The Oasis moves to new server.
Phil Barnett
The migration of The Oasis site to it's new home is complete.
The old machine was a Pentium 133 128M ram and two rather old and slow
SCSI II drives. RedHat Linux 5.2
The new machine is an AMD K6/2-500 with 512M ram and UDMA66 7200 rpm
Maxtor drives. RedHat Linux 6.2
As an example of how much faster the new machine is, a site search on
the old machine took between 35 and 40 seconds to search all 1008
pages of html for the string 'test'.
On the new server, the same search takes 9 seconds.
Enjoy.
(and now, we can start working on updating the site to the 21st
century. Dave, you hear that? I have PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL
running. Your choice....)
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
Reality is the leading cause of stress
among those who are in touch with it.
Dave Pearson
> (and now, we can start working on updating the site to the 21st century.
> Dave, you hear that? I have PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running. Your
> choice....)
Noted, once the house move is out of the way (probably just over a month
left to go) I'll start to play again.
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Ross McKenzie
wrote:
>
Thanks for your ongoing support of the Clipper-world Phil.
Regards,
Ross McKenzie
ValuSoft
(affordable source recovery available)
(Fix1900 utility available)
(custom hardware interfaces)
www.irvis.nl
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:22:34 -0400, Phil Barnett <dev...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>Thanks for your ongoing support of the Clipper-world Phil.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Ross McKenzie
>ValuSoft
>(affordable source recovery available)
>(Fix1900 utility available)
>(custom hardware interfaces)
>www.irvis.nl
Ross, Roger that.
Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running."
Do any of these support DBF's? What about FlagShip or Harbour?
Dave Pearson
> Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running." Do
> any of these support DBF's?
php3 does have some DBF functions but they aren't intended for "serious"
use. MySQL and PostgreSQL are database servers which use their own file
formats. Importing data from DBFs into such database servers would be
trivial in the extreme.
> What about FlagShip or Harbour?
Both FlagShip and harbour support DBFs.
--
The Harbour Project: A free software Clipper compatible compiler
Home Page..........: http://www.harbour-project.org/
FAQ................: http://www.harbour-project.org/faq/harbour.html
Phil Barnett
wrote:
>Ross, Roger that.
>
>Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running."
>Do any of these support DBF's? What about FlagShip or Harbour?
PHP is a preprocessor that can handle ODBC, so in that respect, maybe.
Flagship is $.
Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour is missing .DBF and
.CDX total support.
In fact, other than that small missing part (yeah, the database part),
Harbour is pretty much complete. (and then some).
When Harbour is done, I'm sure it will get some use on my www site.
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
If you are banking on a free software project
getting 'Finished', then you are probably a
poor investor in the first place.
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:12:40 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Ross, Roger that.
>>
>>Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running."
>>Do any of these support DBF's? What about FlagShip or Harbour?
>
>PHP is a preprocessor that can handle ODBC, so in that respect, maybe.
>
>Flagship is $.
They've a personal free version, no? They might even pitch in a copy
just for the goodwill - have you asked?
>Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour is missing .DBF and
>.CDX total support.
>
>In fact, other than that small missing part (yeah, the database part),
>Harbour is pretty much complete. (and then some).
>
>When Harbour is done, I'm sure it will get some use on my www site.
I thought I saw some "web kit" mention in the Harbour stuff. There
isn't any good reason why proggies made with Harbour or FS couldn't be
targets of cgi calls, is there?
Heck, we've been outputting .html tables of inventory "catalogs" for a
couple of years and ftp'ing them to folks' servers... I'm hoping to
get enough free time to whack a little harder on my one and only Linux
box to see if this can be run ON the server live, instead of
offline... but I was sort of secretly hoping you'd do it first and be
so excited you'd tell the rest of us all the dirty details...
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:12:40 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com> wrote:
>
>> Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running." Do
>> any of these support DBF's?
>
>php3 does have some DBF functions but they aren't intended for "serious"
>use. MySQL and PostgreSQL are database servers which use their own file
>formats. Importing data from DBFs into such database servers would be
>trivial in the extreme.
>
>> What about FlagShip or Harbour?
>
>Both FlagShip and harbour support DBFs.
Duhhhhh... and I'll bet Clipper does, too, huh?
Well, but seriously, you have simply misapprehended the question,
Dave; I was asking about FS and Harbour in connection with PHP etc.,
as in why not use them instead, not whether they use .DBF files.
Let me apologize for failing to make it clear enough for you, but
perhaps what I should have asked was "What about FlagShip or Harbour
INSTEAD of PHP etc?". The Oasis is a Clipper site. Clipper is
primarily used with .DBF files, hence the question arises, "Why
doesn't The Oasis use an xBASE program to maintain its database?"
Perhaps the real question is whether The Oasis using a Linux web
server, and using neither Clipper's Linux cousins nor its "native"
file structures is a serious message to those who have been asking
about porting their programs to Linux. That is, if the premiere (to my
way of thinking) site for Clipper resources doesn't see fit to use FS
or Harbour for its own Linux-server web site, what does that say to
anyone considering those?
Dave Pearson
> Well, but seriously, you have simply misapprehended the question, Dave; I
> was asking about FS and Harbour in connection with PHP etc., as in why not
> use them instead, not whether they use .DBF files.
I can't say that they could usefully be used "in connection with PHP", no.
Harbour could be used instead of PHP but that would mean either a)
developing the new site as a bunch of CGIs or b) using something like
hscript which, although similar to PHP in design, isn't quite as useful as
PHP because PHP is built into the web server.
> Let me apologize for failing to make it clear enough for you, but perhaps
> what I should have asked was "What about FlagShip or Harbour INSTEAD of
> PHP etc?". The Oasis is a Clipper site. Clipper is primarily used with
> .DBF files, hence the question arises, "Why doesn't The Oasis use an xBASE
> program to maintain its database?"
Well, from my personal point of view, I've no interest in using Clipper code
for such a development, right tool for the right job and all that. However,
I'd be more than happy to let someone else do the work if they want to make
a point of using harbour to do the job.
> Perhaps the real question is whether The Oasis using a Linux web server,
> and using neither Clipper's Linux cousins nor its "native" file structures
> is a serious message to those who have been asking about porting their
> programs to Linux. That is, if the premiere (to my way of thinking) site
> for Clipper resources doesn't see fit to use FS or Harbour for its own
> Linux-server web site, what does that say to anyone considering those?
I think it says something far more interesting about the tool and platform
selection skills of those who would be swayed by such a thing. However, like
I say, if someone wants to help Phil re-develop The Oasis and do it so that
it is an advert for Linux and Harbour (FlagShip has an advertising budget,
I'm sure they'll manage on their own) then I'm willing to bet that he'd be
more than happy to accept their input.
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:13:19 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, but seriously, you have simply misapprehended the question, Dave; I
>> was asking about FS and Harbour in connection with PHP etc., as in why not
>> use them instead, not whether they use .DBF files.
>
>I can't say that they could usefully be used "in connection with PHP", no.
>Harbour could be used instead of PHP but that would mean either a)
>developing the new site as a bunch of CGIs or b) using something like
>hscript which, although similar to PHP in design, isn't quite as useful as
>PHP because PHP is built into the web server.
>
>> Let me apologize for failing to make it clear enough for you, but perhaps
>> what I should have asked was "What about FlagShip or Harbour INSTEAD of
>> PHP etc?". The Oasis is a Clipper site. Clipper is primarily used with
>> .DBF files, hence the question arises, "Why doesn't The Oasis use an xBASE
>> program to maintain its database?"
>
>Well, from my personal point of view, I've no interest in using Clipper code
>for such a development, right tool for the right job and all that.
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? The decision that xBASE, in
the context of either "language" or "data structure" is not the right
tool for "the job".
Is your decision based on the idea that "the job" is maintenance of a
database intended for web access, or that it's maintenance of a
database on a Linux server (as opposed to an NT or other server)? Or
some other notion entirely?
>However,
>I'd be more than happy to let someone else do the work if they want to make
>a point of using harbour to do the job.
>
>> Perhaps the real question is whether The Oasis using a Linux web server,
>> and using neither Clipper's Linux cousins nor its "native" file structures
>> is a serious message to those who have been asking about porting their
>> programs to Linux. That is, if the premiere (to my way of thinking) site
>> for Clipper resources doesn't see fit to use FS or Harbour for its own
>> Linux-server web site, what does that say to anyone considering those?
>
>I think it says something far more interesting about the tool and platform
>selection skills of those who would be swayed by such a thing.
What does it say?
>However, like
>I say, if someone wants to help Phil re-develop The Oasis and do it so that
>it is an advert for Linux and Harbour
But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php. Phil's
choice seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server
platform, and that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that
environment - as do you. Now, whether from his perspective that's
because Harbour is not really all that usable just yet and FS is
expensive (as opposed to built-in) is what I was trying to find out.
>(FlagShip has an advertising budget,
>I'm sure they'll manage on their own) then I'm willing to bet that he'd be
>more than happy to accept their input.
So, from your point of view, is this strictly an economic decision, or
are the xBASE tools simply unsuitable at any price on the Linux
platform?
Dave Pearson
> Is your decision based on the idea that "the job" is maintenance of a
> database intended for web access, or that it's maintenance of a database
> on a Linux server (as opposed to an NT or other server)? Or some other
> notion entirely?
One would assume that Phil chose Linux for his own reasons, you'll need to
ask him about that (personally I share his choice). As for something like
PHP, I've been playing with and having fun with PHP and have been looking
for a reason to use it in anger. Revamping The Oasis seems like a good
reason to use it in anger.
> >> Perhaps the real question is whether The Oasis using a Linux web
> >> server, and using neither Clipper's Linux cousins nor its "native" file
> >> structures is a serious message to those who have been asking about
> >> porting their programs to Linux. That is, if the premiere (to my way of
> >> thinking) site for Clipper resources doesn't see fit to use FS or
> >> Harbour for its own Linux-server web site, what does that say to anyone
> >> considering those?
> >
> >I think it says something far more interesting about the tool and
> >platform selection skills of those who would be swayed by such a thing.
>
> What does it say?
What it says, to me, is that people should evaluate tools based on how well
they will work for them and how well suited they will be to the problems
they face. If someone decides to use a tool "because that's what is used on
The Oasis" then I'd question their ability to correctly choose their tools.
While it might be flattering to think that my choice of tool for a specific
job might actually sway someone else's choice I seriously doubt that this
would be the case. I'd also seriously suggest they have a *proper* think
about their selection methods.
> >However, like I say, if someone wants to help Phil re-develop The Oasis
> >and do it so that it is an advert for Linux and Harbour
>
> But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php.
Nope, that's not my motivation and I'm pretty sure it isn't Phil's either.
The motivation on my part is to help Phil with The Oasis and to exercise a
language I want to exercise while doing so. I've "done" Clipper and so
writing a load of Clipper code to help maintain The Oasis holds no appeal
for me. Anyone who does want to write such code is more than welcome to step
forward and offer Phil their time.
I won't be so bold as to speak for Phil but I would suggest that his
motivation is to keep running the site so that it can serve up files to
those who need them.
> Phil's choice
> seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server platform, and
> that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that environment - as
> do you.
How do you draw this conclusion about Phil's choice, I don't recall him
talking about any preferences? I'd suggest you're reading far too much into
this. As for my reasons, yes, I think Harbour is unsuitable for this job. I
don't think it's unsuitable for technical reasons, it could be used.
Or, put it another way, if I can I'm willing to donate free time to help
revamp The Oasis. My motivation for donating that free time is to explore a
language I've only briefly played with (I've written a couple of tools on my
local Linux box using it). Obviously, if donating that time is going to send
out the wrong message I'll happily concentrate on something else.
> >(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll manage on their
> >own) then I'm willing to bet that he'd be more than happy to accept their
> >input.
>
> So, from your point of view, is this strictly an economic decision, or are
> the xBASE tools simply unsuitable at any price on the Linux platform?
Huh? Where did I say anything about economics? I'm saying above that if
someone wants to see Harbour used then they should step forward and do the
work. How do you read that and decide that the issue is price?
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:01:05 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com> wrote:
>
>> Is your decision based on the idea that "the job" is maintenance of a
>> database intended for web access, or that it's maintenance of a database
>> on a Linux server (as opposed to an NT or other server)? Or some other
>> notion entirely?
>
>One would assume that Phil chose Linux for his own reasons, you'll need to
>ask him about that
I thought I had. This one was directed to you. I understand that you
would go the same way - I'm asking "why?". Perhaps this is answered
below... if so, you can safely ignore this question.
>(personally I share his choice). As for something like
>PHP, I've been playing with and having fun with PHP and have been looking
>for a reason to use it in anger. Revamping The Oasis seems like a good
>reason to use it in anger.
>
>> >> Perhaps the real question is whether The Oasis using a Linux web
>> >> server, and using neither Clipper's Linux cousins nor its "native" file
>> >> structures is a serious message to those who have been asking about
>> >> porting their programs to Linux. That is, if the premiere (to my way of
>> >> thinking) site for Clipper resources doesn't see fit to use FS or
>> >> Harbour for its own Linux-server web site, what does that say to anyone
>> >> considering those?
>> >
>> >I think it says something far more interesting about the tool and
>> >platform selection skills of those who would be swayed by such a thing.
>>
>> What does it say?
>
>What it says, to me, is that people should evaluate tools based on how well
>they will work for them and how well suited they will be to the problems
>they face. If someone decides to use a tool "because that's what is used on
>The Oasis" then I'd question their ability to correctly choose their tools.
>While it might be flattering to think that my choice of tool for a specific
>job might actually sway someone else's choice I seriously doubt that this
>would be the case. I'd also seriously suggest they have a *proper* think
>about their selection methods.
I'd say it's perhaps more the NON-selection that's meaningful. I'd
suggest that it is not remotely *improper* to consider the choice of
tools by analogous installations as a meaningful component in one's
selections.
>
>> >However, like I say, if someone wants to help Phil re-develop The Oasis
>> >and do it so that it is an advert for Linux and Harbour
>>
>> But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php.
>
>Nope,
Your opinion. Mine is that it is. "Pure Clipper" is an MS-based
product; web servers may be MS or Linux (some others, true, but MS and
Linux cover the bulk); choosing Linux says something about that. This
newsgroup concerns itself with the Clipper dialect of xBASE, and folks
who are looking seriously at migrating from MS to Linux have a limited
choice of xBASE dialects on the Linux platform: FlagShip, Harbour
(someday... soon, it's to be hoped), and perhaps FoxPro (Caldera's
purchase of SCO may well lead to a FoxPro for Linux); the choice of
php (and/or mysql, postgresql) says something about that. Whatever the
reason, it says that Linux/php are preferable to MS/Clipper for this
purpose.
>that's not my motivation and I'm pretty sure it isn't Phil's either.
>The motivation on my part is to help Phil with The Oasis and to exercise a
>language I want to exercise while doing so. I've "done" Clipper and so
>writing a load of Clipper code to help maintain The Oasis holds no appeal
>for me. Anyone who does want to write such code is more than welcome to step
>forward and offer Phil their time.
>
>I won't be so bold as to speak for Phil but I would suggest that his
>motivation is to keep running the site so that it can serve up files to
>those who need them.
No doubt. There is also no doubt that there are people looking at
Linux as a platform, and looking to be able to continue doing
"clipper-y" programming on that platform. When The Oasis says "Linux",
those people are likely thinking "Yes! And...?", but when it says "and
PHP", they have to be wondering "But, what about Harbour (or FS)?"
>> Phil's choice
>> seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server platform, and
>> that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that environment - as
>> do you.
>
>How do you draw this conclusion about Phil's choice, I don't recall him
>talking about any preferences? I'd suggest you're reading far too much into
>this.
I didn't say it was the ONLY conclusion - you note the use of "seems",
do you not?
Let's put it like this: Jack has two choices, A and B; he chooses (for
unknown reasons) B; I can believe that he picked B because he thought
A was less suitable, or that he flipped a coin. There certainly are
other possibilities (B was on a lower shelf, A smelled bad, his mother
uses B, et cetera). Knowing nothing else, you can conclude that Jack
was rational, and selected B because it was more suitable (and hence A
was unsuitable as compared with B) with greater certainty than some
other possibility. You may well have a criterion in mind that would be
more likely than comparison for suitability - and you yourself say
elsewhere that you would do it as an opportunity to learn about
something new.
>As for my reasons, yes, I think Harbour is unsuitable for this job. I
>don't think it's unsuitable for technical reasons, it could be used.
>
Phil's take on that: "Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour
is missing .DBF and .CDX total support."
>Or, put it another way, if I can I'm willing to donate free time to help
>revamp The Oasis. My motivation for donating that free time is to explore a
>language I've only briefly played with (I've written a couple of tools on my
>local Linux box using it). Obviously, if donating that time is going to send
>out the wrong message I'll happily concentrate on something else.
>
>> >(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll manage on their
>> >own) then I'm willing to bet that he'd be more than happy to accept their
>> >input.
>>
>> So, from your point of view, is this strictly an economic decision, or are
>> the xBASE tools simply unsuitable at any price on the Linux platform?
>
>Huh? Where did I say anything about economics?
See above: "(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll
manage on their own)"
See Phil's reply: "Flagship is $."
"Budget"... "$"... implies "economics" to most of us.
>I'm saying above that if
>someone wants to see Harbour used then they should step forward and do the
>work. How do you read that and decide that the issue is price?
I didn't. I asked you a question. See the "?" at the end? That means
it's a question.
In eny event, please try to keep in mind that the initial question was
directed to Phil - I wasn't speculating, I was asking him why. By all
means, you're welcome to your own speculations.
Phil Barnett
wrote:
>But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php. Phil's
>choice seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server
>platform, and that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that
>environment - as do you. Now, whether from his perspective that's
>because Harbour is not really all that usable just yet and FS is
>expensive (as opposed to built-in) is what I was trying to find out.
Well, PHP is free and already installed with the Server Administrator
package I'm using, Flagship is not free for now. Harbour is not ready.
The Server Administration engine that I PURCHASED to manage the web
server uses php heavily, and has installed and set up all the tools at
hand to do all the cool stuff that linux web servers do using php.
Add to that the fact that last night I was elected president of our
LUG and that I'm also expected to do stuff the way they all know how
to do, IE, PHP is already being used on the LEAP-CF.ORG site and they
want to get it going on my new server. The redesign is about to come
online and depends on PHP even more heavily than ever.
Now, couple that with limited time and I had to make a choice. It's
just todays choice, not the choice forever. It's more a choice of
convenience than anything else.
It's certainly not an indightment of any other tools.
Furthermore, this server is a hosting server, and 40% of todays web
sites require PHP. It's a business decision at that level.
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
If you are banking on a free software project
Phil Barnett
wrote:
>No doubt. There is also no doubt that there are people looking at
>Linux as a platform, and looking to be able to continue doing
>"clipper-y" programming on that platform. When The Oasis says "Linux",
>those people are likely thinking "Yes! And...?", but when it says "and
>PHP", they have to be wondering "But, what about Harbour (or FS)?"
PHP is not a database. It's a preprocessor.
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
If you are banking on a free software project
Phil Barnett
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:58:39 -0400, Phil Barnett <dev...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:12:40 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ross, Roger that.
>>>
>>>Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running."
>>>Do any of these support DBF's? What about FlagShip or Harbour?
>>
>>PHP is a preprocessor that can handle ODBC, so in that respect, maybe.
>>
>>Flagship is $.
>
>They've a personal free version, no? They might even pitch in a copy
>just for the goodwill - have you asked?
No, but they wrote me and offered, so who knows. I had to inform them
that I have an exclusive sponsership agreement with Communications
Horizons and that I can't 'endorse' them.
>>Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour is missing .DBF and
>>.CDX total support.
>>
>>In fact, other than that small missing part (yeah, the database part),
>>Harbour is pretty much complete. (and then some).
>>
>>When Harbour is done, I'm sure it will get some use on my www site.
>
>I thought I saw some "web kit" mention in the Harbour stuff. There
>isn't any good reason why proggies made with Harbour or FS couldn't be
>targets of cgi calls, is there?
>
>Heck, we've been outputting .html tables of inventory "catalogs" for a
>couple of years and ftp'ing them to folks' servers... I'm hoping to
>get enough free time to whack a little harder on my one and only Linux
>box to see if this can be run ON the server live, instead of
>offline... but I was sort of secretly hoping you'd do it first and be
>so excited you'd tell the rest of us all the dirty details...
There is a huge difference in processor load between CGI and PHP.
That server servers 31 URL's so far, and I expect it to go into the
hundreds. I can't start putting things on there that eat CPU.
PHP is hands down the best for that.
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
If you are banking on a free software project
Dave Pearson
> On 18 Aug 2000 21:21:07 GMT, davep...@davep.org (Dave Pearson)
> wrote:
>
> >> >However, like I say, if someone wants to help Phil re-develop The Oasis
> >> >and do it so that it is an advert for Linux and Harbour
> >>
> >> But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php.
> >
> >Nope,
>
> Your opinion. Mine is that it is.
Hang on a moment. That *isn't* "my opinion", it is a *fact*. It only appears
to be "my opinion" because you butchered a sentence down to one word. Please
read and respond to what I actually write.
The simple fact is that *my* motivation for wanting to do this *isn't* to
provide advertising, for any tool. It isn't to advertise Linux, it isn't to
advertise PHP, it isn't to advertise harbour. My only motivation is to have
some fun hacking PHP and to help Phil with The Oasis.
> "Pure Clipper" is an MS-based product;
> web servers may be MS or Linux (some others, true, but MS and Linux cover
> the bulk); choosing Linux says something about that. This newsgroup
> concerns itself with the Clipper dialect of xBASE, and folks who are
> looking seriously at migrating from MS to Linux have a limited choice of
> xBASE dialects on the Linux platform: FlagShip, Harbour (someday... soon,
> it's to be hoped), and perhaps FoxPro (Caldera's purchase of SCO may well
> lead to a FoxPro for Linux); the choice of php (and/or mysql, postgresql)
> says something about that. Whatever the reason, it says that Linux/php are
> preferable to MS/Clipper for this purpose.
Personally preferable. IOW, the choice of those tools were my decision and
I've already documented the reasons and motivations for those choices. All
you have to do is volunteer to do the work instead and the choice and the
motivations may well be very different.
> >> seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server platform,
> >> and that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that environment
> >> - as do you.
> >
> >How do you draw this conclusion about Phil's choice, I don't recall him
> >talking about any preferences? I'd suggest you're reading far too much
> >into this.
>
> I didn't say it was the ONLY conclusion - you note the use of "seems", do
> you not?
I didn't say it was the only conclusion either. Why are you correcting
something I didn't say?
> >As for my reasons, yes, I think Harbour is unsuitable for this job. I
> >don't think it's unsuitable for technical reasons, it could be used.
>
> Phil's take on that: "Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour is
> missing .DBF and .CDX total support."
That's Phil's take on harbour's ability to work with DBF oriented databases
on Linux. This is, for the most part, a non-issue regarding the work I have
in mind. The work I have in mind requires a language for doing HTML
pre-processing, reading the content of ZIP files and doing useful things
like regular expression matching (something I've written for harbour). As I
see it at the moment the need to talk to DBF databases is a non-issue.
Someone has already written code so that harbour can talk to MySQL and it
would be pretty simple (and interesting) to write a PostgreSQL interface.
Even if harbour had a number of fully working DBF oriented RDDs I still
wouldn't use them in this case, I'd still use PostgreSQL.
> >> >(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll manage on their
> >> >own) then I'm willing to bet that he'd be more than happy to accept
> >> >their input.
> >>
> >> So, from your point of view, is this strictly an economic decision, or
> >> are the xBASE tools simply unsuitable at any price on the Linux
> >> platform?
>
> >Huh? Where did I say anything about economics?
>
> See above: "(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll manage
> on their own)"
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to go back and re-read what I really wrote. I
was pointing out that FlagShip doesn't need the advertising, not that I
wouldn't have personally chose FlagShip because they pay for advertising.
> >I'm saying above that if someone wants to see Harbour used then they
> >should step forward and do the work. How do you read that and decide that
> >the issue is price?
>
> I didn't. I asked you a question. See the "?" at the end? That means it's
> a question.
Very cute, but you appear to lack comprehension here. Where, exactly, did I
say you didn't ask a question? Where I come from the asking of a question is
often the same as the raising of an issue. IOW, the issue that you raised,
the question you asked, was regarding price.
Or do you think that the act of asking a question hides the content of the
question?
> In eny event, please try to keep in mind that the initial question was
> directed to Phil - I wasn't speculating, I was asking him why. By all
> means, you're welcome to your own speculations.
My input is more than just pure speculation. The reason? I'm the one who,
earlier this year, asked Phil if he'd like some help with The Oasis. I also
told him why I was interested in doing the work and I also told him what
tools I'd be looking at using. I even started hacking around a little at the
same time.
So, you are speculating because you obviously don't have all the facts to
hand. I assume that if you did you wouldn't be misrepresenting my words when
all I'm interested in doing is giving Phil a hand.
So, tell me, Bob Adams, how do you fancy donating your free time to help the
redevelopment of The Oasis? Code, after all, speaks louder than words.
Sarah
Without your support, this community would be a much poorer thing. I
guess I must check The Oasis on average every couple of weeks for
something to resolve a problem; I am rarely disappointed. Thank you
(and your sponsors) for all your work.
Sarah
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:13:18 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:58:39 -0400, Phil Barnett <dev...@iag.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:12:40 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ross, Roger that.
>>>>
>>>>Phil, I notice your reference to "PHP3, MySQL and PostgreSQL running."
>>>>Do any of these support DBF's? What about FlagShip or Harbour?
>>>
>>>PHP is a preprocessor that can handle ODBC, so in that respect, maybe.
>>>
>>>Flagship is $.
>>
>>They've a personal free version, no? They might even pitch in a copy
>>just for the goodwill - have you asked?
>
>No, but they wrote me and offered, so who knows. I had to inform them
>that I have an exclusive sponsership agreement with Communications
>Horizons and that I can't 'endorse' them.
I can certainly understand that... it's that old Golden Rule thing...
>>>Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour is missing .DBF and
>>>.CDX total support.
>>>
>>>In fact, other than that small missing part (yeah, the database part),
>>>Harbour is pretty much complete. (and then some).
>>>
>>>When Harbour is done, I'm sure it will get some use on my www site.
>>
>>I thought I saw some "web kit" mention in the Harbour stuff. There
>>isn't any good reason why proggies made with Harbour or FS couldn't be
>>targets of cgi calls, is there?
>>
>>Heck, we've been outputting .html tables of inventory "catalogs" for a
>>couple of years and ftp'ing them to folks' servers... I'm hoping to
>>get enough free time to whack a little harder on my one and only Linux
>>box to see if this can be run ON the server live, instead of
>>offline... but I was sort of secretly hoping you'd do it first and be
>>so excited you'd tell the rest of us all the dirty details...
>
>There is a huge difference in processor load between CGI and PHP.
>
>That server servers 31 URL's so far, and I expect it to go into the
>hundreds. I can't start putting things on there that eat CPU.
>
>PHP is hands down the best for that.
(Preparing to show total ignorance) If PHP is a pre-processor, it's
not really comparable doing any "live" response processing?
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:54:38 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2000 21:21:07 GMT, davep...@davep.org (Dave Pearson)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >However, like I say, if someone wants to help Phil re-develop The Oasis
>> >> >and do it so that it is an advert for Linux and Harbour
>> >>
>> >> But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php.
>> >
>> >Nope,
>>
>> Your opinion. Mine is that it is.
>
>Hang on a moment. That *isn't* "my opinion", it is a *fact*.
No, Dave, it's not a "fact". You claim it's a fact because you choose
to ignore the modifier "in a certain sense".
>It only appears
>to be "my opinion" because you butchered a sentence down to one word. Please
>read and respond to what I actually write.
>
>The simple fact is that *my* motivation for wanting to do this *isn't* to
>provide advertising, for any tool. It isn't to advertise Linux, it isn't to
>advertise PHP, it isn't to advertise harbour. My only motivation is to have
>some fun hacking PHP and to help Phil with The Oasis.
But we're not talking about motivation. I don't care what your
motivation is, it has nothing to do with perceptions by others,
whether it's hidden or overt.
>> "Pure Clipper" is an MS-based product;
>> web servers may be MS or Linux (some others, true, but MS and Linux cover
>> the bulk); choosing Linux says something about that. This newsgroup
>> concerns itself with the Clipper dialect of xBASE, and folks who are
>> looking seriously at migrating from MS to Linux have a limited choice of
>> xBASE dialects on the Linux platform: FlagShip, Harbour (someday... soon,
>> it's to be hoped), and perhaps FoxPro (Caldera's purchase of SCO may well
>> lead to a FoxPro for Linux); the choice of php (and/or mysql, postgresql)
>> says something about that. Whatever the reason, it says that Linux/php are
>> preferable to MS/Clipper for this purpose.
>
>Personally preferable. IOW, the choice of those tools were my decision and
>I've already documented the reasons and motivations for those choices. All
>you have to do is volunteer to do the work instead and the choice and the
>motivations may well be very different.
>
Which - again - has nothing to do with the perception.
>> >> seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server platform,
>> >> and that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that environment
>> >> - as do you.
>> >
>> >How do you draw this conclusion about Phil's choice, I don't recall him
>> >talking about any preferences? I'd suggest you're reading far too much
>> >into this.
>>
>> I didn't say it was the ONLY conclusion - you note the use of "seems", do
>> you not?
>
>I didn't say it was the only conclusion either. Why are you correcting
>something I didn't say?
Precisely because you didn't say it - not "only", but "seems".
>> >As for my reasons, yes, I think Harbour is unsuitable for this job. I
>> >don't think it's unsuitable for technical reasons, it could be used.
>>
>> Phil's take on that: "Harbour is not ready yet. Most notably, Harbour is
>> missing .DBF and .CDX total support."
>
>That's Phil's take on harbour's ability to work with DBF oriented databases
>on Linux. This is, for the most part, a non-issue regarding the work I have
>in mind. The work I have in mind requires a language for doing HTML
>pre-processing, reading the content of ZIP files and doing useful things
>like regular expression matching (something I've written for harbour). As I
>see it at the moment the need to talk to DBF databases is a non-issue.
>Someone has already written code so that harbour can talk to MySQL and it
>would be pretty simple (and interesting) to write a PostgreSQL interface.
>
>Even if harbour had a number of fully working DBF oriented RDDs I still
>wouldn't use them in this case, I'd still use PostgreSQL.
>
Nevertheless, "not ready yet" qualifies as a technical issue to my way
of thinking - your mileage may vary.
>> >> >(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll manage on their
>> >> >own) then I'm willing to bet that he'd be more than happy to accept
>> >> >their input.
>> >>
>> >> So, from your point of view, is this strictly an economic decision, or
>> >> are the xBASE tools simply unsuitable at any price on the Linux
>> >> platform?
>>
>> >Huh? Where did I say anything about economics?
>>
>> See above: "(FlagShip has an advertising budget, I'm sure they'll manage
>> on their own)"
You left this part out, for some reason.
>>
>> See Phil's reply: "Flagship is $."
>>
>> "Budget"... "$"... implies "economics" to most of us.
>Perhaps you'd be so kind as to go back and re-read what I really wrote. I
>was pointing out that FlagShip doesn't need the advertising, not that I
>wouldn't have personally chose FlagShip because they pay for advertising.
I not only read it, I pointed it out to you, and you seem to have
ignored it - not just what you had said, but what Phil had said, which
seemed quite clearly to me to contain an element of consideration of
economics.
>> >I'm saying above that if someone wants to see Harbour used then they
>> >should step forward and do the work. How do you read that and decide that
>> >the issue is price?
>>
>> I didn't. I asked you a question. See the "?" at the end? That means it's
>> a question.
>
>Very cute, but you appear to lack comprehension here. Where, exactly, did I
>say you didn't ask a question? Where I come from the asking of a question is
>often the same as the raising of an issue. IOW, the issue that you raised,
>the question you asked, was regarding price.
It's not about comprehension, it's about your inability to answer
questions. I asked if it was strictly a price issue with you, and
instead of answering it, you go off on a tangent about why I would
consider price as an issue. I answered that for you, but instead of
responding to the original question, off you go on another tangent
about questions. If it's not an issue, what problem do you have that
keeps you from simply answering that it's not?
>
>Or do you think that the act of asking a question hides the content of the
>question?
>
It's about answers, Dave. Try saying "Yes" or "No" instead of "Duh".
>> In eny event, please try to keep in mind that the initial question was
>> directed to Phil - I wasn't speculating, I was asking him why. By all
>> means, you're welcome to your own speculations.
>
>My input is more than just pure speculation.
Okay, I'll do it your way: When did I say it was "pure" speculation?
Never mind, Dave, that's not one you need to answer.
>The reason? I'm the one who,
>earlier this year, asked Phil if he'd like some help with The Oasis. I also
>told him why I was interested in doing the work and I also told him what
>tools I'd be looking at using. I even started hacking around a little at the
>same time.
>
>So, you are speculating because you obviously don't have all the facts to
>hand.
By golly, you're right, Dave, that's why I was asking questions.
>I assume that if you did you wouldn't be misrepresenting my words when
>all I'm interested in doing is giving Phil a hand.
Actually, you're the one who's misrepresenting your words. But, what
the hell, they're your words, so feel free.
>So, tell me, Bob Adams, how do you fancy donating your free time to help the
>redevelopment of The Oasis? Code, after all, speaks louder than words.
Sure, why not? Tell me what you need...
Bob Adams
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:01:05 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com>
>wrote:
>
>>But, in a certain sense, it is an advert for Linux and php. Phil's
>>choice seems to indicate that he finds Linux preferable as a server
>>platform, and that he finds FS and Harbour unsuitable for use in that
>>environment - as do you. Now, whether from his perspective that's
>>because Harbour is not really all that usable just yet and FS is
>>expensive (as opposed to built-in) is what I was trying to find out.
>Well, PHP is free and already installed with the Server Administrator
>package I'm using, Flagship is not free for now. Harbour is not ready.
>
>The Server Administration engine that I PURCHASED to manage the web
>server uses php heavily, and has installed and set up all the tools at
>hand to do all the cool stuff that linux web servers do using php.
>
>Add to that the fact that last night I was elected president of our
>LUG and that I'm also expected to do stuff the way they all know how
>to do, IE, PHP is already being used on the LEAP-CF.ORG site and they
>want to get it going on my new server. The redesign is about to come
>online and depends on PHP even more heavily than ever.
>
>Now, couple that with limited time and I had to make a choice. It's
>just todays choice, not the choice forever. It's more a choice of
>convenience than anything else.
>
>It's certainly not an indightment of any other tools.
>
>Furthermore, this server is a hosting server, and 40% of todays web
>sites require PHP. It's a business decision at that level.
Thank you.
Was Linux for the server a conscious choice, or was it simply dictated
by the hosting service?
And given Linux for the server, is it reasonable to say that FS and
Harbour were not suitable for the reasons you gave above? Obviously is
Harbour is not ready that's pretty clear unsuitability. Whether FS is
suitable (for responding to web requests) beyond the economic burden
is, I suppose, the real question.
Phil Barnett
wrote:
A conscious choice. It's my server, cohosted. I built it from the
ground up. I installed the OS and I did the security. There is no way
I would put NT 1000 miles away. NT requires rebooting every time you
install something. Linux does not. Linux is made to be remotely
managed. NT is not. NT security is swiss cheese. Linux can be made
very secure. The list goes on and on. (and I have made NT secure and I
have remotely managed NT and I have rebooted NT a LOT of times.)
>And given Linux for the server, is it reasonable to say that FS and
>Harbour were not suitable for the reasons you gave above? Obviously is
>Harbour is not ready that's pretty clear unsuitability. Whether FS is
>suitable (for responding to web requests) beyond the economic burden
>is, I suppose, the real question.
This is a production server. Using any alpha phase language on a
production server would be insane, in my book. There is nothing
'wrong' with Harbour. But, this server is over 1000 miles from my
home. That would make it doubly insane.
The nice people at Flagship are sending me a newer package, so we'll
see how it fans out. I dunno the shipping lag from Europe, and then
I'll have to ship the CD(s) up to Baltimore and have it/them put in
the CD drive for installation. I suspect it will be two or more weeks
before that is ready to test. I have a 5 year old version of Flagship
here (4.32), but I didn't think it appropriate to put an old version
on a new server. I mean, the disks say 'System: Linux 1.0'.
It really boils down to this for me. Linux comes with pretty neat
tools already built in. No need to download, no need to figure out
what works with what. Just use them.
While I have a strong allegiance with Clipper and Harbour-Project, I
also have a strong tie with Linux in general and GNU and Free Software
movements. Linux makes a great server and it's catching up as a
desktop system. My guess is that in another year(or so), Linux will
offer most of what makes micros~1 windows attractive today. It comes
with excellent free software and the utilities that come with Linux
these days should make Bill Gates blush in embarrassment.
I have run all kinds of servers over the last 15 years. Netware, NT,
OS/2. None of them come close to the reliability and versatility of
the current crop of Linux choices.
Last week Caldera bought SCO Unix.
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
If you are banking on a free software project
Phil Barnett
wrote:
>>There is a huge difference in processor load between CGI and PHP.
>>
>>That server servers 31 URL's so far, and I expect it to go into the
>>hundreds. I can't start putting things on there that eat CPU.
>>
>>PHP is hands down the best for that.
>
>(Preparing to show total ignorance) If PHP is a pre-processor, it's
>not really comparable doing any "live" response processing?
Au contraire. It processes scripts and outputs html real time. Very
live.
Take a look here for some more info on PHP.
http://www.wwits.net/programs/MySQL.phtml
(Note the link at the bottom to the PHP manual)
--
Phil Barnett mailto:midnight @ the-oasis.net
Oasis WWW http://www.the-oasis.net
FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net
Clipper FAQ http://www.the-oasis.net/clipper.html
Harbour Project http://www.Harbour-Project.org
If you are banking on a free software project
Dave Pearson
> On 19 Aug 2000 06:43:50 GMT, davep...@davep.org (Dave Pearson)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:54:38 -0500, Bob Adams <b...@adamshouse.com> wrote:
> >> On 18 Aug 2000 21:21:07 GMT, davep...@davep.org (Dave Pearson)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Nope,
> >>
> >> Your opinion. Mine is that it is.
> >
> >Hang on a moment. That *isn't* "my opinion", it is a *fact*.
>
> No, Dave, it's not a "fact". You claim it's a fact because you choose to
> ignore the modifier "in a certain sense".
I'll say it again Bob, I was talking about my reasons and motivations for
those choices. You asked what they were, I gave them, you then speculated
about them, I reiterated my reasons and motivations and you dismissed them.
I don't choose to ignore the modifier, I choose to talk about what I know.
I've already said what I think about the perception angle, I think that
anyone who gets the "wrong" perception needs to re-think their tool
selection process.
> >The simple fact is that *my* motivation for wanting to do this *isn't* to
> >provide advertising, for any tool. It isn't to advertise Linux, it isn't
> >to advertise PHP, it isn't to advertise harbour. My only motivation is to
> >have some fun hacking PHP and to help Phil with The Oasis.
>
> But we're not talking about motivation. I don't care what your motivation
> is, it has nothing to do with perceptions by others, whether it's hidden
> or overt.
Then why ask why these choices were made if you don't care about my
motivation? What's the point in me actually answering your questions if you
don't care about my answers?
Ask yourself, Bob Adams, why ask for the reasons if you don't care about
them?
> [SNIP]
This is getting silly now. Here's one more try, perhaps you'll care this
time...
My reasons for wanting to use PHP and PostgreSQL for the revamp of The Oasis
have nothing to do with and say nothing about the Clipper language or
harbour (I'm not interested in FlagShip, I want to use free software to do
this and, that, BTW, has nothing to do with price). My motivation for using
the tools listed are because I want to do something with them, to learn. As
you can see, my answer *is* about my motivation because my motivation
*drives* the tool choice in this case.
I believe that there is no perception problem because anyone who gets the
one perception probably isn't capable of making sensible tool choices
anyway.
If anyone feels strongly enough about this (perhaps even to the degree of
not caring about the answers) I'm sure that Phil will be more than happy to
accept their help in re-writing The Oasis using tools that will pander to
the broken perceptions of those who want the warm fuzzy feeling you get from
advertising.
> >So, tell me, Bob Adams, how do you fancy donating your free time to help
> >the redevelopment of The Oasis? Code, after all, speaks louder than
> >words.
>
> Sure, why not? Tell me what you need...
I don't need anything, I don't run The Oasis. If you're interested you
should have a chat with Phil. Good luck with the project, I'll be happy to
lend a hand should one be required.
Dave Pearson
> (Preparing to show total ignorance) If PHP is a pre-processor, it's not
> really comparable doing any "live" response processing?
PHP pre-processes the data as it is sent from the web server. It does this
on each request. Because the pre-processor is part of the web server it has
much less an overhead than CGI (for example). <URL:http://www.php.net/>
would be a good place to start to learn more.
Sergey Aleshin
> PHP pre-processes the data as it is sent from the web server. It does this
> on each request. Because the pre-processor is part of the web server it has
> much less an overhead than CGI (for example). <URL:http://www.php.net/>
> would be a good place to start to learn more.
Is it faster than mod_perl? As i know for best security php must be run
as cgi ;-)
--
Sergey Aleshin / ICQ UIN: #73148842
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
> > PHP pre-processes the data as it is sent from the web server. It does
> > this on each request. Because the pre-processor is part of the web
> > server it has much less an overhead than CGI (for example).
> > <URL:http://www.php.net/> would be a good place to start to learn more.
>
> Is it faster than mod_perl?
I've never done a comparison so I can't comment. mod_perl is on my "to play"
list.
> As i know for best security php must be run as
> cgi ;-)
Yeah? Interesting. Do you have any pointers to any information that expands
on this claim?
Sergey Aleshin
> On 22 Aug 2000 09:08:43 GMT, Sergey Aleshin <a...@natlib.udm.ru> wrote:
>>
>> Is it faster than mod_perl?
> I've never done a comparison so I can't comment. mod_perl is on my "to play"
> list.
>> As i know for best security php must be run as
>> cgi ;-)
> Yeah? Interesting. Do you have any pointers to any information that expands
> on this claim?
PHP manual, Getting started, Security :-)
I think, it can be applied mostly to sites with many different users.
Anyway, look at www.phorum.org. It's a web-phorum software written in PHP.
And it's require php build as cgi. For security resons.
How about phorum on Oasis?
Dave Pearson
> Dave Pearson <davep...@davep.org> wrote:
>
> > Yeah? Interesting. Do you have any pointers to any information that
> > expands on this claim?
>
> PHP manual, Getting started, Security :-)
Thanks for the pointer, much appreciated. Time to sit down and read the
*whole* manual. ;>
bith...@my-deja.com
I've been revisiting the hardcore xbase lingo for
the last 3-6 months and pretty amazed that
clipper is around and actually possibly coming
back.
I've analyzed fivewin for windows environment and
it looks very promising. If you are thinking of
revamping you old clipper/DOS app to the windows
environment, you should definitely check out
fivewin.
Harbour : has the DOS version which seems ok but
you can't really generate an exe unless you
convert it into c and then compile and link it in
c.
You can run it with hbrun in DOS and it works
pretty decent. But where is the GUI aspect?
Also the distribution of Harbour for Linux seems
to generate c code as well as the HRB code just
like the DOS counterpart but there is no Runner
for it in Linux? Anyone know where to get the
runner for linux?
Ok now there is Fivewin and Harbour...are they
going to put out a GUI version of Fivewin for the
Linux environment?
What about DBMAX? It seems ready for the linux
environment but not a GUI. And to create a table
on linux works but is very different than the
clipper language.
If there are too many distributions of Linux, it
gets very confusing and seems like the same is
happening with the clipper lingo as well.
Am I missing something or is the world becoming
multi-dimensional and there are too many clones
which we may not be able to distinguish from?
Some say why rebuild the wheel...
Some say if you are going to rebuild the wheel,
have people rebuild 1 wheel first, then
distribute it rather than have 4 ppl build their
own version of the wheel and put it on the same
cart.
The cart will be wobbley, wouldn't it? :)
former 15 dude or somthing...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.