On Saturday 25 November 2006 01:20, Cristian Rodriguez wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:51PM +0000, Kevin Donnelly wrote: > >I understand that, and of course we all like to have cutting-edge options > >available to us. > > PHP5 ain't cutting edge, it is stable since more than two years.
I was referring to PHP6 - weren't you? > > I think > >that is an extremely strange decision, > > that sentence clearly demostrate you don't understand the problem. > anyway... Fedora only includes php5 since FC4 (IIRC) Ubuntu , RHEL5, > SLES10 ships only PHP5.. > in less than 6 months there will be no distribution shipping it (hopefully) Then presumably *no-one* using the main Linux distros will be able to design sites for customers using hosters still on PHP4 without a lot of needless hassle. I feel happy that I am in such august and universal company, but that isn't the point. Until the bulk of lower-tier hosters have moved to PHP5 or PHP6 (you might like to do a bit of scouting around to see just how few have moved so far even to PHP5), it is (and I say it again) "an extremely strange decision" to say that developers working for customers that use such hosters are to be cut adrift. You may be in the luxurious position of telling a client to move hosters and he does it forthwith, no matter what the impact, but many small businesses will only do so if they are forced to, no matter how much better off someone tells them they would be, and especially if they feel there is going to be uncertainty associated with it (eg issues with email, etc). Note that I'm not suggesting PHP5 (or even PHP6) should not be supplied, just that PHP4 should be available for some time yet - both versions of Apache were provided for a couple of years, for example. > > On 2006-11-24 11:36:04 +0000, Michal Marek wrote: > >The sad part of the story is that people who are able to "compile it > >themselves" don't seem to need php4. > No I don't. :) and I don't want to spend, my (limited) free time, > providing the users tools to shoot themselfs in the foot, and a package > that has: > 1. gazillions of dirty hacks to make it build on 64bit systems (and that > works there in 64bit because god help us only) > 2. No active development, only very critical bugs gets fixed. > 3. dozens of known bugs that will never get fixed. > The same users, then, will perform the usual rants that PHP sucks, it is > insecure and blablabla... And these customers I'm talking about would be expected to be worried about it not building on 64-bit systems? The security problems are significant, I know (although they can be worked around), but how exactly is saying that PHP4 is so insecure that no-one should ever use it under *any* circumstances going to help the image of PHP6 (when it appears)? I have no objection at all to those who are leading us all into a bright new future trying to be engines of change - the change to utf8 by most distros was a very helpful development, for instance. Just don't assume that these changes will apply universally, or apply overnight. There's no point having the best development environment ever in Linux if we can't actually use it for practical things in the real world where most customers are living (you know, the one where people think of computers as a means rather than an end?). -- Pob hwyl / Best wishes Kevin Donnelly www.kyfieithu.co.uk - KDE yn Gymraeg www.eurfa.org.uk - Geiriadur rhydd i'r Gymraeg www.rhedadur.org.uk - Rhedeg berfau Cymraeg www.cymrux.org.uk - Linux Cymraeg ar un CD -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
