kijin

Microsoft skipped Window 9 too.

Samsung skipped an entire range of numbers from Galaxy S 11 to 19.

Looks like tech companies don't like 9...

In fact, trying to add features while maintaining backward compatibility with existing messy code is exactly the reason why PHP is so messy.

I hope they clean up some of that mess in PHP 9, but no, they're just going to add $shiny_new_feature and make the attack surface even larger. Like, why does the session handler even care about measuring upload progress?

It's not. The CA in question is an intermediate CA that somehow managed to convince a root to sign their public key.

It's more like they tore down the entire barn.

I've integrated with production APIs that tell the client to encrypt sensitive data using an IV consisting of 16 null bytes.

Some people just follow a spec and don't stop to think what that spec is supposed to accomplish.

Yeah, I don't think I've touched mod_php ever since Apache 2.4 came up with mod_proxy_fcgi, allowing dead simple integration with php-fpm.

PHP does need to invest more in the built-in web server, though. Last time I checked, they still recommend against using it in production.

All other popular runtimes provide a standards-compliant HTTP daemon that any other HTTP daemon can proxy to, it's just the way things work nowadays. Insisting on FastCGI limits integration with more modern web servers and HTTP-speaking middleware.

But did they "get the fix out"?

They released some binaries, built for their own docker image based on their own Linux distro. Other people couldn't use Chainguard's "fix" to patch their own systems. The only people who seem to have benefited from the stunt are the hackers who used AI to reverse-engineer the binaries and write exploits.

That was a giant fuck-you to the rest of the PHP ecosystem, nothing more.

Anyone using a non-default version from the semi-official PPA by Ondrej Sury is still waiting for an update.

The launchpad server is throwing 503 errors all over the place, so that's probably the reason for the delay. Sury's own repo has the fixes all right.

"late medieval and early modern" = some time between the Plague and the industrial revolution.

"modern" = after the industrial revolution, which implies broad availability of farmed meat, leading to a gradual decline of hunting.

Yes, predation is a major factor in rabbit population control. And I'm counting British people as formidable rabbit killers, so I think we're in agreement there.

Rabbits also happen to be an excellent source of protein for other animals. This helps keep the rabbit population under control in healthy ecosystems.

Unlike Australia, Britain had wolves and foxes for a long time. Not to mention the apex predator, Homo sapiens, who in late medieval and early modern Britain were probably much more eager to hunt and eat rabbits than modern Australians are.

Somebody in the Windows team must have realized that they can now vibecode all the missing features into MS Paint without having to dig into the legacy codebase themselves. New brushes, layers, and now rotation.

We all know where this is headed. Sooner or later, they're going to drag copilot into it.

Of course the customer is going to pay more in the long term.

Even if the TCO for the clinic were exactly the same over X number of years, the manufacturer that sells subscriptions still comes out ahead because they're effectively in the financing business, too. Why tell a customer to go borrow money from somebody else when you can make them borrow from you?

> but I think it's a big leap to say that they will be able to dominate the category.

Which is why they are valued at "only" 7.5B, while frontier labs with general-purpose LLMs have valuations in the order of trillions.

Horowitz et al. invest in probabilities, not certainty. If Typesafe doesn't make it, they'll have other horses in the race too.

Close those PRs. No hesitation. No remorse.

My project exists for the concrete purpose of helping the community get things done, not for the abstract goal of making good software. (It actually isn't very good software, to be honest.)

If you're a real human being who needs help fixing a bug or implementing a feature, I will gladly take the time to help you. But if you're a bot that is just trying to tidy up my software in accordance with some ideal design pattern, unrelated to the specific needs of any human being, then you can just go help yourself.

Open source projects have had gatekeeping mechanisms for decades. Remember ESR's popular (albeit exaggerated) posts about how to fit in with hacker culture? It's the same thing. There's nothing wrong with it. New contributors must prove that they know how to be a good member of any community they're trying to enter. There's no abstract ideal of openness-to-all that we must somehow all strive for. Follow the needs of the actual community that you care about. Don't feel sorry for spammers, especially non-human spammers.

Nothing you can't fix if you have root. :)