So...
RC > beta.
Running a RC on php.net == bad.
Running a beta version of gmail on Google == ok (and tons of users are trusting their email to it).
Okay...
| SitePoint Sponsor |
So...
RC > beta.
Running a RC on php.net == bad.
Running a beta version of gmail on Google == ok (and tons of users are trusting their email to it).
Okay...
Bad analogy. PHP4 is known to work and work well, while PHP5 is not. GMail has no previous version, so the beta is the only proof of concept.Originally Posted by csn
I don't think so. People are saying never use in production anything less than final.
And PHP 5 is supposed to be all that and more over PHP 4.
BTW, it appears people are working on switching php.net and parts of zend.com over to PHP 5 before it's final release. csn +1, all "no" voters +0
It would be irresponsible to use an unstable release of PHP on the PHP.net site. I voted no.
[mmj] My magic jigsaw
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
Neon Javascript Framework Jokes
Hrm..."vBulletin v3.0.0 Beta 7, Copyright ©2000-2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd." (bottom of page).
Using Firefox < 1.0 == okay.
In my defence, SP was already using a Beta version of vBulletin before I became administrator. I would not have done the same - it was a bad choice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
Neon Javascript Framework Jokes
You're not getting the picture. Yes people use Firefox, yes people trust their emails to Gmail, however that is their choice. If anyone chooses to use unstable (read: less than production quality) software then that's their choice. The PHP team have made their choice as well, not to use it on production servers until they and the community are more sure of it's stability.
It's not like php.net is a bank or anything. Pretty much just serves docs.
Wonder where the PHP developers have been testing PHP 5.
http://qa.php.net/ maybe?
Off Topic:
mmm
They are using 1.3.27 and not 1.3.31...
Also they are not using 2.0.*...
See this thread for their thoughts (particularly Rasmus') on Apache 2 (basically, he doesn't trust it, and sees no reason to switch from the "rock solid" 1.x):
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&...f%26start%3D75
Personally, I've been using 2.0 for many months and haven't had any problems. Performs quite a bit better too.
The Apache1.3 branch is finished.
Only fixes are submitted, nor more features and modules are developed for it (at least core/base modules).
At least that's what I read from the Apache mailing lists.
As a matter of fact many linux distros are shipping 2.0 as default.
The Linux kernel website, e.g. www.kernel.org, switched to apache 2 on dec'03.
Some perfomances reason to use 2.6 kernel + apache 2 ?
(okay you could wait up 2.6 is over 2.6.10 ...)
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...brary/l-web26/
Indipendent of what many compentent guys than me are saying...developing for the 1.3 is like developing for death branch.
I'm not saying they won't have to, in fact most of the servers around the world are using 1.3 but why being so relunctanct against 2.0 ?
The Apache guys changed often their API's in the 2.0 branch...meaning breaking modules written previously for 2.0... and I remember that irritated often rasmus...I'd be irritated me too...but I think now the API is quite stable...in fact the 2.1 branch has been opened.
The future is 2.0, maybe php guys could wait for it to be stable enough...but are they going to stay with 1.3 forever ?
I didn't read all rasmus reasons in deep...neither I have the knowledge to debate with him...
p.s.
Thanks for the interesting link, csn
It's a RC. They don't recommend anyone using it for production. Not to mention, they may (and probably are) MySQL powered which means they'd kill their negotiation power with MySQL if they just out and out bought a license for MySQL since PHP 5 does not come bundled with MySQL.
Aaron
No, i dont think they should, whilst it would do good to promote usage of php5, it would be unwise to run an unstable version of php on such a high traffic website. Just as web hosts arent running it right now, php.net shouldnt.
Comparing vBulletin against a new language is not even funny to be honestvBulletin v3.0.0 Beta 7, Copyright ©2000-2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Just be patient as suggested, and wait for the release. If you cannot wait (and some folks just can't) then install the damn thing locally and bang away at it
As for PHP DotNet having a hidden backroom PHPversion5 site up and running, they've proberly had one up and running for the last year, banging away at it
Netcraft Results for qa.php.netOS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/1.3.29 (Unix) PHP/5.0.0RC3 21-Jun-2004 128.39.198.38 orwegian Telecommunications Administration
isn't there PHP5 running? :-)
cheers...
What "magical" thing happens when something goes "final"? It will still have bugs. Hell, they're not even planning to RC recent changes to PHP 5 for 64 bit compatibility.
They don't need a license due to the FREE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE Exemption on the license now...
And anyone knowing what they are doing are going to compile PHP against the Client Libraries from MySQL AB instead of using the internal libraries anyway.
Even with that, the site's requirement to be online for thousands of developers overrides any desire to be cool and use the RC level software.
yep.
Ok, now 5 is final and I for one am totally outraged that php.net isn't running php 5. Graaaa!
Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?
if it's good enough for a final release, it should be good enough for them. if not, keep it in beta!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks