Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14130 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 24390 invoked by uid 1010); 20 Dec 2004 23:36:10 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 15207 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2004 23:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO secret.deadmime.org) (69.55.224.147) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2004 23:34:54 -0000 Received: from secret.deadmime.org (secret.deadmime.org [69.55.224.147] (may be forged)) by secret.deadmime.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBKNYqas090108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dank@deadmime.org) Received: from localhost (dank@localhost) by secret.deadmime.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id iBKNYpHl090102; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:34:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dank@deadmime.org) X-Authentication-Warning: secret.deadmime.org: dank owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:34:51 -0800 (PST) To: Lester Caine cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <20041220222248.49013.qmail@pb1.pair.com> Message-ID: <20041220151812.F95573@secret.deadmime.org> References: <000601c4e6d2$6bda0f30$0100a8c0@pc07653> <41C74D41.7060608@lerdorf.com> <20041220222248.49013.qmail@pb1.pair.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on secret.deadmime.org Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Why we =?windows-1252?Q?don=92t_like_PHP_/_?= From: dank@deadmime.org (Dan Kalowsky) On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Lester Caine wrote: > The Apache2 debate is more interesting. I am just running up a nice new > AMD64, with SUSE9.1 (no 9.2 disk handy), and the first thing I find - and > which does not bother me at all - ONLY Apache2 in the distribution. I KNOW > all the reasons for feet dragging, and I am doing it myself over VCL/Win32 > and Microsoft's latest 'standards', but at some point we will all have to > give in an move on. Is now not the time at least to start treating Apache2 as > a current version, and start looking into the problems? Although I cannot speak for extlib maintainers, our repository awaits your code submissions. I don't see any advantage to making claims of support when there are known corruption issues, and functinoality only in a "crippled" mode (for lack of a better term right now). >---------------------------------------------------------------< Dan Kalowsky "I thought you died alone, http://www.deadmime.org/~dank a long long time ago." dank-nom@aps-deadmime.org - "The Man Who Sold the World" kalowsky@php.net David Bowie