Ok, lots of people hate PHP, and I can see it is ugly and encourages insecure practices. But why is so much of the most popular software for the web written in it? Consider:
CMSs: Joomla, Drupal, e107, XOOPS, various thngs with "Nuke" in their name, Geeklog... Blog engines: Wordpress, Textpattern, Nucleus, b2evo, Serendipity.. Wiki: MediaWiki, Dokuwiki, PmWiki,... Forums: PHPBB, Simple Machines Forums, punBB,....
Those lists could be a lot longer, I have not even listed everything I use or might use (I am trying CMS Made Simple at the moment, for example).
If PHP was so bad, surely there would be better software written in other languages would walk all over it. When I look around for software to run a site on, most of the top few choices are written in PHP. Why?
It is not hosting: there is plenty of cheap hosting for Perl, Python and, increasingly, Ruby. Even Windows and ".Net" hosting is not too expensive these days.
It is not buzz and mindshare either: Ruby has that.
It is not the existing base of software: Perl has that.
OK there is plenty of good software in other languages, but ugly, boring PHP seems to be doing very well.
Realplayer on Linux does stop you from recording stuff. The problem is that it does not, AFAIK, have a download and expire after a set time function which is what the BBC want.
I am sure it could be done if the BBC did a deal with them instead of MS.
I am not using PLF at the moment. I did not know it was a big repo: I thought it provided a small number of things that could not go into the official repos for legal reasons. Is that wrong?
I agree, I just switched back from Kubuntu to Mandriva. Mandriva's control panel is excellent.
Ubuntu does have a somewhat bigger repo, better QA of its packages and a better GUI software installed, but Mandirva is so much easier to configure and troubleshoot overall.
I was primarilly replying to the comments above, rather than the article.
However, I still think that the article is flawed in making this argument. They are excluding data that does not suit their argument. Consider this
1) The facts show that nationalism is as good (if not better) at motivating suicide bombers than Islam. Why exclude it. 2) How do you know what a suicide bombers motives are? I a Palastinian killing Israelis priamrily a Palestinian nationalist killing Israelis or a Muslim killing Jews? 3) The use of suicide bombing in the Middle East can be explained by circumstances which make suicide bombing effective, or by the way in which the expertise spread (from Sri Lanka to one Middle Eastern group, and then to others) 4) Muslim groupds outside the Middle East do not tend to use suicide bombds much.
Except that most suicide bombers are not Muslim. Nearly half of suicide bombings were carried out by one purely secular ethnic nationalist group (not marxist, although a lot of people seem to think they are.).
BTW, I already knew this because I have nearly been bown up by the main user of suicide bombs (although that particular attack was not an outright suicide one, they tried to fight their way out after crashing the truck bomb into place).
IIRC, their whole raison d'etre is because they don't like the limitations of the GPL with respect to commercial software.
The main difference seems to be in the patent clauses: with Apache's you lose the right to any patent licences if you claim in court that the software breaches a patent of your own. The GPL stops redistribution if a court ruling on a patent stops you distributing the software on the usual GPL terms.
The point is that Apache takes a more aggressive stance on patents and GPL2 (I do not know about GPL3)
I believe that piracy itself should be viewed as crime (because it's not right now) and the notion of piracy being a very bad thing should be inculcated right from school
The enforcement of a law is difficult because the majority of disagree with it and people disobey it. Do you:
Change the law to be in line with the majority view.
Brainwash kids so that the next generation will agree with it.
I assume your point was the though the law says breach of copyright is a crime, most people do not feel that it is a crime, so we are agreed about what the majority view is.
IIRC in years past, the requirement to apply for a patent, was that you must submit a fully function product to the Patent Office, and demonstrate the feasilibity and functionality of said unit. So it required more then a specifications document, or some ramblings about an idea.
It also had the advantage of increasing costs, but only for those who were not planning on developing an actual product. Those actually planning a real product would have to incur those costs anyway. So it made life harder for patent trolls, without making life harder for real businesses.
Cuba has a great medical system...as long as you are one of the elites.
You do realise that the point of comparing the US with Cuba is that Cuba is a poor country with free medical services for everyone and the US is a rich country with limited access?
I have no doubt healthcare in the US is much better than in Cuba, if you have insurance, or if you can afford to pay for it.
The lack of free healthcare in the US is unusual for a developed country. The provision of a high standard of free healthcare in Cuba is unusual for a poor country.
Thats an uphill struggle - try convincing the Daily Mail that borders are arbitrary so it does not matter much who crosses them.
Re:To all those complainers
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In what way is the GPL not free? It prevents you restricting the freedom of others. You can do exactly what you like with GPLed code: change it, sell it, use it as a platform for software using a different license, etc.
I can foresee the need for two or more install media to separate out what is GPL2, GPL3, and other licensed software
An interesting twist on anti-GPL FUD. As GPL software is already distributed on the same install media as BSD, MIT, MPL, QPL and proprietary licences, why do you think seperate install media are going to be needed for different versions of the GPL?
The only problem with GPL 3 is that it is difficult to move software with a large number of compyright holders from 2 to 3, if the "and later versions" wording was not used to start with. This will mean that that will be some GPL software that can not be statically linked with other GPL software. A lot of what people want to link will be LGPLed or under BSD style licences, which will mitigate the problem.
One project that might hae a problem is KDE, Does anyone know if Qt going to use GPL3?
The whole reason for positing a god is that it's a solution to the "Everything that exists needs to have been created by something else at some point along the line" problem.
I would say that that is unlikely to be the whole, or even a signifcant, reason for most people who actually believe in God.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, lots of people hate PHP, and I can see it is ugly and encourages insecure practices. But why is so much of the most popular software for the web written in it? Consider:
CMSs: Joomla, Drupal, e107, XOOPS, various thngs with "Nuke" in their name, Geeklog...
Blog engines: Wordpress, Textpattern, Nucleus, b2evo, Serendipity..
Wiki: MediaWiki, Dokuwiki, PmWiki,...
Forums: PHPBB, Simple Machines Forums, punBB,....
Those lists could be a lot longer, I have not even listed everything I use or might use (I am trying CMS Made Simple at the moment, for example).
If PHP was so bad, surely there would be better software written in other languages would walk all over it. When I look around for software to run a site on, most of the top few choices are written in PHP. Why?
It is not hosting: there is plenty of cheap hosting for Perl, Python and, increasingly, Ruby. Even Windows and ".Net" hosting is not too expensive these days.
It is not buzz and mindshare either: Ruby has that.
It is not the existing base of software: Perl has that.
OK there is plenty of good software in other languages, but ugly, boring PHP seems to be doing very well.
Windows will not be ready for the desktop until your grandmother can install it.
Realplayer on Linux does stop you from recording stuff. The problem is that it does not, AFAIK, have a download and expire after a set time function which is what the BBC want.
I am sure it could be done if the BBC did a deal with them instead of MS.
I am not using PLF at the moment. I did not know it was a big repo: I thought it provided a small number of things that could not go into the official repos for legal reasons. Is that wrong?
I agree, I just switched back from Kubuntu to Mandriva. Mandriva's control panel is excellent.
Ubuntu does have a somewhat bigger repo, better QA of its packages and a better GUI software installed, but Mandirva is so much easier to configure and troubleshoot overall.
Er.. surely taht is obvious
I was primarilly replying to the comments above, rather than the article.
However, I still think that the article is flawed in making this argument. They are excluding data that does not suit their argument. Consider this
1) The facts show that nationalism is as good (if not better) at motivating suicide bombers than Islam. Why exclude it.
2) How do you know what a suicide bombers motives are? I a Palastinian killing Israelis priamrily a Palestinian nationalist killing Israelis or a Muslim killing Jews?
3) The use of suicide bombing in the Middle East can be explained by circumstances which make suicide bombing effective, or by the way in which the expertise spread (from Sri Lanka to one Middle Eastern group, and then to others)
4) Muslim groupds outside the Middle East do not tend to use suicide bombds much.
Yes, that is why I added acomment about them not being Marxist.
I'll do it: provided someone supplies the labour....
BTW, I already knew this because I have nearly been bown up by the main user of suicide bombs (although that particular attack was not an outright suicide one, they tried to fight their way out after crashing the truck bomb into place).
The main difference seems to be in the patent clauses: with Apache's you lose the right to any patent licences if you claim in court that the software breaches a patent of your own. The GPL stops redistribution if a court ruling on a patent stops you distributing the software on the usual GPL terms.
The point is that Apache takes a more aggressive stance on patents and GPL2 (I do not know about GPL3)
- Change the law to be in line with the majority view.
- Brainwash kids so that the next generation will agree with it.
I assume your point was the though the law says breach of copyright is a crime, most people do not feel that it is a crime, so we are agreed about what the majority view is.No, he will remove entries mentioning the Nazi's altogether, because if Wikipedia mentions the Nazis, it automatically loses.
Does this speed up FTP or TCP?
If the latter can it speed up other protocols?
These are my favourite type of terrorists: incompetent ones.
What is the usenet thing? It sounds a bit like Google Groups. Where is their website?
No, I am not serious (sigh).
You do realise that the point of comparing the US with Cuba is that Cuba is a poor country with free medical services for everyone and the US is a rich country with limited access?
I have no doubt healthcare in the US is much better than in Cuba, if you have insurance, or if you can afford to pay for it.
The lack of free healthcare in the US is unusual for a developed country. The provision of a high standard of free healthcare in Cuba is unusual for a poor country.
The only problem with GPL 3 is that it is difficult to move software with a large number of compyright holders from 2 to 3, if the "and later versions" wording was not used to start with. This will mean that that will be some GPL software that can not be statically linked with other GPL software. A lot of what people want to link will be LGPLed or under BSD style licences, which will mitigate the problem.
One project that might hae a problem is KDE, Does anyone know if Qt going to use GPL3?
Competition maximises efficiency. Perfect comeptition guarantees a pareto optimal outcome.
The problem is that the level of comeptition in the OS market, like many others is ....?
There does come a time when trying to find explanations that excludes God gets untenable.
I would say that that is unlikely to be the whole, or even a signifcant, reason for most people who actually believe in God.