Originally Posted by ev5 Yes, obvious to say you go with what you have... But if you look back to the dawn of PHP, it was a CGI binary written by a single person to manage his CV and a few other things... It has grown, and alot of support has been added... Not neccesarily becuase its practical, but becuase the developers want to make sure it can do everything it might ever need to.

I did not complain about the need for supporting other Database types :P Nor indeed did I wonder why those features were there. You said: 'I dont know if you know (of if in fact, anyone knows), but you dont have to use ASP to run MSSQL... PHP aslo supports it, as well as many other database technologies.' To my comment on without MySQL PHP would probably not exist, commenting that perhaps the link between MySQL and PHP was not actually so strong as I said. I then commented that the link between PHP and MySQL is actually as strong as I said, using various connections about how people go with what they have. So I'm not sure now where you're going with this bit...

Originally Posted by ev5 No, you are wrong. If you mean the upcoming beta release of IE 7, then maybe so, but IE6 is still highly insecure... Simple test of some code in IE 6 let it shut down my computer, and I couldn't stop it shutting down. This is what makes the CURRENT IE version much more inescure than firefox. Every browsers is going to have security risks, at least firefox can try and keep up with them and combat them as they arise.

Nah... I mean the actual release Internet Explorer 6 that all computers by now without a great deal of effort by the owner will have (the SP2 version). Now I dread to think how you managed to make code to shut down your computer; but I am sure there are far more important things to do? The point is of course however you did it, you did it with the specific aim of doing it, and the page probably used some interaction to do. Eitherway, if that was on a real site and people came across it, if people used the Windows Tool for sending Error Reports it would be found by the Internet Explorer Team and fixed in a month. This would not worry that person; because they would not do it again.

Originally Posted by ev5 As I said, I'm using the latest version of IE 6, and I see little improvement except in the rendering of XHTML. And to be fair, after all the time it has been, its fair that people could be forgiven for assuming microsoft had forgotten about IE.

See little improvement; the idea of the SP2 Intenet Explorer upgrade is that you don't see improvement, you see the Internet :P It is afterall, an Internet Browser. The idea is you don't see the browser at all; it just works.

Originally Posted by ev5 The fact is, you have again, very over-generalised what you just said... I know you probably find your self very amusing but when I read stuff like that I just feel insulted. Not becuase I meet your description but becuase you can't seem to delve any further than looks as a test of character. So what if they are overweight. Stephen Hawking is in a wheelchair and cannot speak, yet he is the most intelligent person on the planet (IMO at least), however if you looked at him without knowing, you would probably think very differently.

Haha. Well... it is pretty funny You should get a sense of humour. Of course the average Open Source Developer will not be anything like the humourous Linux-Folk analagy I use of the perhaps 19, with cheese burgers around him, weighing in at 30 stone guy who hacks porn websites. I realise this, you realise this. The point is to visualise the person as he, or indeed she would be in a cartoon, and take the charactor of the person (I know a lot of people who do fall under the Linux-Folk group, none look like that), and put it on the person physically for a better description.

Originally Posted by ev5 Also, what is wrong with having 2 points of view.... I mean, on the one hand, yes it would be nice if all software was free, but what about clients who need a very specific feature set that literally 0.0001% of the rest of the world will need... No-one would want to develop that kind of software. Open source is about the community too... A programmer shouldnt have to put up with people like you complaining that "you make a living AND write programs in your spare time", which is basically what you are saying.

No; I am fine with people making a living, but what they are doing if they do that is basically saying one thing and doing another. That is so wrong its crazy. It really is. And if you don't see, then you probably will never. I suppose it is a personal thing whether you approve or do not about the sort of hypocracy that is involved in working for a proprietory company to pay a life of making Open-Source software and blogging about how great it is. Especially if that company is doing the same software as the person is doing, because the person is not going to do the best work he can for that company. If it was ever in charge of somebody who was doubling, I would move him or get him fired. Nobody likes a turncoat.

It would be like me working at Microsoft, and making open source software; taking no time over my Open Source software, saying how bad Open Source is on Forums and stuff, and expecting the team I'm in to approve?

Originally Posted by ev5 No, I dont think I am confused. You may think that I am confused, but I'm not so, so I guess that makes you the confused one. Firefox is OpenSource, you can download the full source on the site, same with all the Moz applications. Wikipedia has a completley opensource program as well as information... I dont think OpenSource success stories are rare.

I am not using Firefox to view the Internet :P I do not look at Wikipedia, and Mozilla Applications under that name (I have Firefox) have never been on my Computer :P So you are obviously confused about the stuff I am using to view the Internet. The Protocols, the wiring, the software on the exchanges, the software at my ISP. With the exception of the Server this site is on (is it Linux? not sure) everything I am using to see this site is Proprietory.

Originally Posted by ev5 Oh, and I mean im sure the company wouldnt have been looking to make money in the first place... Funny story actually... ALL companies just want to make a difference in the world. Of course, evil stock holders come in and make the company make a profit. How terrible.

Well, I certainly hope they wouldn't have been! Nah, I see what you're saying. I realise not all companies want to make a difference, indeed probably very few by the time they're companies. But at one point in at least some companies' lives somebody made an ingenious idea and though let's sell this it is great! That is the innovation that stock holders but not only stock holders, businessmen in general, kill.

Originally Posted by ev5 I really cant understand your view on this... The goal of a company is to make money. Not to say that there arent other goals as well, but in most cases the priority is either survival or profit. If a company wants to expand further, then they can sell stocks in the company. I think its a great way for a company to gain the extra funds they need to start making serious money.

The opinion is not that stock holders are bad because they drive the company to do nothing but make as much profit as possible. It is that they are bad because they get money out, more than they put in, for doing nothing. They should get their money back, maybe a little profit for interest, and be done, but they don't. They are even given powers within the company! They sit outside with too much money, do nothing, and they have control of a company. That was even what I said; selling stock is about giving away control of a company to people who without a stockmarket would have no particular talents other than as Tax Men.