php-general Digest 9 Jul 2009 15:03:50 -0000 Issue 6220
Topics (messages 295061 through 295081):
php distributed file system
295061 by: Shane Hill
295063 by: Per Jessen
295070 by: Shane Hill
Re: PHP script for detecting pattern sequences?
295062 by: WenDong Zhang
Obeying the rules (was Simple login form with cookies)
295064 by: Tony Marston
295065 by: Ashley Sheridan
295066 by: Stuart
295067 by: Tony Marston
295068 by: Lester Caine
295069 by: Stuart
295071 by: Tony Marston
295072 by: Bastien Koert
295073 by: Eddie Drapkin
295074 by: Tony Marston
295075 by: Eddie Drapkin
295076 by: Bastien Koert
295077 by: Still Learnin'
295078 by: Govinda
295079 by: Daniel Brown
295080 by: Bob McConnell
295081 by: Tony Marston
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-gene...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
hi folks,
I am on a couple of php lists and on one of them we were having a discussion
about scalable enterprise class systems to store images for things like user
photo and file uploads, etc. and whether or not something existed in php to
facilitate this. well the discussion inspired me and I created a scalable,
cloud-like app written in php called phpdfs. first pre-alpha release went
up monday:
http://code.google.com/p/phpdfs/
a blog is here:
http://phpdfs.blogspot.com/
if anyone is familiar with mogileFS, phpdfs does basically the same thing
without the need of a central index to locate files across mutliple boxes.
so bye bye mysql and associated problems and hello parallelism. phpdfs is
pure php and is really quite easy to get going. phpdfs will replicate your
data and will automatically and optimally move data when new resources are
added (scaling out) and old resources are removed (scaling in).
according to the authors of the algorithms upon which phpdfs is based,
Yahoo, Symantec and LSI use the algorithms in some of their products and
services. this is for real.
currently I am testing the codebase as it is and doing a lot of empirical
data collection to show correct object distribution and that minimal data is
moved when the system is scaled out or in and that all data in the system is
highly available. The formal proofs for the algorithms can be found in the
white papers linked from the blog and the project home page. things are
still very pre-alpha but usable and will get better and better :)
if anyone wants to help out let me know. I hope the community finds this
useful.
peace,
-Shane
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Shane Hill wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> I am on a couple of php lists and on one of them we were having a
> discussion about scalable enterprise class systems to store images for
> things like user photo and file uploads, etc. and whether or not
> something existed in php to facilitate this. well the discussion
> inspired me and I created a scalable, cloud-like app written in php
> called phpdfs.
Sounds a lot like glusterfs. http://www.gluster.org/
/Per
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (16.1°C)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Per Jessen <p...@computer.org> wrote:
>
> Sounds a lot like glusterfs. http://www.gluster.org/
yep, it is similar, except I am not aiming to be all that comprehensive of
a file system. I really want to create something extremely robust, that can
be used in web apps and that will take just a few minutes for even a php
novice to get going. I know this is possible to achieve.
phpdfs is really no different than a standard php web app, probably easier
than most. there are only a couple little classes and the configuration is
simple. another thing is all of the code and technologies that phpdfs is
built upon are very very familiar to the php community already. just php
and your favorite flavor of web server and away you go.
thanks for the note,
-Shane
>
>
> /Per
>
> --
> Per Jessen, Zürich (16.1°C)
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
yes
(\d+?)\1+ works fine
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Per Jessen <p...@computer.org> wrote:
> Rob Gould wrote:
>
> > Can anyone tell me if there's a PHP library out there that will help
> > me determine "pattern sequences" from a string?
> >
> >
> > Example input:
> >
> > 032258064516129032258064516129032258064516129032258064516129
> > Sequence = 032258064516129
> >
> >
> > 037037037037037037037037037037037037037037037037037037037037
> > Sequence = 037
> >
> >
> > I know regex can help you find a pattern when you know what the
> > pattern is already, but this is different.
>
> Nah, it's the same thing.
>
> A suitable regex might look something like this:
>
> /([0-9]+)\1+/
>
> Not tested, probably won't work on the first try. You may need
> greediness adjustments.
>
>
> /Per
>
>
> --
> Per Jessen, Zürich (14.1°C)
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Best Regards!
Wen Dong
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST
obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to
this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called)
for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each
group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards").
When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will
sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups
say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a
difference?
The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It
starts with some wise ass saying
(1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules.
(2) There are no such things as bad rules.
(3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then
choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one.
(4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different.
(5) The rules must be obeyed without question.
(6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot
change the rule.
Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its
existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads,
so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this.
Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a
certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule
needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not
understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see that
it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how the
rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances.
I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will
keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so
be it.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
"Andrew Ballard" <aball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
> Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>
> Now that's some scary ideology.
>
> Andrew
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote:
> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST
> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to
> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called)
> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and
> each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or
> "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be
> different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this?
> Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead
> of A"? Does it make a difference?
>
> The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It
> starts with some wise ass saying
> (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules.
> (2) There are no such things as bad rules.
> (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then
> choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one.
> (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different.
> (5) The rules must be obeyed without question.
> (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot
> change the rule.
>
> Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its
> existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of heads,
> so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this.
>
> Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for a
> certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the rule
> needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not
> understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see
> that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how
> the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances.
>
> I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will
> keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then so
> be it.
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
> "Andrew Ballard" <aball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com...
>
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
> > Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
> >
> > Now that's some scary ideology.
> >
> > Andrew
Tony,
No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does seem
like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several
web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom
posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for
reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been
following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come into
a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather than
one email per message.
Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2009/7/9 Tony Marston <t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk>:
> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST
> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe to
> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally called)
> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and each
> group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or "standards").
> When moving to a new group the new rules will always be different, and will
> sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is this? Why do some groups
> say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead of A"? Does it make a
> difference?
1) This is somebody elses property that you're walking all over and
they've asked you to remove your shoes. Yes it's arbitrary, no it
doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things but it's polite to
do what they've asked.
2) Correct summary and ordering of the key points in a discussion is
not arbitrary, it helps to create messages that you can dip in and out
of which needing to read an entire thread (backwards if it's all been
left after someone's contribution) to get the context. Plus it creates
an archive that has the same benefit.
3) Feel free to do your own thing because it's a free world, but the
minimal respect I had for you after our previous discussions on this
list has just been destroyed (and no I don't care that you don't
care).
-Stuart
--
http://stut.net/
> "Andrew Ballard" <aball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com...
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
>> Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>>
>> Now that's some scary ideology.
>>
>> Andrew
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I
use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains
several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under
each point, and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it
difficult to associate an answer with a question.
The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is
irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable
if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30
levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders
and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step
through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that
you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out
the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in
is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion.
Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS
BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
"Ashley Sheridan" <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200907091022.12752....@ashleysheridan.co.uk...
> On Thursday 09 July 2009 09:39:11 Tony Marston wrote:
>> There are too many people in this newsgroup with the idea that you MUST
>> obey the rules, whatever they are, WITHOUT QUESTION. I do not subscribe
>> to
>> this notion. I have been working in IT (or DP as it was originally
>> called)
>> for over 30 years, and in that time I have worked with many groups, and
>> each group has had its own version "the rules" (aka "guidelines" or
>> "standards"). When moving to a new group the new rules will always be
>> different, and will sometimes contradict what you had before. Why is
>> this?
>> Why do some groups say "do A instead of B" while others say "do B instead
>> of A"? Does it make a difference?
>>
>> The problem partially lies in the way in which the rules are created. It
>> starts with some wise ass saying
>> (1) Without rules there will be anarchy, so we must have rules.
>> (2) There are no such things as bad rules.
>> (3) Do not allow any choices. If there is a choice between A and B then
>> choose one as the standard. It doesn't matter which one.
>> (4) Everybody must be the same, nobody is allowed to be different.
>> (5) The rules must be obeyed without question.
>> (6) If a rule causes a problem then you must work around it, you cannot
>> change the rule.
>>
>> Item (5) usually exists because the author of the rule cannot justify its
>> existence. He just flipped a coin and it came down tails instead of
>> heads,
>> so that's it. Any moron can make rules like this.
>>
>> Some people just cannot understand that sometimes a rule was created for
>> a
>> certain set of circumstances, but if the circumstances change then the
>> rule
>> needs changing in order to keep up with the times. Because they do not
>> understand why the rule was created in the first place, they do not see
>> that it needs changing. They also do not have the intelligence to see how
>> the rule might be changed to suit the new circumstances.
>>
>> I have fought against arbitrary and stupid rules for decades, and I will
>> keep fighting till the day I die. If you have a problem with that, then
>> so
>> be it.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Marston
>> http://www.tonymarston.net
>> http://www.radicore.org
>>
>> "Andrew Ballard" <aball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b6023aa40907081232k35fa7b1em4ba543ffbb65e...@mail.gmail.com...
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Tony
>> > Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> I don't like this rule, so I choose to disobey it.
>> >
>> > Now that's some scary ideology.
>> >
>> > Andrew
>
> Tony,
>
> No offense, but Daniel gave the reason why this rule existed, and it does
> seem
> like a fairly good reason to be fair. The emails are archived on several
> web-based lists. If a thread is made up of a mixture of top and bottom
> posting, then it won't be easy to read a all online. It might be fine for
> reading in a message-by-message basis in an email client if you've been
> following the thread since its inception, but a lot of people will come
> into
> a thread part way, or choose the digest method for email delivery rather
> than
> one email per message.
>
> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tony Marston wrote:
Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS
BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me.
That is a sentiment I would agree with - but for one flaw!
The number of people who seem to think that answering with a single line
at the top and then including all the advertising and dross that the
previous top posted failed to trim as well ....
Top posting has a bad press simply because people are too lazy to think,
and in many cases, INCLUDING the original message is a waste of
everybody's time ... the one liner is adaquate!
The rule should be - if you top post then CHECK that the the rest of the
message NEEDS to be included - please .....
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2009/7/9 Tony Marston <t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk>:
> Sometimes I use bottom posting, sometimes I use top posting, and sometimes I
> use middle posting. It depends on the circumstances. If a post contains
> several points that need separate responses, then I put my response under
> each point, and do not accumulate all at the bottom as this would make it
> difficult to associate an answer with a question.
>
> The fact that some people do not view a thread until nearly the end is
> irrelevant. If a thread has 30 posts it would make the last post unreadable
> if it contained everything from the start. Have you seen a post with 30
> levels of indenting for each different post? That is why most newsreaders
> and email clients group messages by conversation/thread so that you can step
> through each post individually. Each post contains just the response so that
> you don't have to scroll through huge volumes of text in order to pick out
> the new message. Sometimes the only part of the previous post you leave in
> is the part for which you are supplying an answer so as to avoid confusion.
>
> Where I put my answers depends on the context, so saying that IT MUST ALWAYS
> BE AT THE BOTTOM doesn't wash with me.
Quoting http://php.net/reST/php-src/README.MAILINGLIST_RULES...
3. Do not top post. Place your answer underneath anyone you wish to
quote and remove any previous comment that is not relevant to your
post.
That does not say "IT MUST ALWAYS BE AT THE BOTTOM". It says, quite
usefully IMHO, that you should quote relevant parts of previous posts
and place your response below them. That leaves scope for multiple
responses in a single message, each with the relevant part of the
previous post quoted.
I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London
Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side
of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there
while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who
want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone
to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people
not you, but does that make it a bad rule? I reckon it's the same with
the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
and selfish way to "contribute" to the list, especially when you know
what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting
without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting.
Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on
this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it.
-Stuart
--
http://stut.net/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Stuart" <stut...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com...
2009/7/9 Tony Marston <t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk>:
<snip>
> I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London
> Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side
> of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there
> while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who
> want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone
> to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people
> not you, but does that make it a bad rule?
Your analogy is urealistic as my choice of top posting has absolutely no
effect on any other message is the newsgroup. It has no absolutely no effect
on the reader unless the reader chooses to take offence.
The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone
put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
didn't really matter.
Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person
you are.
> I reckon it's the same with
> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough.
> especially when you know
> what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting
> without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting.
There you go with your personal opinions again.
> Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on
> this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it.
>
> -Stuart
>
Good. So stop discussing it.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony
Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Stuart" <stut...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com...
> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston <t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk>:
> <snip>
>> I thought of a better analogy. You ever been on the London
>> Underground? There's a rule that says you stand on the right-hand side
>> of escalators. This has no benefit to you, the one who stands there
>> while the elevator does all the work, but it means those of us who
>> want to walk up the escalator can do so without having to ask everyone
>> to move out of the way. The benefit of this rule is to other people
>> not you, but does that make it a bad rule?
>
> Your analogy is urealistic as my choice of top posting has absolutely no
> effect on any other message is the newsgroup. It has no absolutely no effect
> on the reader unless the reader chooses to take offence.
>
> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if someone
> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
> didn't really matter.
>
> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded person
> you are.
>
>> I reckon it's the same with
>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
>
> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good enough.
>
>> especially when you know
>> what the rule/convention is. It's worth noting that bottom-posting
>> without efficient quoting is just as bad IMHO as top-posting.
>
> There you go with your personal opinions again.
>
>> Anyway, it's clear that you're not willing to do the polite thing on
>> this issue, so I don't see any point in continuing to discuss it.
>>
>> -Stuart
>>
>
> Good. So stop discussing it.
>
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Tony,
The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling. Daniel is
a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because
of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with
this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make
valuable contributions to the PHP community.
Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to
view a standard thread in the list. We don't have to like it, but that
is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are
not sensible to any specific point of view. I have found that moving
to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail
displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as
they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try
using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why
I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that
you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring.
--
Bastien
Cat, the other other white meat
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I honestly think this is a case of the subject being broached in a
less-than-super-friendly-with-hugs-and-butterflies way and someone
getting unduly offended about that. Why not chill out and look at
this objectively? Mailing lists are historically, as I'm sure you
know, a nearly invaluable research for someone with a problem and a
search engine. I would bet that there are few people who subscribe to
this list have never found a solution to a problem on a mailing list,
somewhere and somewhen. I know I personally subscribed to this list
because quite a few questions I had when I was just starting out with
PHP came from here and I wasn't subscribing with a news reader at the
time.
I think you (the OP) is being unnecessarily short-sighted in assuming
that 1, everyone has a news reader and uses it to read this list and
2, the threads are only relevant for the duration of their life. The
posts here are archived here forever and ever and a rule that suggests
posting on either the top or the bottom of the list keeps it consisten
for future readers. Breaking that convention because you don't like
it is just being grumpy and stickly for no other reason than you can,
and potentially harming future developers who could find the
information from this list a valuable resource. I like the escalator
analogy, because either side of the escalator would do to allow people
who want to stand and people who want to walk up to co-exist in
harmony, yet there's a standard. Luckily for us, this isn't the New
York subway where you get cursed at for standing on the wrong side (I
learned that lesson the wrong way when I moved here!).
In other words, it's not that top posting is empirically and
inherently a worse method than bottom posting, it's that it's a
generally accepted standard that helps ensure the longevity of posts
on this list. If it was top posting, I'm sure replying would be a lot
easier to most of us, but like a dozen people said in the first
thread, it takes two seconds to move the cursor each time. Why choose
to be overly ornery about a point so trivial? It seems like you're
trying to turn this into a "Fight the Power" battle, when the only
power you're fighting are your peers.
--Eddie
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Bastien Koert" <phps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe...@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony
Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Stuart" <stut...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com...
>> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston <t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk>:
>> <snip>
>> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
>> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if
>> someone
>> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
>> didn't really matter.
>>
>> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded
>> person
>> you are.
>>
>>> I reckon it's the same with
>>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
>>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
>>
>> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
>> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good
>> enough.
>>
> Tony,
>
> The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling.
I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
don't care about.
I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.
> Daniel is
> a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because
> of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with
> this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make
> valuable contributions to the PHP community.
Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.
> Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to
> view a standard thread in the list.
The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
says so.
> We don't have to like it, but that
> is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are
> not sensible to any specific point of view.
No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them.
> I have found that moving
> to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail
> displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as
> they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try
> using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why
> I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that
> you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring.
So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
newsreader I should use? How arrogant!
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
> --
>
> Bastien
>
> Cat, the other other white meat
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
> don't care about.
>
> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.
And it's not just as small minded (I'm not agreeing with you, by the
way) to assume that your point is the only valid point in the
discussion? Nor is it just as small minded to systematically attack
someone, and the community they take part in, because they have the
audacity to disagree with you?
> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.
It's obviously not inconsequential, as you're making such a fuss about
it. If it's so inconsequential, why not bottom post and be done with
it?
>
> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
> says so.
>
Congratulations, rule-abiding denizens of php-general, we're now all
Nazis! Way to invoke Godwin, by the way, it clearly always wins these
internet argu-debates and doesn't make you look like a loon at all.
I'm going to take this opportunity to jump on the "no more respect"
bandwagon.
> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!
"I don't like your rules, rules that existed before I got here and
will exist after I leave and are agreed on by the community, so I'll
not follow them!" is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen on
this list. He was making a suggestion, ffs, and you just want to be
an ass and take everything personally. You're making an entire
mountain range out of the proverbial molehill.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tony
Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Bastien Koert" <phps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d7b6cab70907090623s6b37641dt90a564f1d80fe...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Tony
> Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart" <stut...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a5f019de0907090340k47216f7fh4d83434ef98ce...@mail.gmail.com...
>>> 2009/7/9 Tony Marston <t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk>:
>>> <snip>
>>> The first newsgroups I visited after getting my first PC not only allowed
>>> top posting, they actively encouraged it, yet no-one complained if
>>> someone
>>> put their post on the bottom. They were tolerant, you see, because it
>>> didn't really matter.
>>>
>>> Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded
>>> person
>>> you are.
>>>
>>>> I reckon it's the same with
>>>> the way you arrange your messages to this list. Top-posting is a lazy
>>>> and selfish way to "contribute" to the list,
>>>
>>> That is opinion, not fact. Other newsgroups allow top posting, so why not
>>> this newsgroup? Just because someone says so? That's simply not good
>>> enough.
>>>
>> Tony,
>>
>> The only thing I don't agree with here is the name calling.
>
> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
> don't care about.
>
> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.
>
>> Daniel is
>> a pretty darn bright guy here, and I feel that slighting him because
>> of an established convention is not the best approach to dealing with
>> this. We are all voluntary participants on this list and we all make
>> valuable contributions to the PHP community.
>
> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.
>
>> Conventions were implemented to make things easier for participants to
>> view a standard thread in the list.
>
> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
> says so.
>
>> We don't have to like it, but that
>> is no reason to digress into a pissing match over how the rules are
>> not sensible to any specific point of view.
>
> No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them.
>
>> I have found that moving
>> to the gmail client makes the rules more sensible as that is how gmail
>> displays the emails. Both hotmail and outlook make this tougher as
>> they don't logically display the thread. Might I suggest that you try
>> using gmail (some one posted that your client was outlook which is why
>> I suggest this)? Its a pain, if you have a history with the list that
>> you store on your machine, but it might be worthwhile exploring.
>
> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!
>
No, Tony, not dictating at all. Merely sharing my experience. It may
or may not work for you, but that is for you to decide.
> --
> Tony Marston
> http://www.tonymarston.net
> http://www.radicore.org
>
>> --
>>
>> Bastien
>>
>> Cat, the other other white meat
>
>
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
Bastien
Cat, the other other white meat
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tony Marston wrote:
I called [Daniel] "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other
people just don't care about.
By "other people" you can only mean yourself, since the number of
people disagreeing with you here on this list keeps increasing.
I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
simply don't matter in the great scheme of things.
You've been told four times at least, top posting interferes with
threading for this list and it's been brought up a couple of times
at least, top-posting encourages leaving all the trailing dross. Like
dingleberries that you are too lazy or ignorant to clean away.
You also said to Stuart, but may as well have meant for all who've
posted in favor bottom-posting on this list:
Your intolerant attitude on this issue shows just what a small-minded
person you are.
With multiple valid reasons and increasing numbers supporting the
status quo for this list, you've thus-far persisted in calling it
an arbitrary rule that need not be followed. That seems pretty
small-minded indeed, for the 30-year professional you claim to be.
SL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
my 2¢:
Wherever/whenever the feeling level has been damaged, then/there
communication stops.
We can easily forget this in the dry environment of talking to
computers.. but the important matter(s) will always come back to the
*people* involved, sooner or later.
Real power is measured in terms of nourishing ability... in
nourishing the subtle feeling of those around us.
-Govinda
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 09:54, Tony Marston<t...@marston-home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people just
> don't care about.
Point #1: You're obviously wrong, as this thread has already
received more replies than most on-topic, PHP-centric threads.
> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments about
> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't matter,
> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.
Point #2: When attempting to prove your case, do your best to
keep your facts and players straight --- you did not call me either of
these things; you placed your unnecessary opinion of such on Stuart.
And while that really doesn't sit well with me, it's just becoming
more and more evident that you, like many others in the past, will
simply wind up being ignored by the majority of the list, save for
folks who don't know or don't care about your lack of respect for
them.
> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.
Had I been a hippie as well, I might just be inclined to agree
with you. So if we're throwing opinions around, let mine ring loud
and clear: thank God I'm not. Besides, I couldn't have pulled off the
bellbottom look, and in all my years, I still can't grow a half-decent
beard (which means that joining al-Qaeda may be out of my future as
well.... darn).
> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be bothered
> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet Nazi
> says so.
You change the topic for each newsgroup, don't you? And you do it
out of respect for the context of that particular group. You wouldn't
(well, maybe *you* would) ask a question about a carburetor on a
mailing list for expectant mothers, which makes sense. Following a
simple rule by not top-posting makes sense as well, which has been
outlined already. Your greatest failure in this argument, Tony, is
not being able to articulate your proof as to *why* it's a stupid
rule. All I've been able to ascertain to date is that you (ALWAYS)
have an opinion as to why the Establishment is a Bad Thing[tm], and
how The Man will never be able to keep you down. Fight the power,
Marston. Spread the word of the Revolution. Manifest Destiny! (What
was the argument again?)
> No, I don't like stupid rules, which is why I choose not to obey them.
This is like a five-year-old saying, "I don't like your stupid
face, so I'm not gonna' look at it." Reading your sentence, I
envisage the voice of a spoiled toddler.
> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!
Your arrogance toward the community and ignorance of fundamental,
purposeful guidelines is proof of how sanctimonious you truly are.
Besides, since you are still using PHP 4.4.9 on your server, it's
obvious that you don't like - and/or are afraid of - change, so no one
is trying to tell you what software to use.
Anyway, since we're on the subject, while I have no interest in
ever using RADICORE, I may be able to convince someone else to use it
for free. Wait, I would have to pay for a commercial? That's a
stupid rule, I'm just going to take it for free anyway, and damn what
you say about it.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Check out our great hosting and dedicated server deals at
http://twitter.com/pilotpig
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A quick search on Google indicates this argument has been active in
various forums for over ten years, so I don't expect it to be resolved
here.
While ego is the most apparent motivator in these discussions I suspect,
but have no way to confirm, that the two camps are divided by how their
[email|news] client posts by default. GroupWise was the first
significant email client I am aware of that top posted replies. Since
that was the competitive target Outlook was created to eliminate,
Outlook also top posted by default. But prior to the Office 2003 release
it could still be configured to both bottom post and automatically
insert the line prefixes for attribution.
At the office I have to use Outlook. I hate it. Not only do I have to
hand edit every message to construct the replay, there are many other
problems that make it totally unsuitable for intelligent users.
Unfortunately, that description fits far too few of the actual users.
Bob McConnell
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"Eddie Drapkin" <oorza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68de37340907090705y5b095f8cy68ba0d416b045...@mail.gmail.com...
>> I called him "intolerant" because he jumps on issues which other people
>> just
>> don't care about.
>>
>> I called him "small minded" because he concentrates on small issues which
>> simply don't matter in the great scheme of things. That sounds like fair
>> comment to me It's just like those people who have endless arguments
>> about
>> when to use uppercase and when to use lower case. It simply doesn't
>> matter,
>> so stop wasting your time in arguing about it.
>
> And it's not just as small minded (I'm not agreeing with you, by the
> way) to assume that your point is the only valid point in the
> discussion?
I never said that my point is the *only* valid point, just that it is a
valid point. I don't complain about other people and their bottom posting
(which I consider to be a bit anal, if you get the pun!) so stop trying to
force me to conform to your petty rules.
> Nor is it just as small minded to systematically attack
> someone, and the community they take part in, because they have the
> audacity to disagree with you?
I am not attacking, I am defending. There is a slight difference.
>> Irrelevant. It does not matter how much good work anybody does if they go
>> and ruin it by trying to enforce some inconsequential petty rule.
>
> It's obviously not inconsequential, as you're making such a fuss about
> it. If it's so inconsequential, why not bottom post and be done with
> it?
If it's so inconsequential then stop complaining about it.
>> The conventions in other newsgroups are different, and I can't be
>> bothered
>> to change my habits for different newsgroups just becase some internet
>> Nazi
>> says so.
>>
>
> Congratulations, rule-abiding denizens of php-general, we're now all
> Nazis!
I'm not saying that every person who reads this newsgroup is a Nazi, only
those who take great delight in dictating how people should use *their*
newsgroup.
> Way to invoke Godwin, by the way, it clearly always wins these
> internet argu-debates and doesn't make you look like a loon at all.
> I'm going to take this opportunity to jump on the "no more respect"
> bandwagon.
>
>> So not only are you dictating how I post, you are also dictating which
>> newsreader I should use? How arrogant!
>
> "I don't like your rules, rules that existed before I got here and
> will exist after I leave and are agreed on by the community, so I'll
> not follow them!" is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen on
> this list. He was making a suggestion, ffs, and you just want to be
> an ass and take everything personally. You're making an entire
> mountain range out of the proverbial molehill.
It is *you* who are making a mountain out of the no-top-posting molehill.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
--- End Message ---
