Talk:PHP

CVE

The recent addition of the vulnerability criticism is sourced merely to the CVE index page, leaving the reader to synthesise equivalent figures (in fact the editor said it themselves in the edit summary "it is really queries on the database which enable to derive these figures"). This is a primary source (WP:PSTS), and as such cannot be used as a reference. Note that I have no dispute over the figures; I'm sure they're accurate. But they must be sourced to a reference which actually states them as such. Oli Filth^(talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmh... sure, but word fails me. It seems to suggest that someone saying something as a source is more important than the pure facts of a database (one may discuss the subjectivity of its constitution, but cannot discuss the objectivity of its actual contents). Well, I can always publish a web page somewhere which states these figures, but that looks a little bit stupid. Or maybe I could state how one can derive these figures in the talk page, say in this section, and keep the database citation? SuzieDerkins (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide links to actual results pages, that may be more suitable. Readers shouldn't have to resort to the article talk page in order to follow a cite! (The link as you originally presented it would be like citing the BBC news website, rather than a specific article, and leaving the reader to find the original information) Oli Filth^(talk) 13:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well. There would be a dozen result pages (2 for every year, with and without PHP as a keyword in the search), so it is not really practical as a citation. Well, I've added a page on my web site with the figures and how they are derived from the NVD, and I have added a reference to it, but this looks really strange, IMVHO. SuzieDerkins (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the primary source discussion page. I'm wondering whether expecting someone to query the database and taking note of the result count is really a specialist knowledge, or just common knowledge, once one is on the query page... Moreover, although I do not feel a worthy authority about PHP security, I do feel that I'm as good (or bad) as anyone else for dividing two numbers to compute a ratio. SuzieDerkins (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PHP category

The category Category:PHP programming language is populated with things for the language (PHP, PHP syntax and semantics, List of PHP libraries, etc.) but also numerous projects written in PHP. Suggestions on two category names: one for PHP stuff, one for projects written in PHP? Cburnett (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Python is setup like that? Okay, sounds good... Gary King (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is to technical

In my opinion, this article is still too technical. I'd appreciate it if anyone who has the time could help out and make it less technical by removing information that an average reader would either not understand or not care about. Also, please feel free to include information about PHP that would interest a typical reader; I would imagine this would include information regarding its popularity (a lot of people see URLs end in .php but wonder why PHP is so popular), and information such as how PHP can be vulnerable and its downsides and openness to hackers, since people generally understand that programming languages are never immune to hackers. And etc. Gary King (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I dot not agree with this statement, and I think that removing material, especially the only piece of light criticism about PHP and the security issues surrounding it. So I'm putting back the popularity section. SuzieDerkins (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "such as how PHP can be vulnerable and its downsides and openness to hackers"? Last time I checked (a few hours ago) PHP had no publicly known vulnerabilities. If you know of any then feel free to report them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of criticism section

Based on my reading of the comments above, it doesn't look like consensus was ever reached regarding the removal/presence of a criticism section.

I am restoring it as of this version: 01:41, 23 March 2008 by Gary King. I have added a Template:Criticism-section tag.

I don't care for criticism sections, but

• Criticism sections, while discouraged, are not forbidden.
• Removal of a criticism section because they're discouraged isn't sufficient justification for also removing verifiable and properly sourced information.
• The criticism section was removed en masse, so some verifiable and properly sourced information was removed - perhaps as collateral damage.

Let's work to towards consensus - even if that means getting rid of the section - but let's not remove valid information. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, meant to also say: Gary King said in his edit summary that others had pointed out there are "good articles" that have criticism sections, and asked for proof of this. 50_Cent and The_Lion_King were the first articles that I found after clicking on just a few links on Wikipedia:Good_articles. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As previously, I've removed all improperly cited items from this list (see the end of the discussion above: Talk:PHP#Unexplained criticism). Again, feel free to add these back if you can find suitable refs.

Note that I'm not expressing an opinion about whether a separate Criticism section is suitable for this article, merely that these items have been sitting around uncited for far too long collecting cruft. Oli Filth^(talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a more manageable size now, and I will shuffle the items around so that they fit into the article somewhere appropriate. Gary King (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks a ton, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, where did it go? Did some PHP fanboy delete it without consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.129.46 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be merged into the article. Anyways, I'll get to it and hopefully we can end up with something that we all agree on. Gary King (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Popularity and Security

Content about security vulnerabilities was previously in a "Popularity" section, suggesting that the number of vulnerabilities in PHP is due to its popularity. I moved the security content into its own section for a few reasons.

• If popular software we like has a large number of vulnerabilities, we credit the software's popularity.
• If popular software we don't like has a large number of vulnerabilities, we blame it on the programmers' incompetence.
• Unless there's a credible source that claims the vulnerability count in PHP, or in software in general, is directly correlated to its popularity, arguing this in the article would be original research.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this update. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just put the figures there because I did not dare create such a section. The security discussion could belong to a "Criticism" Section if there was one, but that would mean arguing about the root cause of the problem (language, people), what is more prone to lengthy arguments, while the figures are factual. Well, the very fact that a programming language deserves such a section with this contents amounts to some criticism. SuzieDerkins (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This Security section was not clear enough in order to distinguish Software/Script Bugs and PHP Bugs. At first glance, the casual reader could think that the PHP programming language is insecure, which is not the case. The security problems are caused by poor programming and the use of old PHP versions which have register_globals enabled by default, among other old problems which have been corrected in later versions.VShaka (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Certification

I added a brief mention of PHP certification to the article after I noticed the PHP Certification article was an orphaned stub. dimo414 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

mod_php

I see that mod_php redirects here. Considering (as I understand it) that PHP is a language and mod_php is an Apache web server module, I think that there should be a separate mod_php article. Perl and mod_perl, Python and mod_python, Ruby and mod_ruby, etc., all have separate articles. What do you think? Dstroma (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

if there's enough notable and verifiable material to create a separate mod_php article which can stand on its own and is likely to be expanded later then go right ahead. I don't believe there is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Logo Location?

Does anyone besides me not like the new location of the PHP logo? techietim (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an experiment; I was trying it out on a few articles to see if it would be a good future direction for the infobox presentation. Consensus thus far appears to be that people don't like it, which is fine; feel free to revert it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

how to uninstall php

Sorry to be posting this here, but you guys wrote a great article so you must know something about the subject.

I'm trying to uninstall php from my computer, but it's not as easy as deleting PHP5 from "my computer."

Are there any resources on the internet that will show me how to uninstall. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.