PHP-GTK does not deserve its own forum. If we have a PHP-GTK forum then we should have a Pear forum, or an extension developers forum (which would be more like coding C, not PHP). Many more people use Pear classes than PHP-GTK, and not many people would benefit from a PHP-GTK forum. It would lie dormant like the NuSphere PHPEd forum (OMG there's a new post :eek: )
[FONT=times new roman]
OT:
PHP-GTK stands for:
PHP Hypertext Processor Gnu's Not Unix Image Manipulation Program Tool Kit
[/FONT]
If we have a PHP-GTK forum then we should have a Pear forum
like jstarkey said, PHP-GTK is a huge jump for PHP. Pear is no-bad but its nothing compared to PHP-GTK.
not many people would benefit from a PHP-GTK forum
why do you say that? sure PHP-GTK is new-ish but there are hundreds of good,bad and down right stupid php-gtk programs around and more are created everyday so the number of developers must be quite large.
This isn't just an extension like pear, gd, ircg etc... This is an evolution, so far its the only extension (that I know of) that brings PHP off the web and onto your desktop.
Sure its not as good as ANY other desktop programming language but it has potential.
P.S. btw, last time I checked, Smarty was a Class.
Originally posted by LordShryku
But, yeah, they think Linux sucks too :rolleyes:
Only 'cos Linux is more popular than GNU's Hurd.
Originally posted by elementaluk
Sure its not as good as ANY other desktop programming language but it has potential.
Yes it has potential but the vast majority of users using PHP as a web application language is far greater than using it to create desktop applications. Until its popularity increases i do not think many users if any will reguarly use it or even use it for that matter.
What I always find interesting is the fact that people say Linux is more stable than Windows. Not in my experience. I've had XP for 2 1/2 years and have not once had it crash/freeze/suddenly restart. I bought a new computer, and to try out Linux, I installed RH9. After the first day or so of using it, the computer restarted everytime I logged on. Eventually the computer never made it past the initial loading phase of the OS, and I ended up installing Windows. That was back in August, and I have yet to experience a crash or anything mentioned above.
Originally posted by ScubaKing22
What I always find interesting is the fact that people say Linux is more stable than Windows. Not in my experience. I've had XP for 2 1/2 years and have not once had it crash/freeze/suddenly restart. I bought a new computer, and to try out Linux, I installed RH9. After the first day or so of using it, the computer restarted everytime I logged on. Eventually the computer never made it past the initial loading phase of the OS, and I ended up installing Windows. That was back in August, and I have yet to experience a crash or anything mentioned above.
Problem #1, you installed Redhat, and went through the "hold your hand" install. Which SHOULD get you a functional linux box, but IMO is far from ideal.
Problem #2, unless you know enough (or are willing to learn) about linux, it is impossible to use, and highly unstable.
Problem #3, linux is NOT ready for the typical end-user desktop.
On my personal machine at home I DO run a linux desktop (Debian Sarge/testing with the 2.4 kernel as 2.6 still has crap support for my motherboard) . But then again, i'm a glutton for punishment 
Originally posted by ScubaKing22
What I always find interesting is the fact that people say Linux is more stable than Windows. Not in my experience.
Yep, I'll agree with that 100%. As long as you're on an NT system and you know what you're doing, Windows is as stable as you want it to be.
Originally posted by Mordecai
Yep, I'll agree with that 100%. As long as you're on an NT system and you know what you're doing, Windows is as stable as you want it to be.
I'd say its as stable as the applications you run on it, which is no different with linux or any other OS. If you're running crappy software on top of the OS bad things will happen.
Originally posted by ScubaKing22
What I always find interesting is the fact that people say Linux is more stable than Windows. Not in my experience.
I work on one site putting out about 1 million pages per day. The site was granted first rights to announce an impending release of a product. Within a few hours of posting the announcement, a Windows security friend pointed out to me that the other site had crashed under extreme load. As far as I know, and was told, we were the only ones who'd announced the release. So our referals alone took it down. We run Linux. I don't know how many p/vs they were getting, but I doubt it was anywhere near what we were. I'd hate to see it hit with our load (a constant 16 Mbit/sec output, with peaks to 37Mbit).
I bought a new computer, and to try out Linux, I installed RH9. After the first day or so of using it, the computer restarted everytime I logged on. Eventually the computer never made it past the initial loading phase of the OS, and I ended up installing Windows.
I've installed about 30 machines this year and I've never had RH screw up an X config. Sounds like you got a bum deal. But that would be the same with Windows. The thing with Linux is, once it's running, it'll run until hardware crashes. RH and SuSE are great about install and go. Some others are still old school.
To be fair: I do have an XP machine here that gets used an hour or two a week and is running 24x7. It hasn't crashed in a long time.
Originally posted by Sgarissta
Problem #1, you installed Redhat, and went through the "hold your hand" install. Which SHOULD get you a functional linux box, but IMO is far from ideal.
Hey, RH has held my hand many times and done fine. I'm not a tweaker though, I gave that up years ago 
Stop playing and start working, and you won't have any problems!!
Sheeeesh, I thought you were on our side 
Originally posted by Sgarissta
I'd say its as stable as the applications you run on it, which is no different with linux or any other OS. If you're running crappy software on top of the OS bad things will happen.
Very true. The past 24 hours I've been configuring a mail server. At a couple points I actually threw the message lists out of sync and Evolution just started an infinite spin. Outlook did the same thing. I can't remember if I rebooted XP or just closed Outlook, but Evolution crapped out completely when I tried to close the Window. I had to reboot. Possibly score on for XP here. Even though there was no screen for Outlook, I don't think I rebooted. Is there an uptime count on XP?
Originally posted by jstarkey
Hey, RH has held my hand many times...
I'm not a tweaker though...
Stop playing and start working...
I like big butts and I cannot lie...
So you're not one of the bleeding edge folks running Fedora Core 3 Test 1 I take it?
Just got used to some of the Gnome 2.6, KDE 3.2 changes, and they put Gnome 2.8/KDE 3.3 out there.
Originally posted by LordShryku
So you're not one of the bleeding edge folks running Fedora Core 3 Test 1 I take it?
Just got used to some of the Gnome 2.6, KDE 3.2 changes, and they put Gnome 2.8/KDE 3.3 out there.
The only thing i liked about Fedora Core 2 Final was that it actually got the 2.6 kernel up and running correctly on my machine. On the other hand, I'm too used to debian at this point to be able to survive in the RH world
I still use Fedora Core 1 when I don't want to spend the time building a Gentoo box. It's great for quick and dirty, but I also keep a spare around just for the testing.
Originally posted by LordShryku
So you're not one of the bleeding edge folks running Fedora Core 3 Test 1 I take it?
Just got used to some of the Gnome 2.6, KDE 3.2 changes, and they put Gnome 2.8/KDE 3.3 out there.
I don't sing in the shower
SuSE 9 (thanks to the last thread on the topic) - Desktop machine with KDE
RHEL - laptop with Gnome and dual boot XP Pro
FC 2 - WWW Server
KRUD 9 - Mail Server
FC2 - File Server (was Debian as a test, but I couldn't get it to mount /dev/md0 (turns out to have been an airhead mistake))
FC2 - Router
Errrr, actually, I haven't been using Fedora long enough to know, I think I'm grabbing from the Core 2, folders for updating, but I installed 1.
Originally posted by Sgarissta
The only thing i liked about Fedora Core 2 Final was that it actually got the 2.6 kernel up and running correctly on my machine.
I was surprised to find 2.6 on SuSE 9. It's working great on an Athlon2200+ and MSI KT4V w/ Radeon9600. I can't seem to get dual monitor working with SuSE though. Worked great with RHEL.
Once I got past the initial stumbling block of just getting debian installed correctly for my system, I've had fewer issues than with any other distro I've ever tried.
Plus apt-get is just too great for words.
(And don't tell me FC2/RH/YourDistroHere has apt-* now, as it still doesn't have a decent repository to back it up )
Originally posted by Sgarissta
Once I got past the initial stumbling block of just getting debian installed correctly for my system, I've had fewer issues than with any other distro I've ever tried.
I loved the way it was running very few services, after install. But it's hardware support threw me. I'm not interested in going back a decade. RHEL spoiled me
Plus apt-get is just too great for words.
(And don't tell me FC2/RH/YourDistroHere has apt-* now, as it still doesn't have a decent repository to back it up
I just started using apt-get on FC, KRUD, RHEL and Debian (when I had it installed). It's very nice. Soother than yum, IMO.
Originally posted by jstarkey
I loved the way it was running very few services, after install. But it's hardware support threw me. I'm not interested in going back a decade. RHEL spoiled me
I solved MOST of my hardware issues (other than with 2.6 ) by using the new and improved debian installer (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/)
and installing the testing branch (Sarge) from the start, as the stable branch (Woody) is older than old.
Sarge is slated as the next released version, and currently has support for the 2.6 kernel, gnome 2.6 and kde 3.whatever. I've had it up and running a month or so as my desktop and I've been pleasantly surprised with how much more improved this release is over Woody.
I used Debian for a long time before going to Fedora, then Gentoo, so I'm familiar with apt. I'd have to say I'm partial to Gentoo's portage system though...
