database. It's a desktop database for work with other desktop/office applications and the closest comparison is the new Java datbase which comes with OpenOffice 2. MySQL should be compared with M$ SQL Server, though it has less features at present, because both are distributed, client-server architectures.
Let's face it, even XP SP2 is still beta. Tried installing Recovery Console AFTER loading SP2? Forget it.
Time to brush up on Template Toolkit - far superior to anything Dreamweaver templates have to offer.