SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: Should PHP.net Be Running PHP 5?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    18 50.00%
  • no

    18 50.00%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48
  1. #26
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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...

  2. #27
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by csn
    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.

  3. #28
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  4. #29
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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 · Android stuff

  5. #30
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hrm..."vBulletin v3.0.0 Beta 7, Copyright ©2000-2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd." (bottom of page).

  6. #31
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by csn
    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...
    Using Firefox < 1.0 == okay.

  7. #32
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by csn
    Hrm..."vBulletin v3.0.0 Beta 7, Copyright ©2000-2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd." (bottom of page).
    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.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog · Twitter · Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework · Jokes · Android stuff

  8. #33
    ********* Wizard silver trophy Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burpengary, Australia
    Posts
    4,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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.

  9. #34
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  10. #35
    ********* Wizard silver trophy Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burpengary, Australia
    Posts
    4,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

  11. #36
    FreeBSD The Power to Serve silver trophy pippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    4,514
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:


    mmm
    They are using 1.3.27 and not 1.3.31...
    Also they are not using 2.0.*...
    Mr Andrea
    Former Hosting Team Advisor
    Former Advisor of '03

  12. #37
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  13. #38
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally, I've been using 2.0 for many months and haven't had any problems. Performs quite a bit better too.

  14. #39
    FreeBSD The Power to Serve silver trophy pippo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    4,514
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Mr Andrea
    Former Hosting Team Advisor
    Former Advisor of '03

  15. #40
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard Dangermouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,024
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  17. #42
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,764
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    vBulletin v3.0.0 Beta 7, Copyright ©2000-2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Comparing vBulletin against a new language is not even funny to be honest

    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

  18. #43
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    zürich, switzerland
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile

    OS 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
    Netcraft Results for qa.php.net

    isn't there PHP5 running? :-)

    cheers...

  19. #44
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  20. #45
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sketch
    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
    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.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard subnet_rx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Posts
    1,085
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrWoot
    I say a yes and no.. i think they should have a team on their staff have a current page updated to PHP5 at something like http://php5.php.net or http://beta.php.net or http://weeeeorglolwtfaolASL.php.net
    yep.

  22. #47
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?

  23. #48
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if it's good enough for a final release, it should be good enough for them. if not, keep it in beta!


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •