On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 23:14, robin wrote:
> >
> >
> >Anyone use Slashcode and PHPNuke and have comments on which is
> >better/worse and why?
> >
> PHPNuke is easier/faster to set up and get running for a low or
> mid-volume site.
>
> Slash is more configurable (it's modular now; you don't need to have
> moderation and all that unless you want to), has more (optional)
> features, and can stand up to much higher usage levels. I know one Slash
> site that has maintained loads of over 200,000 pageviews per hour many
> times, and once peaked at over 400,000 in a single hour -- and kept
> running. (http://slashdot.org)
[etc]
Except that I would never use PHPnuke. I'd use postnuke instead.
(http://www.postnuke.org/) The PHPnuke guy has been notoriously lax in
fixing security bugs and absolutely refuses to accept patches from
anyone else. So a few moths ago, lots of nuke users rebelled, forked
the code and created PostNuke. IMHO, a much better maintained, better
written, and overall better system than PHPnuke.
Slash, in my brief experience was definitely harder to set up. Which is
why I went with Postnuke.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map
{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;
$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)
[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join
"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=
unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d
>>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*
8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}
print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
usage: qrpff 153 2 8 105 225 < /mnt/dvd/VOB_FILENAME \
| extract_mpeg2 | mpeg2dec -
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.anti-dmca.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:08:08 EDT