> When it comes to web technologies I have used a few frameworks but keep coming back to pure PHP. I take care when arranging my code (not when writing it to be honest) but it loosely mimics an MVC concept at the end of the day. I do like MS-SQL myself but mySQL isn't that bad.
1. Frameworks are designed around assumptions about development needs. If your needs don't match those assumptions, don't use the framework. Whether the source is open or closed is immaterial to that.
2. PHP is a crap language for anything beyond templating. If all you need is a templating language with Turing complete extensions, I guess it works for you, though I wonder if SSI might work as well. If you need a proper back-end programming language, you're using the wrong tool.
3. MySQL is "that bad". The supposed benefits of performance for MySQL can only be had at the expense of ACID compliance, which basically means it fails on the single most important quality metric of a DBMS: data safety. What good is a database that loses your data?
MS SQL Server doesn't have the problems MySQL does. Its problems are more related to its platform requirements.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
> The one thing that kept annoying me was the false mantra of 'it's open source so it's free and it's better.' Well, MySQL is no better than MS-SQL to me, in fact a little worse and scary in some ways. I use it because it's what I can afford at the moment for a web site. Rails is night and day better than the pre-MVC ASP.net. Now with ASP.NET MVC, I could see going to it.
To hear Justin James speak of it, ASP.NET MVC is a layer of buzzwords and unnecessary abstraction layered over ASP.NET, and you may want to reassess that notion of yours about it.
In summary:
1. Don't judge "open source" by crap like MySQL any more than you'd judge closed source by Visual Source Safe.
2. Don't judge either open source community software or closed source commercial software by its marketing. In the case of open source marketing, mostly what you're looking at is a bunch of ignorant boosterism from relative simpletons who can't even tell the difference between "Ubuntu", "Linux", and "Open Source". In the case of closed source marketing, mostly what you're looking at is outright lies.
To hear Justin James speak of it, ASP.NET MVC is a layer of buzzwords and unnecessary abstraction layered over ASP.NET, and you may want to reassess that notion of yours about it.
In summary:
1. Don't judge "open source" by crap like MySQL any more than you'd judge closed source by Visual Source Safe.
2. Don't judge either open source community software or closed source commercial software by its marketing. In the case of open source marketing, mostly what you're looking at is a bunch of ignorant boosterism from relative simpletons who can't even tell the difference between "Ubuntu", "Linux", and "Open Source". In the case of closed source marketing, mostly what you're looking at is outright lies.
The differentiator is and always will be commercial, quality is a cost, and there are cheaper ways to compete.
???The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten??? ??? John Ruskin
It got done cheap and quick. "I" got promoted, compensated, a good price on my shares etc on the back of that. "You" got the bitter dregs...
Commerce in action.
Commerce in action.
That's certainly how public corporations -- and businesses that aspire to be public corporations -- operate. The problem is mostly that CEOs are hired by committees of people who are complete ignoramuses when it comes to long-term success and quality, but that's what corporate law encourages, so that's what we get.
Just wish they'd be honest enough to admit that's what they were doing, I mean there is a business justification for it, obviously....
The key "differentiator" around open source is not the license or financial cost per se. Its the development model. As someone has already said; all else being equal, availability of the source code to the community, with no restrictions on its use, rather than the closed, "top secret" property of a monolithic computer company, is a huge plus. I have no problem with a company sponsoring development of an open source project; and then making the software available (with support) via a commercial proposition as well, for example, addressing support, maintenance and prioritised bug-fixing. JBoss is an example of this. A model (such as some of the ones mentioned above) whereby the company controls and/or restricts the development is not an actually an open source project, regardless of what label is pasted on to it.
Its become increasingly clear that the real "IP" does not lie in "owning" millions of lines of code; its in the insight and experience of the software engineers who develop and maintain it. The companies at the forefront of software development, such as Google, understand this and hire accordingly
Its become increasingly clear that the real "IP" does not lie in "owning" millions of lines of code; its in the insight and experience of the software engineers who develop and maintain it. The companies at the forefront of software development, such as Google, understand this and hire accordingly
Whatever its flaws (and they are many), Google is a great example of a major corporation that -- so far at least -- actually produces proper open source software. That's because it produces software that people actually want to use for its own sake (rather than just because it is part of a vertically integrated vendor stack or because it potentially sucks marginally less than other awful software), releases it under a copyfree license so that other developers are willing to touch it in addition to liking it enough to contribute to it, and actually encourages community contributions and direction.
I've always gotten a chuckle on that one, because Google skirts a lot of the "give back" on GPL by never "distributing" their best code. Google's done so many things that the Linux community would love to have given back to them, but they'll never get it, and some of them are enraged about it.
J.Ja
J.Ja
"I've always gotten a chuckle on that one, because Google skirts a lot of the "give back" on GPL by never "distributing" their best code."
Google wants to be able to decide what it distributes and what it does not. That's fine by me.
To do so, it has to keep its usage of GPLed systems limited to cases where its copyleft terms don't kick in. This is an obvious effect of copyleft licensing terms. The stuff that Google creates from scratch and decides to share, though, it releases under the terms of copyfree licenses.
In fact, from what I've seen, it seems almost like Google is intentionally refusing to distribute anything subject to the GPL, and intentionally writing great gobs of software that it releases under copyfree terms. It's kind of a delicious irony, except of course for the fact that it is a perfect microcosm of the true effects of copyleft licensing. It also shows Google's real dedication to open source development, where it releases code under a license that essentially guarantees what it releases, once modified and redistributed by someone else, comes with no hooks for Google to control anything about it. Google is essentially saying "When we release something under the terms of an open source license, we bloody well mean it."
"Google's done so many things that the Linux community would love to have given back to them, but they'll never get it, and some of them are enraged about it."
I suspect that the most effective way to get Google to "give back" at least some of it is to relicense the stuff Google uses and extends under terms that actually involve "giving" it to Google in the first place, rather than just saying "You're allowed to use it as long as you give back." That kind of restriction seems to inspire Google to look for loopholes rather than comply, and I don't really blame 'em. I don't like being told what to do by people who have little or no right to make such demands, either.
. . . though Google did submit a bunch of Android code to the Linux kernel project. The result was that the Linux kernel project rejected (at least most of) it.
edit: TR broke some formatting and hid some of the text of this comment when it semi-silently changed what formatting stuff we're allowed to use here, so I made minor changes to solve that problem.
Google wants to be able to decide what it distributes and what it does not. That's fine by me.
To do so, it has to keep its usage of GPLed systems limited to cases where its copyleft terms don't kick in. This is an obvious effect of copyleft licensing terms. The stuff that Google creates from scratch and decides to share, though, it releases under the terms of copyfree licenses.
In fact, from what I've seen, it seems almost like Google is intentionally refusing to distribute anything subject to the GPL, and intentionally writing great gobs of software that it releases under copyfree terms. It's kind of a delicious irony, except of course for the fact that it is a perfect microcosm of the true effects of copyleft licensing. It also shows Google's real dedication to open source development, where it releases code under a license that essentially guarantees what it releases, once modified and redistributed by someone else, comes with no hooks for Google to control anything about it. Google is essentially saying "When we release something under the terms of an open source license, we bloody well mean it."
"Google's done so many things that the Linux community would love to have given back to them, but they'll never get it, and some of them are enraged about it."
I suspect that the most effective way to get Google to "give back" at least some of it is to relicense the stuff Google uses and extends under terms that actually involve "giving" it to Google in the first place, rather than just saying "You're allowed to use it as long as you give back." That kind of restriction seems to inspire Google to look for loopholes rather than comply, and I don't really blame 'em. I don't like being told what to do by people who have little or no right to make such demands, either.
. . . though Google did submit a bunch of Android code to the Linux kernel project. The result was that the Linux kernel project rejected (at least most of) it.
edit: TR broke some formatting and hid some of the text of this comment when it semi-silently changed what formatting stuff we're allowed to use here, so I made minor changes to solve that problem.
through my study i repair many think of luck the system requirment to be top of other source behaivour i recognize many unlegel behaivour which is the mainstay of SQL itself need to be resolve to become on the top of Database requerment so the god help us to established deise Hapen
In mine, well struggling doesn't cover it.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
