Jump to content
Invision Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


atomicknight last won the day on July 29 2010

atomicknight had the most liked content!


About atomicknight

  • Rank
    Just wandering around aimlessly

Contact Methods

  1. Apache under Mac OSX Lion

    The generic approach for debugging rewrite rules is to use the RewriteLog and RewriteLogLevel directives: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_rewrite.html Nothing looks obviously wrong, but it may be that something in the other configuration files is causing the problem.
  2. Apache under Mac OSX Lion

    Are you sure that the root directory is /Users/name/Sites? Those directories are typically mapped to /~name. If you post up your configuration, that'd probably be the easiest way to diagnose the problem.
  3. I'd also recommend against starting off with Zend - it's a great framework, but its architecture is most appropriate for large applications that require significant modularity. As such, the learning curve is quite steep, and I found the official documentation to be rather lacking. In contrast, CakePHP has rather comprehensive documentation, so that'd be a pretty good choice for starting out. Nowadays, pretty much every framework is based on convention over configuration; however, depending on what your specific objectives are, that may actually be counterproductive. Conventions are great if you already know what they are (or can easily look them up). Otherwise, you're going to be spending a lot of time just figuring out what is and isn't part of the convention rather than actually working on your application. What you really want to gain is a deep understanding of the general concepts rather than familiarity with a particular framework (at least, not until you've tried a number of them). So given that, just don't pick a framework that encourages/requires you to use code generation tools right off the bat - that won't help you learn anything other than how to use that particular tool.
  4. IPB and a Mac server?

    My R&D group ran our entire operations off a Mac server for about two years and found that it was a lot more trouble than it was worth. Granted, things probably have changed since then (this was about 4 years ago), but we regularly ran up against technical issues that were difficult/impossible to resolve, leading to significant amounts of time being wasted on systems administration work. The main problem we encountered was with regard to Apple's decision to do everything their way. Yes, it is a *nix system, but as soon as you try to perform non-trivial compilations of third-party software that involve significant linking with system libraries, you'll find that the similarities aren't much more than skin deep. Relying on official Apple releases wasn't an option either since they seemed to always be at least two major releases behind for every piece of software that we used. Third-party binaries were pretty rare then as well (I assume it's better now), so we were basically stuck trying to resolve obscure linking errors and the like. And then there were the annoyances like not being able to uninstall iTunes and having to regularly restart the server because it had to apply an update for Quicktime or something. And of course, if you're not using the latest version of their OS, you're on your own. In the end, switching over to a Linux distribution turned out to be the better option for us. The pricing for Mac servers was very attractive, but the extra investment in time wasn't worth it. Still, our needs are likely different from yours, so you should make a decision based on your specific requirements. I personally wouldn't be too keen about hosting in-house though - it's a lot of work to make sure that your setup is sufficiently robust, and the work doesn't end once you set things up. What's your tolerance for downtime? Do you have a complete disaster recovery plan? Do you have spare machines that can be used in case of catastrophic failure? How about system upgrades/maintenance? Who's going to be monitoring the systems, both hardware and software? Who's in charge of security, and who's responsible for fending off attacks like the one you recently experienced? These are all questions that you'll need to answer if you plan to handle the hosting yourself (this is obviously not a comprehensive list!). You may ultimately determine that hosting your sites yourself is still the best option, and that's fine. Just be sure you have a good idea of what you're getting yourself into before you start spending the time and effort (and money!).
  5. CentOS 6

    Unless you need newer versions of particular components, it's probably not worth the trouble (as long as you can get support for version 5). A few things I noticed going from RHEL 5.x to RHEL 6.1: There's a new RPM for CA certificates Newer versions of CIFS libraries The php* RPMs are for 5.3.x (in RHEL 5.x, there were separate php53* RPMs)
  6. Possible New Laptop

    Yes, buying the upgrades yourself will almost certainly be cheaper (as long as you're not buying components at MSRP).
  7. Computer programs SIMILAR to: Switch (NCH)

    LAME is the de facto standard: http://lame.sourceforge.net/ But the program you linked to is also free for non-commercial use, so why not just use that if it has the features you want?
  8. Limited memory 32bit vs 64bit

    Pretty much all non-Windows OSes are able to "break" the 4 GB limit using PAE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension Of course, this only allows you to use more memory; you most likely won't get any noticeable performance boost because you still won't be able to use 64-bit registers.
  9. Limited memory 32bit vs 64bit

    Unless you're running computationally intensive applications, you most likely won't notice any improvement (in fact, you may actually see a slight decrease in performance due to the increased overhead in performing pointer operations - this is typically why 64-bit applications look like they're more "liberal" in terms of memory usage). If you're doing any sort of serious processing though, the extra throughput should be pretty noticeable, even with 4 GB of RAM or less.
  10. Building PC Question

    Generally speaking, yes. However, your operating system may complain (if you're running Windows), and you'll be missing drivers and such for your new hardware. But if you're just using your existing hard drive as an additional disk rather than the system disk, you shouldn't encounter any issues apart from incorrect permissions (which are easy to fix).
  11. video cd, windows 7, itunes

    Why is it necessary to copy the files unaltered, given that lossless transcoding results in no loss of data? If you know what you're doing, you could always do a byte-level copy of the segment you want. But that seems like more work than is strictly necessary.
  12. Making a similar "ipsRegistry"

    Well, that "danger" would apply to any sort of object-oriented design in general. Besides, that's really no different from something like: for( $i = 0; $i < count( $list ); $i++ ) { doSomething( ); } So yes, it opens up an additional possibility for writing bad code, but I wouldn't consider that adequate justification for not using objects.
  13. Making a similar "ipsRegistry"

    The use of the "static" keyword is what differentiates it from a struct. But yes, it's not really a registry (it's just some sort of globally-scoped object). Eh, a registry is really just a globally-scoped map (from string to object). There's really nothing to define (i.e. there's no definitive interface apart from your typical map functions). Other than for efficiency (i.e. avoiding duplicate method calls), what would be the benefit of doing so? What danger are you referring to? How is that different from chaining "normal" method invocations (assuming you meant "function()->foo()") or writing "$x = function(); $y = $x->foo;"?
  14. Has to be more of people like Him!

  15. Chrome - What the weird?

    The description states (emphasis added): Chrome has pretty much always behaved this way (i.e. no colored background in the location bar when there are unencrypted resources [not applicable anymore]). Firefox also does a similar thing (i.e. lock icon with an exclamation point in the status bar). IE pops up a dialog box asking if you only want to load secure content. So yeah, there's no bug. Your site is only truly secure if everything on the page is loaded over a secured connection.