Posts by John Collins6 posts • joined Friday 21st April 2006 09:15 GMT
I have my K-7 since last September, and have had nothing but joy from it. I used mine in sub-zero temperatures, 2,200 metres up a mountain in Austria recently in a snowstorm and it just kept on shooting video and stills, despite being completely covered in snow. In a nutshell, best camera I ever owned.
Can we stop it with the PHP FUD please? Get over it already!
We are doomed :-(
Reading many of the anti-PHP comments here, its the usual FUD:
1. It does not scale (tell Facebook).
2. It is insecure (like Java or any other language is a silver bullet in that area).
3. It promotes spaghetti code (like Java isn't a race to inter-library-dependency complexity?).
4. It has inconsistent APIs (different libraries have different API conventions, is that unique to PHP?).
Yawn!
Same goes for other dynamically typed languages like PHP or Perl, Ruby is not unique in this regard. IDEs, even the might Eclipse, tend to struggle with IntelliSense for such languages, at least now I have some understanding why ;-) Thank you for the entertaining post!
I am sorry, but this article smells of FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt), targeted both at Subversion and at Open Source in general. Why is using an external code repository hosting company like CallabNet any more risky using an internal one, where "the risk of a service provider failing is new and frightening"? Can you provide an example of this, or at least flesh out your argument?
External hosting companies, like any other service provider, are bound by their service level agreements (SLAs) with their users. Furthermore most quality repository hosters should offer daily offsite back-ups of your code and extensive redundancy features. If they don't then shop elsewhere.
As for using Subversion internally, my company does this and we are very happy with it, both technical and from a support point of view, where the Subversion community and online documentation are second to none. We are actively moving all of our repositories from a commercial source control package to Subversion, which we believe is vastly superior.
I would like to conclude by saying that I really do not understand the main point that you are trying to make with this article, as your argument is weak. Are you trying to imply that relying on open source products is inherently more risky than relying on commercial ones? If so, FUD.
