Ah, video. Another thing that Skype added long after the open world had it (at least Ekiga, then Gnomemeeting, did)...and now people are using Skype, because it has video!
Microsoft Windows Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 (Service Pack 2 or higher), Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista (enhanced Vista integration from version 2.2) 128 Mbytes RAM
At least 800 Mbytes available disk space for a default install (including a JRE) via download. After installation and deletion of temporary installation files, OpenOffice.org will use approximately 440 Mbytes disk space. 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours Solaris: SPARC platform edition Solaris 8 OS or higher 128 Mbytes RAM 250 Mbytes available disk space X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours Solaris: x86 platform edition Solaris 8 OS or higher 128 Mbytes RAM 250 Mbytes available disk space X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours GNU/Linux ("Linux") Linux kernel version 2.2.13 or higher, glibc2 version 2.2.0 or higher 128 Mbytes RAM 200 Mbytes available disk space X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours
Mac OS X (X11) Power Mac G3 400Mhz or higher
Mac OS X 10.3.x (10.3.5 recommended), Mac OS X 10.4.x
256Mbytes RAM
400Mbytes available disk space X11 required. Available for OS X 10.3 on Apple.com here and for OS X 10.4 on the OS X install disc. The instructions for Tiger users are here. 800 x 600 or higher resolution with 16.7 Million colours
| | System Requirements for Microsoft Office Basic 2007: |
Computer and processor 500 megahertz (MHz) processor or higher
Memory 256 megabyte (MB) RAM or higher1
Hard disk 1.5 gigabyte (GB); a portion of this disk space will be freed after installation if the original download package is removed from the hard drive.
Drive CD-ROM or DVD drive
Display 1024x768 or higher resolution monitor
Operating system Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack (SP) 2, Windows Server 2003 with SP1, or later operating system2
<snip>
1 512 MB RAM or higher recommended for Outlook Instant Search. Grammar and contextual spelling in Word is not turned on unless the machine has 1 GB memory.
--
In short, you're looking at 128MB RAM and 800 MB disk vs. 256 MB RAM and 1.5 GB disk, meaning that MS Office 2007 is about twice as heavy as OOo 2. I'll also point out that OOo gives you a greater choice of OSes, including some that will happily run on hardware that the ones MS Office 2007 works with would crawl on.
End of post.
Oh, by the way, did you all know I just love the filtering Slashdot does? It told me to use fewer junk characters. And here I was thinking I'd just add a few graphic characters to make things look nicer. Well, guess not. Now I am just filling up my post with words, hoping that that will help get it past the filter. Ok, well, that didn't help, so I deleted most of the graphic characters I had added. So if my post doesn't look nice, know that I originally had it look better. Blame the lameness filter.
``The only way in which 2007 is "worse" than either 2003 or OOo in terms of interface is that its not the same as one would expect from prior versions of Office (which have been fairly constant back at least to Office 95), so I can see why people of the "I refuse to learn anything new" crowd (which, previously, have help fuel MS Office's dominance) might prefer OOo, which is much closer the pre-2007 MS Office interface.''
But of course, that was never the real reason. Watch them continue to use the same argument and learn MS Office 2007 instead of transferring their skills to OOo, in the full belief that MS Office 2007 is what they're used to and OOo requires an enormous effort in re-training.
We've always used ribbons. We've always been at war with menus.
Up front cost: 0 Cost of retraining: little Cost of keeping up to date: little Cost of underlying OS: starting at 0 Cost of hardware: little Compatibility with legacy formats: decent Open standards: yes Open source: yes Microsoft logo: no
Microsoft Office 2007:
Up front cost: hundreds of dollars (discounts may apply) Cost of retraining: moderate Cost of keeping up to date: much Cost of underlying OS: starting at a few tens of dollars Cost of hardware: moderate Compatibility with legacy formats: decent Open standards: with free plug-in (IIRC) Open source: no Microsoft logo: yes
I think the last two items will be the deal makers/breakers for most. Some people will insist on Microsoft. They will choose MS Office. Others will insist on open source. They will probably choose OpenOffice.org (although excellent other options exist). For the rest, I think OpenOffice.org is the winner...but I am sure people will vehemently disagree.
Yet again, us Linux users are left out. The program works only on Windows/x86. And here I am, on my glorious Linux/ppc box, just having painfully gotten Skype to work...and they introduce a new feature that I can't access...boohooo!
(I kid. I hate Skype passionately (for getting everybody on a proprietary solution when open protocols exist) and would never go through any amount of trouble to get it installed on my computer.)
``Someday will people be looking at us as if we were idiots in the way we look back at people that let themselves be ruled by monachs and tyrants?''
Will? We already are looking at you that way!
-- Your friends from the other side of the pond
(Note that I am not claiming things are any better here, just that many people here look down on USAmericans for supposedly letting themselves be ruled by corporations and other wealthy and not necessarily moral persons because they are too ignorant to do anything about it.)
``If possible, its drivers had to be already part of the vanilla kernel. To my surprise, those devices exist! They are the ones that have the ZyDas zd1211(b) chipset (the "b" one is better). I thought it was going to be hard to find one of those specific devices, but no.''
Congratulations, my friend. You have reached enlightenment! Despite what some people would have you believe, Linux hardware support is actually really good. There are also plenty of vendors, even of wireless chipsets, who cooperate with the community to get drivers developed for their hardware. As a rule of thumb, cheap hardware generally works with Linux. Sadly, it sometimes seems as if laptop manufacturers go out of their way to find the one device in a class that does _not_ work with Linux, and will continue to give problems for years to come...
Or, to take a closer example, there should be something akin to the Bluetooth adapter USB device class. In fact, I don't understand why there isn't one.
``I'm not sure you realize it, but any OS-like software with "Windows" in its name infringes the trademark of Microsoft. That's something you might want to avoid.''
Not if you're Michael Robertson and you are addicted to publicity.
I agree with you that the requirements of your application are very important to consider, but I do think the original poster's question can be answered based on the information he gave. Programming languages have strengths and limitations that apply no matter what project you are working on. Perhaps that is exactly what the poster is after: knowing what language/framework combination would be the best investment, not for a specific project with specific requirements, but in general. And there, I can say Ruby is the better language. You can adapt it to what you happen to be doing much better than PHP. And in the long run, that is going to be a win for you, because requirements will change, and you will end up developing new functionality, rather than gluing together things that others have already built.
Being a programming language enthusiast, I would choose Ruby over PHP any day. There simply isn't any contest.
While I think PHP has the edge in being an easy transition from straight HTML (no MVC or OO baggage required), it suffers from a seriously crappy design (if you can even call it that) and the implementation isn't too great, either. Ruby has its flaws, but the language is one of the most elegant I have ever worked with. I have worked extensively with both, and I can tell you from experience that PHPs shortcoming seriously start to hamper you once your project moves from "static HTML with some generated content" towards "full-blown application which emits HTML in some places".
You can argue about frameworks until you are blue in the face, but, eventually, you will end up writing a lot of code in the language itself, and Ruby is the clear winner there. Having said that, I should add that Rails is a pretty good framework which gets a lot of things right, and the other parts are being worked on. When I worked with Rails full-time, I could almost feel the progress being made, and I trust that Rails is a lot better now than it was then. It improves quickly, because it is built using a good language. Unfortunately, I can't say anything about competing frameworks, as I have never worked with any.
Now, you might find that Ruby programmers are scarce. You can find Java or PHP programmers on every corner of the street, or near enough, but Ruby is a language that is still mostly ignored by the mainstream, including both programmers and those who teach them. This is both a disadvantage and an advantage. It makes it more difficult, and likely more expensive, to find and hire programmers who already know Ruby, but those who do are likely to be good programmers, whereas the same isn't true of many Java and PHP programmers. Also, people who have some experience learning programming languages (i.e. everybody who knows more than one or two) should have no difficulty learning Ruby...thankfully, Ruby isn't one of those languages that is full of gotchas.
Now, to address your points more specifically:
1. Maturity of solution:
Neither Ruby nor PHP are exactly stable, but both have a pretty good track record with regard to backward compatibility. Rails and its imitations are relatively new and unstable, but I would guess that Rails would be the better pick. Note, though, that this is just a guess.
2. Features:
PHP comes with a lot of things baked into the implementation. Ruby comes with a number of modules, and more can easily be installed. I don't know which comes out the winner, but, in my experience, there is usually a Ruby module somewhere that does what you need...and you can easily install it; no recompiling required (unlike PHP, at least back when I still used it for new projects).
3. Size of community of skilled users:
PHP is the clear winner here. However, I am not 100% sure that it's actually easier to find _good_ PHP programmers than _good_ Ruby programmers.
4. Complexity, ease for neophytes to master:
PHP is a more limited language than Ruby, and thus easier to learn completely. Learning the same things that PHP can do in Ruby should be about equally difficult, but if you are going to be working with code that others have written (and you are), you will have to learn more Ruby than that. So PHP wins this one, but I must argue that your programmers will end up writing more code (and thus costing more) in exchange for less time spent on learning.
5. Greatest strengths and weaknesses:
Strength of Ruby: It's actually a great programming language. If you have people who can handle it, this will be a great advantage for you.
Weaknesses of Ruby: Few people know it. It is dog slow. It is dynamically typed, so you will spend a lot of time debugging and getting errors at run-time that could have been caught at compile time.
Strength of PHP: Many people know it. It's pretty easy to learn. It's tailored for web pages and some a
``Given time, eventually, the truth will be revealed and they will see which side is really evil and which side is really good, and those people are going to choose to live for themselves, or to be enslaved by the very dictators that you left wing traitors continually support.''
I do hope that given time, the truth will be revealed. However, with lies being spread and believed on both sides, it's sometimes hard to be optimistic.
As for dictators enslaving people, that is something I have never supported and never will. If I have my history right, the USA has helped to power and/or supported many dictators in South America and the Middle East. I would have opposed this, had I been alive and a citizen of the USA at the time. As it is, I can only refer to these historical events as examples of the USA not being the angels many people believe they are, and remind people that violence does not usually make people have friendly feelings towards you.
I don't hold Bush and his administration responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Really, I don't think you can be blamed if a determined enemy breaks trough your defenses, and to the extent that the attack was provoked, it was provoked a long time before Bush came to power. I do, however, hold him, his government, and everybody who supported them (especially those who re-elected him) responsible for the actions they took afterwards, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (resulting in many more deaths than the 9/11 attacks), the deterioration of liberties of American citizens, inhumane treatments of suspects in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, just to name a few of the worst things that come to mind.
I feel I'm doing my part. I try to do my own research (rather than swallowing what the media feeds me). I listen to people and talk to people. I try to understand everybody's point of view and how they came to it. I try to get people to think for themselves, rather then taking their pick among the phrases they hear from others (Assuming you had to choose one, would you kill Osama no matter the cost, or would you rather stop the aggresison against the USA, even if it meant letting some of your declared enemies walk free?). I've spoken out against my country's participation in Iraq, and am currently trying to convince people that silencing those who have criticized that participation wasn't a good idea. Yes, you read that right. The people in charge ignored the criticism before the invasion, and when, a few years later, one minister proposed a re-evaluation of the decission, he was told to shut his mouth in so many words. In the face of that, I can only assume something is wrong, the powers that be know it, and they are afraid of it getting out in the open.
And yet, of course, I am the boogeyman and the supporter of dictators. Well, believe what you believe...but _please_ do so because you actually made a credible effort to get at the truth, and not because "they are on the other side, so everything they say must be wrong" or some other bogus reason. I think there are plenty of bad things being said by all parties here, and so I'm really not on anybody's side, but I want to know the truth, and I want an end to the madness and violence. It saddens me that some politicians apparently have opposing goals. If they spread lies and cause violence, and that seems to be the case, I feel I have not only the right, but the duty to be angry with them.
Oh my. I hate to say it, but you sound so much like a stereotypical right-wing ignoramus right now. I mean no personal offense, but you just gloss over the technicalities of finding the criminals as if it's not difficult at all, then propose violence...almost _war_ against a sovereign nation as recourse.
Send the marines, yeah! Violence is the solution! If it doesn't work, use more!
It worked before, right? I mean, we've caught Osama, Afghanistan and Iraq are all peaceful and dandy now, there is no anti-American sentiment in Vietnam or anywhere in the world. Everybody loves the USA, because of brililant minds like you!
``So this got me to wondering... how much of this actually _is_ something that is of any real concern, and if it really is, how could it be explained to people in such a way that it's not going to sound like some claim from a conspiracy theorist?''
A few days ago, I figured that the great difficulty in explaining this to people who don't know already is that, in the Real World, preposterous conspiracy theories are often false. In fact, much more innocuous ones usually are, too. This is something I figured while actually taking some time away from computer security and traveling through the Real World. In the Real World, you can leave your expensive laptop in your unlocked yacht in an unguarded marina, and then leave thousands of dollars worth of electronics equipment in a restaurant to recharge overnight, and none of it will get stolen.
On the Internet, if your computer is reachable, it will be attacked in a matter of minutes. Any hole that is found in the software you run is likely to get exploited. Most of the email you get is spam sent by exploited Windows machines people have at home. Corporations are watching you, some with orders from the government. You can legitimately wonder _who_ controls your computer. It's not really an exaggeration to say that everything that can go wrong not only will, but has.
It only starts to get _really_ scary when you consider how much of the Real World is actually dependent on computers these days...
``At first, I thought this thing was Australian made...but on further reading, I realized it was designed [and probably built] in San Fransisco. After a long time, being frustrated by America's out-sourcing of US manufacturing, I am happy I am American once again.
What we now need, is to recapture the electronics and auto manufacturing leads from Japan, China and South Korea.''
``If you haven't put in the face time, you're not really falling in love with that person, but the idea of the person.''
IMO, that is always the case. No matter how you interact and how long you have known a person, you will never know them completely.
I find interacting with people through "poor" media like IRC usually reveals a lot that interacting through "rich" media (like actual face to face conversation) would keep hidden. I think it is because these media _force_ people to realize that the other person can't read your mind and can misunderstand you.
That sounds like it wasn't what you expected. Apparently, people have some idea that relationships should only developed through normal means, for some definition of normal.
And there, I said the magic word: definition. What is the definition of relationship? When is a relationship real? What means are normal?
My feeling is that this is going to be similar to the question whether machines can think. Some people define thinking in a way that machines can't possibly satisfy (usually, the argument is exactly "if a machine does it, it's not thinking"). Other people use definitions where thinking machines are always just around the corner, but never actually there. And some people use definitions by which we've had thinking machines for a long time now.
As for relationships, I think that, no matter what your definition of a relationship is, the (real) feelings you get from interacting in a virtual world are about the same as those you would get if the interaction had happened in the Real World. For me, that makes the relationship real.
Of course, some aspects of relationships that develop in the Real World will be missing from relationships that develop in some virtual reality. On the other hand, there may be things in virtual reality relationships that aren't in Real World relationships. There are some very interesting effects here. For example, there are great opportunities for misrepresenting and hiding things...in both virtual and Real relationships.
Virtual reality being virtual, it also provides great opportunities for experimentation. Some people never get past the "let's offend people and see what happens" stage, but other people go much, much further. Some people get married and/or have children in virtual reality, and I think that this gives them some insight in what it would feel like if they did the same thing in Real Life. To me, this seems a valuable experience. And I'd much rather this experiment be run in virtual reality with virtual children than in Real Life with Real children.
All this is my 2 cents, of course, but those cents have been given to me as the result of having both Real World and virtual reality relationships, and even some that were both.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, video. Another thing that Skype added long after the open world had it (at least Ekiga, then Gnomemeeting, did)...and now people are using Skype, because it has video!
Sorry. I'm bitter. Feel free to ignore me.
|
| System Requirements for OpenOffice.org 2:
|
Microsoft Windows
Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 (Service Pack 2 or higher), Windows XP, Windows 2003, Windows Vista (enhanced Vista integration from version 2.2)
128 Mbytes RAM
At least 800 Mbytes available disk space for a default install (including a JRE) via download. After installation and deletion of temporary installation files, OpenOffice.org will use approximately 440 Mbytes disk space.
800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours
Solaris: SPARC platform edition
Solaris 8 OS or higher
128 Mbytes RAM
250 Mbytes available disk space
X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours
Solaris: x86 platform edition
Solaris 8 OS or higher
128 Mbytes RAM
250 Mbytes available disk space
X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours
GNU/Linux ("Linux")
Linux kernel version 2.2.13 or higher, glibc2 version 2.2.0 or higher
128 Mbytes RAM
200 Mbytes available disk space
X-Server with 800 x 600 or higher resolution with at least 256 colours
Mac OS X (X11)
Power Mac G3 400Mhz or higher
Mac OS X 10.3.x (10.3.5 recommended), Mac OS X 10.4.x
256Mbytes RAM
400Mbytes available disk space
X11 required. Available for OS X 10.3 on Apple.com here and for OS X 10.4 on the OS X install disc. The instructions for Tiger users are here.
800 x 600 or higher resolution with 16.7 Million colours
|
| System Requirements for Microsoft Office Basic 2007:
|
Computer and processor 500 megahertz (MHz) processor or higher
Memory 256 megabyte (MB) RAM or higher1
Hard disk 1.5 gigabyte (GB); a portion of this disk space will be freed after installation if the original download package is removed from the hard drive.
Drive CD-ROM or DVD drive
Display 1024x768 or higher resolution monitor
Operating system Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack (SP) 2, Windows Server 2003 with SP1, or later operating system2
<snip>
1 512 MB RAM or higher recommended for Outlook Instant Search. Grammar and contextual spelling in Word is not turned on unless the machine has 1 GB memory.
--
In short, you're looking at 128MB RAM and 800 MB disk vs. 256 MB RAM and 1.5 GB disk, meaning that MS Office 2007 is about twice as heavy as OOo 2. I'll also point out that OOo gives you a greater choice of OSes, including some that will happily run on hardware that the ones MS Office 2007 works with would crawl on.
End of post.
Oh, by the way, did you all know I just love the filtering Slashdot does? It told me to use fewer junk characters. And here I was thinking I'd just add a few graphic characters to make things look nicer. Well, guess not. Now I am just filling up my post with words, hoping that that will help get it past the filter. Ok, well, that didn't help, so I deleted most of the graphic characters I had added. So if my post doesn't look nice, know that I originally had it look better. Blame the lameness filter.
``Couldn't help but notice that "Ability to accurately open '.doc' files" wasn't one of TFA's categories.''
A good reason for that could be that it is extremely difficult to measure. It depends heavily on the file. Even MS Word doesn't always get it right.
``The only way in which 2007 is "worse" than either 2003 or OOo in terms of interface is that its not the same as one would expect from prior versions of Office (which have been fairly constant back at least to Office 95), so I can see why people of the "I refuse to learn anything new" crowd (which, previously, have help fuel MS Office's dominance) might prefer OOo, which is much closer the pre-2007 MS Office interface.''
But of course, that was never the real reason. Watch them continue to use the same argument and learn MS Office 2007 instead of transferring their skills to OOo, in the full belief that MS Office 2007 is what they're used to and OOo requires an enormous effort in re-training.
We've always used ribbons.
We've always been at war with menus.
Well, actually, we're just Microsoft junkies.
OpenOffice.org:
Up front cost: 0
Cost of retraining: little
Cost of keeping up to date: little
Cost of underlying OS: starting at 0
Cost of hardware: little
Compatibility with legacy formats: decent
Open standards: yes
Open source: yes
Microsoft logo: no
Microsoft Office 2007:
Up front cost: hundreds of dollars (discounts may apply)
Cost of retraining: moderate
Cost of keeping up to date: much
Cost of underlying OS: starting at a few tens of dollars
Cost of hardware: moderate
Compatibility with legacy formats: decent
Open standards: with free plug-in (IIRC)
Open source: no
Microsoft logo: yes
I think the last two items will be the deal makers/breakers for most. Some people will insist on Microsoft. They will choose MS Office. Others will insist on open source. They will probably choose OpenOffice.org (although excellent other options exist). For the rest, I think OpenOffice.org is the winner...but I am sure people will vehemently disagree.
Full disclosure: I detest both suites.
Yet again, us Linux users are left out. The program works only on Windows/x86. And here I am, on my glorious Linux/ppc box, just having painfully gotten Skype to work...and they introduce a new feature that I can't access...boohooo!
(I kid. I hate Skype passionately (for getting everybody on a proprietary solution when open protocols exist) and would never go through any amount of trouble to get it installed on my computer.)
``Someday will people be looking at us as if we were idiots in the way we look back at people that let themselves be ruled by monachs and tyrants?''
Will? We already are looking at you that way!
-- Your friends from the other side of the pond
(Note that I am not claiming things are any better here, just that many people here look down on USAmericans for supposedly letting themselves be ruled by corporations and other wealthy and not necessarily moral persons because they are too ignorant to do anything about it.)
``Since when 15 gigs were considered "really big"?''
Since a long time ago. In fact, there were times when most people couldn't imagine ever needing so much storage.
``And it is horrifying how few windows sysadmins who know about this...''
I think it's a safe bet that most admins adminning Windows machines don't know as much as they should.
Holy cow! They are _still_ using LM hashes? How long has it been now that they have been shown to be crackable in seconds?
``If possible, its drivers had to be already part of the vanilla kernel. To my surprise, those devices exist! They are the ones that have the ZyDas zd1211(b) chipset (the "b" one is better). I thought it was going to be hard to find one of those specific devices, but no.''
Congratulations, my friend. You have reached enlightenment! Despite what some people would have you believe, Linux hardware support is actually really good. There are also plenty of vendors, even of wireless chipsets, who cooperate with the community to get drivers developed for their hardware. As a rule of thumb, cheap hardware generally works with Linux. Sadly, it sometimes seems as if laptop manufacturers go out of their way to find the one device in a class that does _not_ work with Linux, and will continue to give problems for years to come...
Or, to take a closer example, there should be something akin to the Bluetooth adapter USB device class. In fact, I don't understand why there isn't one.
``I'm not sure you realize it, but any OS-like software with "Windows" in its name infringes the trademark of Microsoft. That's something you might want to avoid.''
Not if you're Michael Robertson and you are addicted to publicity.
Yeah, another "Web OS"! Now with more marketing!
I agree with you that the requirements of your application are very important to consider, but I do think the original poster's question can be answered based on the information he gave. Programming languages have strengths and limitations that apply no matter what project you are working on. Perhaps that is exactly what the poster is after: knowing what language/framework combination would be the best investment, not for a specific project with specific requirements, but in general. And there, I can say Ruby is the better language. You can adapt it to what you happen to be doing much better than PHP. And in the long run, that is going to be a win for you, because requirements will change, and you will end up developing new functionality, rather than gluing together things that others have already built.
Being a programming language enthusiast, I would choose Ruby over PHP any day. There simply isn't any contest.
While I think PHP has the edge in being an easy transition from straight HTML (no MVC or OO baggage required), it suffers from a seriously crappy design (if you can even call it that) and the implementation isn't too great, either. Ruby has its flaws, but the language is one of the most elegant I have ever worked with. I have worked extensively with both, and I can tell you from experience that PHPs shortcoming seriously start to hamper you once your project moves from "static HTML with some generated content" towards "full-blown application which emits HTML in some places".
You can argue about frameworks until you are blue in the face, but, eventually, you will end up writing a lot of code in the language itself, and Ruby is the clear winner there. Having said that, I should add that Rails is a pretty good framework which gets a lot of things right, and the other parts are being worked on. When I worked with Rails full-time, I could almost feel the progress being made, and I trust that Rails is a lot better now than it was then. It improves quickly, because it is built using a good language. Unfortunately, I can't say anything about competing frameworks, as I have never worked with any.
Now, you might find that Ruby programmers are scarce. You can find Java or PHP programmers on every corner of the street, or near enough, but Ruby is a language that is still mostly ignored by the mainstream, including both programmers and those who teach them. This is both a disadvantage and an advantage. It makes it more difficult, and likely more expensive, to find and hire programmers who already know Ruby, but those who do are likely to be good programmers, whereas the same isn't true of many Java and PHP programmers. Also, people who have some experience learning programming languages (i.e. everybody who knows more than one or two) should have no difficulty learning Ruby...thankfully, Ruby isn't one of those languages that is full of gotchas.
Now, to address your points more specifically:
1. Maturity of solution:
Neither Ruby nor PHP are exactly stable, but both have a pretty good track record with regard to backward compatibility. Rails and its imitations are relatively new and unstable, but I would guess that Rails would be the better pick. Note, though, that this is just a guess.
2. Features:
PHP comes with a lot of things baked into the implementation. Ruby comes with a number of modules, and more can easily be installed. I don't know which comes out the winner, but, in my experience, there is usually a Ruby module somewhere that does what you need...and you can easily install it; no recompiling required (unlike PHP, at least back when I still used it for new projects).
3. Size of community of skilled users:
PHP is the clear winner here. However, I am not 100% sure that it's actually easier to find _good_ PHP programmers than _good_ Ruby programmers.
4. Complexity, ease for neophytes to master:
PHP is a more limited language than Ruby, and thus easier to learn completely. Learning the same things that PHP can do in Ruby should be about equally difficult, but if you are going to be working with code that others have written (and you are), you will have to learn more Ruby than that. So PHP wins this one, but I must argue that your programmers will end up writing more code (and thus costing more) in exchange for less time spent on learning.
5. Greatest strengths and weaknesses:
Strength of Ruby: It's actually a great programming language. If you have people who can handle it, this will be a great advantage for you.
Weaknesses of Ruby: Few people know it. It is dog slow. It is dynamically typed, so you will spend a lot of time debugging and getting errors at run-time that could have been caught at compile time.
Strength of PHP: Many people know it. It's pretty easy to learn. It's tailored for web pages and some a
``And even then, it could still go the way of the DIVX format.''
You mean, take the piracy scene by storm and become so successful that it eventually gets included in hardware players, due to popular demand?
``Given time, eventually, the truth will be revealed and they will see which side is really evil and which side is really good, and those people are going to choose to live for themselves, or to be enslaved by the very dictators that you left wing traitors continually support.''
I do hope that given time, the truth will be revealed. However, with lies being spread and believed on both sides, it's sometimes hard to be optimistic.
As for dictators enslaving people, that is something I have never supported and never will. If I have my history right, the USA has helped to power and/or supported many dictators in South America and the Middle East. I would have opposed this, had I been alive and a citizen of the USA at the time. As it is, I can only refer to these historical events as examples of the USA not being the angels many people believe they are, and remind people that violence does not usually make people have friendly feelings towards you.
I don't hold Bush and his administration responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Really, I don't think you can be blamed if a determined enemy breaks trough your defenses, and to the extent that the attack was provoked, it was provoked a long time before Bush came to power. I do, however, hold him, his government, and everybody who supported them (especially those who re-elected him) responsible for the actions they took afterwards, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (resulting in many more deaths than the 9/11 attacks), the deterioration of liberties of American citizens, inhumane treatments of suspects in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, just to name a few of the worst things that come to mind.
I feel I'm doing my part. I try to do my own research (rather than swallowing what the media feeds me). I listen to people and talk to people. I try to understand everybody's point of view and how they came to it. I try to get people to think for themselves, rather then taking their pick among the phrases they hear from others (Assuming you had to choose one, would you kill Osama no matter the cost, or would you rather stop the aggresison against the USA, even if it meant letting some of your declared enemies walk free?). I've spoken out against my country's participation in Iraq, and am currently trying to convince people that silencing those who have criticized that participation wasn't a good idea. Yes, you read that right. The people in charge ignored the criticism before the invasion, and when, a few years later, one minister proposed a re-evaluation of the decission, he was told to shut his mouth in so many words. In the face of that, I can only assume something is wrong, the powers that be know it, and they are afraid of it getting out in the open.
And yet, of course, I am the boogeyman and the supporter of dictators. Well, believe what you believe...but _please_ do so because you actually made a credible effort to get at the truth, and not because "they are on the other side, so everything they say must be wrong" or some other bogus reason. I think there are plenty of bad things being said by all parties here, and so I'm really not on anybody's side, but I want to know the truth, and I want an end to the madness and violence. It saddens me that some politicians apparently have opposing goals. If they spread lies and cause violence, and that seems to be the case, I feel I have not only the right, but the duty to be angry with them.
Oh my. I hate to say it, but you sound so much like a stereotypical right-wing ignoramus right now. I mean no personal offense, but you just gloss over the technicalities of finding the criminals as if it's not difficult at all, then propose violence...almost _war_ against a sovereign nation as recourse.
Send the marines, yeah! Violence is the solution! If it doesn't work, use more!
It worked before, right? I mean, we've caught Osama, Afghanistan and Iraq are all peaceful and dandy now, there is no anti-American sentiment in Vietnam or anywhere in the world. Everybody loves the USA, because of brililant minds like you!
*pins a medal on tjstork*
It took me a second to understand what the author meant. Spell-checking, anyone?''
Wouldn't help here. It's a correctly spelled word...just not the right word.
``So this got me to wondering... how much of this actually _is_ something that is of any real concern, and if it really is, how could it be explained to people in such a way that it's not going to sound like some claim from a conspiracy theorist?''
A few days ago, I figured that the great difficulty in explaining this to people who don't know already is that, in the Real World, preposterous conspiracy theories are often false. In fact, much more innocuous ones usually are, too. This is something I figured while actually taking some time away from computer security and traveling through the Real World. In the Real World, you can leave your expensive laptop in your unlocked yacht in an unguarded marina, and then leave thousands of dollars worth of electronics equipment in a restaurant to recharge overnight, and none of it will get stolen.
On the Internet, if your computer is reachable, it will be attacked in a matter of minutes. Any hole that is found in the software you run is likely to get exploited. Most of the email you get is spam sent by exploited Windows machines people have at home. Corporations are watching you, some with orders from the government. You can legitimately wonder _who_ controls your computer. It's not really an exaggeration to say that everything that can go wrong not only will, but has.
It only starts to get _really_ scary when you consider how much of the Real World is actually dependent on computers these days...
``...so is 2.5 miles/gallon for a lightweight water spider thingy really that great?''
Not by a long stretch.
``At first, I thought this thing was Australian made...but on further reading, I realized it was designed [and probably built] in San Fransisco. After a long time, being frustrated by America's out-sourcing of US manufacturing, I am happy I am American once again.
What we now need, is to recapture the electronics and auto manufacturing leads from Japan, China and South Korea.''
Why?
Also, what would you be willing to sacrifice?
``If you haven't put in the face time, you're not really falling in love with that person, but the idea of the person.''
IMO, that is always the case. No matter how you interact and how long you have known a person,
you will never know them completely.
I find interacting with people through "poor" media like IRC usually reveals a lot that interacting through "rich" media (like actual face to face conversation) would keep hidden. I think it is because these media _force_ people to realize that the other person can't read your mind and can misunderstand you.
``Relationships are real wherever they form.''
That sounds like it wasn't what you expected. Apparently,
people have some idea that relationships should only
developed through normal means, for some definition of normal.
And there, I said the magic word: definition. What is the
definition of relationship? When is a relationship real? What
means are normal?
My feeling is that this is going to be similar to the question
whether machines can think. Some people define thinking in a way
that machines can't possibly satisfy (usually, the argument is
exactly "if a machine does it, it's not thinking"). Other people
use definitions where thinking machines are always just around
the corner, but never actually there. And some people use
definitions by which we've had thinking machines for a long
time now.
As for relationships, I think that, no matter what your definition
of a relationship is, the (real) feelings you get from interacting
in a virtual world are about the same as those you would get if
the interaction had happened in the Real World. For me, that makes
the relationship real.
Of course, some aspects of relationships that develop in the Real World
will be missing from relationships that develop in some virtual
reality. On the other hand, there may be things in virtual reality
relationships that aren't in Real World relationships. There are
some very interesting effects here. For example, there are great
opportunities for misrepresenting and hiding things...in both virtual
and Real relationships.
Virtual reality being virtual, it also provides great opportunities for
experimentation. Some people never get past the "let's offend people
and see what happens" stage, but other people go much, much further.
Some people get married and/or have children in virtual reality, and
I think that this gives them some insight in what it
would feel like if they did the same thing in Real Life. To me, this
seems a valuable experience. And I'd much rather this experiment be
run in virtual reality with virtual children than in Real Life with
Real children.
All this is my 2 cents, of course, but those cents have been given to
me as the result of having both Real World and virtual reality
relationships, and even some that were both.