Are there better alternatives to PHP or is the answer just better coding practices while using PHP?
I ask because the majority of my experience is with C# and ASP.NET but I'm currently working on a project where the client would prefer to go with open-source alternatives. I'm not well versed in other platforms but have been looking at Apache/PHP/MySQL based on popularity & community. Ease of development is somewhat important, but speed & longevity (including security) are more important.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've never developed anything serious on a FOSS platform before.
I'm pretty sure Quicktime recreates the missing registry keys next time you run the program. So if you rarely use it and don't want it to automatically preload on the next reboot you have to delete those keys every time you watch a MOV file.
I wouldn't even mind it running in the background as much if it wasn't so determined on putting an icon on the taskbar. I get it, I have Quicktime installed, I don't need to be reminded every moment my computer is turned on.
Actually, I generally don't expect quality products for free. I've been blasted several times on this site for suggesting that quality code/coders are worth money. However since Opera, IE, & Safari are available for free it removes the ability to gather needed revenues directly from the end-users in the form of software licenses.
I'm not overly familiar with the structure of Mozilla Foundation & Mozilla Corporation, but I did find an interesting article where a Mozilla staff member is quoted as saying moneys from Google allowed them to hire an additional 10 people between 2004-2005. It's partnerships like that where Firefox should be deriving funding to fix bugs.
1: Either this type of software should only be used by those who have the ability and/or desire to fix what is or could become broken
or
2: the community, having pushed the use of FOSS into the less-technical world, should take responsibility for what they have created and promoted.
Absolutely!
It's amazing how many people in this discussion are quick to jump on the "why is he complaining about the first-run page?" argument while ignoring the cut/copy/paste bug argument. In this same discussion Firefox advocates have been quick to say that features have been added for some people, but any ignored features can be had with plug-ins and any bugs found should be fixed by the person who finds them. I've even seen a poster go so far as to suggest that people who want bugs fixed should might consider paying money for their browser.
This immaturity is why I have trouble supporting many community based projects. Shiny new features get the focus over bugs, and then the users that were wooed so emphatically to the software are told to stop complaining since they don't pay-for/contribute-to the project.
You are being ridiculous. There are nearly 400 themes available for download from Mozilla's website. It would not take a substantial amount of work to have the Mac build default ot a Mac OS theme, the Vista build default to a Vista theme, etc.
Regardless, it's not ridiculous to bitch about the default theme. If people are detered from switching because the default theme doesn't match their OS, or is ugly, or in any other way sours their experience, they might as well have been turned away by poor functionality or performance. At the end of the day, when you are tallying marketshare, the reason people failed to adopt your browser is relatively unimportant. The fact that they did not switch over to your platform is. (The specific reasons are important for analyzing problems and planning strategy, but when news articles mention that Firefox has claimed 13% of the market they don't add a footnote that an additional 2% declined simply based on the theme.)
Then are the complainers willing to pay someone to fix it for them?
Of course not. Realistically we know that MS changed that landscape forever and no browser will stand a chance of widespread adoption on desktops if it is not made available for free. If Mozilla is going to have to spend money to fix a problem, it needs to learn how to be creative with its partnerships instead of trying to tax the end-user - at least that seems to be the business model the Slashdot community normally advocates.
Are they willing to do anything at all besides complaining?
Sometimes there are only 2 options - complain, or stop using the product. Do you really want Firefox to lose marketshare because the developers haven't bothered to fix the cut/copy/paste bug yet? Perhaps you don't copy/paste much, but I do and that bug causes me to use IE7 instead of FF. I could complain, but the bug is already logged and apparently ignored. I don't have the familiarity with the project (or the time to aquaint myself with it) to fix the bug myself and, from what many here have said, my patch probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. Even if I could fix the problem myself, what sort of message is that to send to your consumers? "If you don't like something about our product, fix it yourself or stop complaining."
Ok, I see where you're coming from and I don't disagree that it's a despicable practise that probably happens much more than it should (and yes, it should never happen). I just don't understand why not a single person on this board seems to think that maybe reorganization would be a good thing. There are a number of redundant products and it sounds like his main beef is with management and not the code monkeys. I would've expected slashdot to be more tolerant of somebody in management saying that management has its collective head up its ass.
Happy holidays, Mother Theresa. On another note...I guess those laid-off workers should never have had kids to feed, either.
I didn't say they don't deserve jobs or that their kids don't deserve food on the table. I said if they aren't good they shouldn't have had the Yahoo job to begin with. People need to find jobs that match their skillset - just because these people aren't a good fit for Yahoo doesn't mean they can't find a job somewhere else. And do you really feel that having kids is more important than skillsets and job qualifications? If that's the case, let's fly people in from third world countries and force corporations to hire them. After all, they don't have any skills but they do have children to feed, right?
I realize I'm being inflamatory but your mindset is incredibly shortsighted. If getting rid of 15-20% of the workforce makes the company healthier and allows the company to stay in business it saves 80-85% of the jobs for now and allows the possibility of hiring more later. If the company is truly "sick" right now and steps aren't taken to correct that sickness, the company stands the chance of going out of business or being sold & chopped up by other companies willing to make the cuts that you are so opposed to. This likely would result in much more than 20% of the jobs being lost.
If you don't prune trees, they don't bear fruit. Sometimes it's unpleasant.
Why is it that anytime an executive says lay-offs are prudent, it must simply be for a bonus check and not be for the betterment of the company? I'm also surprised about the amount of vitriol in reaction to his suggestion of reduced workforce because he seems to indicate that the most bloat is in management and not the "worker bees". He only lists a headcount reduction, no reference to a specific project or specific employee-group.
Garlinghouse lists 8 separate sectors where Yahoo has multiple products competing. I don't have a verified number, but elsewhere in this same thread people mentioned that Yahoo offers 30+ different services. Reducing 8 redundant services would be reducing somewhere around 25% of their total services. If they can eliminate 25% of their services and only reduce the workforce 15-20% it doesn't sound like rampant firings just for the sake of firing people. He doesn't specifically outline what his exact ideal plans would be, but it sounds like simply eliminating redundant services, eliminating bloated bureaucracy, and refocusing workers on complimentary & cohesive services. This is a good thing for Yahoo even though it may be unpopular to say so.
On another note... I never feel sorry for laid-off workers. If they are good, they should have no problem replacing the job. If they aren't good, they shouldn't have had the job to begin with. Maintaining a commitment to the lowest standards simply because firing people is unpleasant is an easy way to doom a company.
Thank you. That was one of the most reasonable and insightful responses I've received and actually posed an answer to my question instead of villifying any desire for profitability. I will be looking for that book.
Sorry bro- nice storyline, but pure fiction. I grew up playing with legos and computer programming seemed to be the natural "grown up" extension of that. I love to create and see my creations put to use. I currently work a day job (not computer-related) and write code in my spare time for my own small business. The thing is, I would love to leave my current job behind and do nothing but write code but I also have financial obligations so there is a certain income level that has to be maintained.
I do agree with you about good programmers generally being bad businessmen because you either have a passion for the code or for the money. Unfortunately, I'm a tiny developer trying to make money doing something I have a passion for. This requires me to be both passionate coder and smart businessman and anything that compromises my future earnings must be viewed with a certain skepticism. If I was a large business and could afford to have passionate businessmen at the helm with passionate programmers pumping out great products that might be a different situation. Reality strikes again...
Not sure why you got modded over-rated, but you were one of the few that understood what I was asking. Homebrew applications for personal/community consumption don't pay my bills despite how much zen they add to my aura.
I've often wondered this myself. What is the reward for developing open source software? If companies can come in and use open source components in their own creation in a way that they make money without violating licenses, but at the same time aren't obligated to give anything back to the community, where's the motivation for new developers to go open source? Not everybody operates with an altruistic "I'm giving back to the community" motivation.
Personally, I don't develop software just so that I can be an anonymous contributor to future technology. I do it to pay the rent, buy cars, etc.
What am I missing here? (And I'm not being sarcastic with that, I genuinely don't understand why anyone would want to share the fundamentals of their creation in a way that would compromise any potential future earnings.)
WTF is uncivilized about buying something is underpriced and selling it for a profit?
WTF is uncivilized about hiring people who are homeless?
Nothing at all, I completely agree with you. In fact, I have another post somewhere on this thread defending the inherently just "supply and demand" behavior taking place.
My poster was in response to the parent (who has since been modded "troll") who seemed to think that it was Sony's fault that people in the crowd got unruly. I took exception to the misplacement of responsibility on Sony's shoulders for people who acted uncivilized - refering to the people causing fights, not the resellers. I'm a firm believer that capitalism is the only truly self-correcting system as things are always worth whatever people will pay for them.
I do agree with you on that point, but I was trying to address the focus of the article which was definitely the scalping and not the unruliness. The closing statements of the article bore the header "What Needs to Happen" and included the following paragraph:
If measures aren't taken to try and curb rampant scalping of hardware through online auctions, then retailers must address their customers - Mandarin-speaking Chinese. Don't bother having your employees shout into megaphones all morning long - nobody understands a word they are saying.
The "What Needs to Happen" section doesn't include any commentary about the fights in the crowd so the focus & cause for disgruntlement is clearly the reselling taking place and the methods involved in the reselling.
Wow, just wow. Sony undersupplies units and it's their fault that other people can't behave in a civilized manner? That's ridiculous. If we're going to hold Sony accountable for individuals' behavior, perhaps we should hold the individuals responsible for Sony's decisions as well. Either scenario is equally preposterous.
Why is this Sony's fault? The article mentiones that Sony held the launch with too few units and police should have been present. This may be true, but it wouldn't materially change the scalping that the poster seems to be opposed to. If police were present, then the homeless & Chinese nationals who stood in line to resell the units would simply walk down the street and into a building before engaging in the transgressions being griped about.
Let's face it... supply and demand will always rule. When there's high demand and low supply, product will always go to the highest bidder.
Hours earlier at Fort Mason, Microsoft had released Explorer 4.0, the next version of its browser. A browser is software that finds and displays Web pages.
I barely remember back when the media had to describe what a browser was to the uninitiated.
If we don't need an upgrade because XP does everything we need, why try to encourage migration to Linux or whatever other system?
It's strange how any OSS vs. Windows thread has plenty of "Because XP doesn't do ___" arguments, but when it's Windows vs. Windows there seems to be no shortage of "We don't need to upgrade from XP" comments.
Not that Vista will correct every problem with XP, but is there truly nothing new in Vista other than Aero?
The #1 complaints I've seen about Yahoo! is the ads. Aren't there ads on gmail as well?
It's not the ads on the UI that bother me, it's the ads that Yahoo! sees fit to append to all outbound e-mail. If I send an e-mail to a friend, I don't want an advertisement for Yahoo! Messenger right after my name, especially if it's a friend who is paying the extra $ so they don't have to see ads on their interface.
I understand that things must be prioritized and testing cross-browser support can take too much time. I also understand that sometimes money and time simply aren't sufficient to test the site in every browser under the sun. My complaint is more directed at the developers who would rather simply say "no" based on some ethical-superiority mindset than decide whether or not they can afford to devote resources for cross-browser support on a case-by-case basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there better alternatives to PHP or is the answer just better coding practices while using PHP?
I ask because the majority of my experience is with C# and ASP.NET but I'm currently working on a project where the client would prefer to go with open-source alternatives. I'm not well versed in other platforms but have been looking at Apache/PHP/MySQL based on popularity & community. Ease of development is somewhat important, but speed & longevity (including security) are more important.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've never developed anything serious on a FOSS platform before.
I'm pretty sure Quicktime recreates the missing registry keys next time you run the program. So if you rarely use it and don't want it to automatically preload on the next reboot you have to delete those keys every time you watch a MOV file.
I wouldn't even mind it running in the background as much if it wasn't so determined on putting an icon on the taskbar. I get it, I have Quicktime installed, I don't need to be reminded every moment my computer is turned on.
Truly the bastion of objectivity here. A short, non-agressive comment be modded "troll" just because it doesn't agree with popular thinking.
Actually, I generally don't expect quality products for free. I've been blasted several times on this site for suggesting that quality code/coders are worth money. However since Opera, IE, & Safari are available for free it removes the ability to gather needed revenues directly from the end-users in the form of software licenses.
I'm not overly familiar with the structure of Mozilla Foundation & Mozilla Corporation, but I did find an interesting article where a Mozilla staff member is quoted as saying moneys from Google allowed them to hire an additional 10 people between 2004-2005. It's partnerships like that where Firefox should be deriving funding to fix bugs.
Absolutely!
It's amazing how many people in this discussion are quick to jump on the "why is he complaining about the first-run page?" argument while ignoring the cut/copy/paste bug argument. In this same discussion Firefox advocates have been quick to say that features have been added for some people, but any ignored features can be had with plug-ins and any bugs found should be fixed by the person who finds them. I've even seen a poster go so far as to suggest that people who want bugs fixed should might consider paying money for their browser.
This immaturity is why I have trouble supporting many community based projects. Shiny new features get the focus over bugs, and then the users that were wooed so emphatically to the software are told to stop complaining since they don't pay-for/contribute-to the project.
You are being ridiculous. There are nearly 400 themes available for download from Mozilla's website. It would not take a substantial amount of work to have the Mac build default ot a Mac OS theme, the Vista build default to a Vista theme, etc.
Regardless, it's not ridiculous to bitch about the default theme. If people are detered from switching because the default theme doesn't match their OS, or is ugly, or in any other way sours their experience, they might as well have been turned away by poor functionality or performance. At the end of the day, when you are tallying marketshare, the reason people failed to adopt your browser is relatively unimportant. The fact that they did not switch over to your platform is. (The specific reasons are important for analyzing problems and planning strategy, but when news articles mention that Firefox has claimed 13% of the market they don't add a footnote that an additional 2% declined simply based on the theme.)
Of course not. Realistically we know that MS changed that landscape forever and no browser will stand a chance of widespread adoption on desktops if it is not made available for free. If Mozilla is going to have to spend money to fix a problem, it needs to learn how to be creative with its partnerships instead of trying to tax the end-user - at least that seems to be the business model the Slashdot community normally advocates.
Sometimes there are only 2 options - complain, or stop using the product. Do you really want Firefox to lose marketshare because the developers haven't bothered to fix the cut/copy/paste bug yet? Perhaps you don't copy/paste much, but I do and that bug causes me to use IE7 instead of FF. I could complain, but the bug is already logged and apparently ignored. I don't have the familiarity with the project (or the time to aquaint myself with it) to fix the bug myself and, from what many here have said, my patch probably wouldn't be accepted anyway. Even if I could fix the problem myself, what sort of message is that to send to your consumers? "If you don't like something about our product, fix it yourself or stop complaining."
Don't forget, most of the people here still think BSOD jokes are relevant and funny.
Ok, I see where you're coming from and I don't disagree that it's a despicable practise that probably happens much more than it should (and yes, it should never happen). I just don't understand why not a single person on this board seems to think that maybe reorganization would be a good thing. There are a number of redundant products and it sounds like his main beef is with management and not the code monkeys. I would've expected slashdot to be more tolerant of somebody in management saying that management has its collective head up its ass.
I didn't say they don't deserve jobs or that their kids don't deserve food on the table. I said if they aren't good they shouldn't have had the Yahoo job to begin with. People need to find jobs that match their skillset - just because these people aren't a good fit for Yahoo doesn't mean they can't find a job somewhere else. And do you really feel that having kids is more important than skillsets and job qualifications? If that's the case, let's fly people in from third world countries and force corporations to hire them. After all, they don't have any skills but they do have children to feed, right?
I realize I'm being inflamatory but your mindset is incredibly shortsighted. If getting rid of 15-20% of the workforce makes the company healthier and allows the company to stay in business it saves 80-85% of the jobs for now and allows the possibility of hiring more later. If the company is truly "sick" right now and steps aren't taken to correct that sickness, the company stands the chance of going out of business or being sold & chopped up by other companies willing to make the cuts that you are so opposed to. This likely would result in much more than 20% of the jobs being lost.
If you don't prune trees, they don't bear fruit. Sometimes it's unpleasant.
Why is it that anytime an executive says lay-offs are prudent, it must simply be for a bonus check and not be for the betterment of the company? I'm also surprised about the amount of vitriol in reaction to his suggestion of reduced workforce because he seems to indicate that the most bloat is in management and not the "worker bees". He only lists a headcount reduction, no reference to a specific project or specific employee-group.
Garlinghouse lists 8 separate sectors where Yahoo has multiple products competing. I don't have a verified number, but elsewhere in this same thread people mentioned that Yahoo offers 30+ different services. Reducing 8 redundant services would be reducing somewhere around 25% of their total services. If they can eliminate 25% of their services and only reduce the workforce 15-20% it doesn't sound like rampant firings just for the sake of firing people. He doesn't specifically outline what his exact ideal plans would be, but it sounds like simply eliminating redundant services, eliminating bloated bureaucracy, and refocusing workers on complimentary & cohesive services. This is a good thing for Yahoo even though it may be unpopular to say so.
On another note... I never feel sorry for laid-off workers. If they are good, they should have no problem replacing the job. If they aren't good, they shouldn't have had the job to begin with. Maintaining a commitment to the lowest standards simply because firing people is unpleasant is an easy way to doom a company.
Thank you. That was one of the most reasonable and insightful responses I've received and actually posed an answer to my question instead of villifying any desire for profitability. I will be looking for that book.
Sorry bro- nice storyline, but pure fiction. I grew up playing with legos and computer programming seemed to be the natural "grown up" extension of that. I love to create and see my creations put to use. I currently work a day job (not computer-related) and write code in my spare time for my own small business. The thing is, I would love to leave my current job behind and do nothing but write code but I also have financial obligations so there is a certain income level that has to be maintained.
I do agree with you about good programmers generally being bad businessmen because you either have a passion for the code or for the money. Unfortunately, I'm a tiny developer trying to make money doing something I have a passion for. This requires me to be both passionate coder and smart businessman and anything that compromises my future earnings must be viewed with a certain skepticism. If I was a large business and could afford to have passionate businessmen at the helm with passionate programmers pumping out great products that might be a different situation. Reality strikes again...
Not sure why you got modded over-rated, but you were one of the few that understood what I was asking. Homebrew applications for personal/community consumption don't pay my bills despite how much zen they add to my aura.
But then again, this is slashdot...
I've often wondered this myself. What is the reward for developing open source software? If companies can come in and use open source components in their own creation in a way that they make money without violating licenses, but at the same time aren't obligated to give anything back to the community, where's the motivation for new developers to go open source? Not everybody operates with an altruistic "I'm giving back to the community" motivation.
Personally, I don't develop software just so that I can be an anonymous contributor to future technology. I do it to pay the rent, buy cars, etc.
What am I missing here? (And I'm not being sarcastic with that, I genuinely don't understand why anyone would want to share the fundamentals of their creation in a way that would compromise any potential future earnings.)
Nothing at all, I completely agree with you. In fact, I have another post somewhere on this thread defending the inherently just "supply and demand" behavior taking place.
My poster was in response to the parent (who has since been modded "troll") who seemed to think that it was Sony's fault that people in the crowd got unruly. I took exception to the misplacement of responsibility on Sony's shoulders for people who acted uncivilized - refering to the people causing fights, not the resellers. I'm a firm believer that capitalism is the only truly self-correcting system as things are always worth whatever people will pay for them.
I do agree with you on that point, but I was trying to address the focus of the article which was definitely the scalping and not the unruliness. The closing statements of the article bore the header "What Needs to Happen" and included the following paragraph:
The "What Needs to Happen" section doesn't include any commentary about the fights in the crowd so the focus & cause for disgruntlement is clearly the reselling taking place and the methods involved in the reselling.
Wow, just wow. Sony undersupplies units and it's their fault that other people can't behave in a civilized manner? That's ridiculous. If we're going to hold Sony accountable for individuals' behavior, perhaps we should hold the individuals responsible for Sony's decisions as well. Either scenario is equally preposterous.
Why is this Sony's fault? The article mentiones that Sony held the launch with too few units and police should have been present. This may be true, but it wouldn't materially change the scalping that the poster seems to be opposed to. If police were present, then the homeless & Chinese nationals who stood in line to resell the units would simply walk down the street and into a building before engaging in the transgressions being griped about.
Let's face it... supply and demand will always rule. When there's high demand and low supply, product will always go to the highest bidder.
Sure, I could change it if I reallllly wanted to, but they don't provide me with a quick and easy option to do so "out of the box".
What's that you say? Companies branding their products is normal? Oh, my bad.
I barely remember back when the media had to describe what a browser was to the uninitiated.
If we don't need an upgrade because XP does everything we need, why try to encourage migration to Linux or whatever other system?
It's strange how any OSS vs. Windows thread has plenty of "Because XP doesn't do ___" arguments, but when it's Windows vs. Windows there seems to be no shortage of "We don't need to upgrade from XP" comments.
Not that Vista will correct every problem with XP, but is there truly nothing new in Vista other than Aero?
It's not the ads on the UI that bother me, it's the ads that Yahoo! sees fit to append to all outbound e-mail. If I send an e-mail to a friend, I don't want an advertisement for Yahoo! Messenger right after my name, especially if it's a friend who is paying the extra $ so they don't have to see ads on their interface.
It'll be posted again in a week.
Valid points and well written.
I understand that things must be prioritized and testing cross-browser support can take too much time. I also understand that sometimes money and time simply aren't sufficient to test the site in every browser under the sun. My complaint is more directed at the developers who would rather simply say "no" based on some ethical-superiority mindset than decide whether or not they can afford to devote resources for cross-browser support on a case-by-case basis.