Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn I'm sure you can use ASP.NET to use MySQL, and PHP to use MSSQL. Indeed I'm positive PHP supports most if not all Database Formats. But somebody who is going to want to use PHP for a Database driven site is very rarely going to use MSSQL because if they're using PHP, they have probably already chosen their team. They'll want to use MySQL. Without MySQL, they would have to for cost effectiveness use MSSQL; and if they're going to use MSSQL they'll already have a Windows Server, so they will of course use ASP.NET.

Yes, obvious to say you go with what you have... But if you look back to the dawn of PHP, it was a CGI binary written by a single person to manage his CV and a few other things... It has grown, and alot of support has been added... Not neccesarily becuase its practical, but becuase the developers want to make sure it can do everything it might ever need to.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn I have not considered any of those possibilities because I cannot see a great difference between PHP and ASP.NET, other than Trademarks, legal rights, and the fact that with ASP.NET you use whatever Programming Language you are cool with, rather than the PHP Language, and you get loads of from the box features you don't have to code yourself :P

Again, there is differences between every language. I really dislike the ASP.NET code style, but thats just me. The key word is integration, and with PHP Data Objects, you can literally have support for every database with one function set. (eg: Instead of mysql_query(), mysqli_query(), mssql_query(), sqlite_query(), you can use a single PDO object and run: $pdo->query()... Several databases at your disposal right away, without having code specifically for each. Maybe ASP.NET has something similar, either way I dont care.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn The JavaScript Console tool is fantastic though, the Internet Explorer one is not so detailed it has to be said. But other than that, you are talking about an Internet Explorer from a year ago. The Internet Explorer from now, not only has Tabs, but has as many faults as Firefox, not more. The Internet Explorer that lets you have to reformat your computer for using the Internet is only on Windows 98 machines because they are no longer supported.

No, you are wrong. If you mean the upcoming beta release of IE 7, then maybe so, but IE6 is still highly insecure... Simple test of some code in IE 6 let it shut down my computer, and I couldn't stop it shutting down. This is what makes the CURRENT IE version much more inescure than firefox. Every browsers is going to have security risks, at least firefox can try and keep up with them and combat them as they arise.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn People only ever seem to give impressions of Internet Explorer from their own experiences over a year ago, presuming either that it hasn't changed purely because it is still version 6, or that it will never change.

As I said, I'm using the latest version of IE 6, and I see little improvement except in the rendering of XHTML. And to be fair, after all the time it has been, its fair that people could be forgiven for assuming microsoft had forgotten about IE.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn Open Source Developers who have well paying jobs in proper development are worse than my pleasant generalisation (Linux-Folk) of a moldy programmer, perhaps 19, with cheese burgers around him, weighing in at 30 stone, and hacking porn websites. An Open Source Developer who then works in the real world developing proper software is a turncoat and a traitor to both factions. How can you trust or respect the work of a person who says one thing, and gets paid for another? It is like a Hippi pro-life Liberal selling Weed and Tye Dye T-Shirts by the side of the Motorway by day and joining in on rallies calling for Peace on Earth, and working as a professional assassin by night.

The fact is, you have again, very over-generalised what you just said... I know you probably find your self very amusing but when I read stuff like that I just feel insulted. Not becuase I meet your description but becuase you can't seem to delve any further than looks as a test of character. So what if they are overweight. Stephen Hawking is in a wheelchair and cannot speak, yet he is the most intelligent person on the planet (IMO at least), however if you looked at him without knowing, you would probably think very differently.

Also, what is wrong with having 2 points of view.... I mean, on the one hand, yes it would be nice if all software was free, but what about clients who need a very specific feature set that literally 0.0001% of the rest of the world will need... No-one would want to develop that kind of software. Open source is about the community too... A programmer shouldnt have to put up with people like you complaining that "you make a living AND write programs in your spare time", which is basically what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn You are probably confusing 'Open Source' and 'in a University'. While a lot of the things I'm using right now were invented in a University, that doesn't make them Open Source, because right now I couldn't change them; sure I could see how it has been made, but I couldn't take it, change it, and release it myself. The are probably things that are helping now that are Open Source; PHP for instance, MySQL. But Open Source stories of peace, love, and continuing happiness to all the world's people like those of PHP and MySQL are thankfully rare.

No, I dont think I am confused. You may think that I am confused, but I'm not so, so I guess that makes you the confused one. Firefox is OpenSource, you can download the full source on the site, same with all the Moz applications. Wikipedia has a completley opensource program as well as information... I dont think OpenSource success stories are rare.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn A company is a type of person. It is an entity of lots of people, a company would not exist without its people. If you need money to progress your business you work harder and better to get that money, or at least outsource valuable assets. The moment a company sells stock it is not its own commander anymore; its President is impotent and talentless buggers with more money than decency command the company in only one direction, towards the accumulation of more money.

Oh, and I mean im sure the company wouldnt have been looking to make money in the first place... Funny story actually... ALL companies just want to make a difference in the world. Of course, evil stock holders come in and make the company make a profit. How terrible.

I really cant understand your view on this... The goal of a company is to make money. Not to say that there arent other goals as well, but in most cases the priority is either survival or profit. If a company wants to expand further, then they can sell stocks in the company. I think its a great way for a company to gain the extra funds they need to start making serious money.