Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-07-03 Thread David L. Nicol
Stephen Zander wrote: > OpenSource. Try writing a second Perl implementation from scratch. Well it's a dicier proposition that writing a Fortran or COBOL implementation from scratch, but it's Not Intractable. The next assertion might come as a small shock to you but Larry isn't god. Topaz wo

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-07-02 Thread Elaine -HFB- Ashton
abigail [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>Blech. Sun didn't force you to run either Linux, or to use a PPC platform. *>It's your choice, and blaming Sun to screw you doesn't make much sense. Well, it's the Advocate or Asshole dilemma. http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2000/12/advocacy.html The conclusion

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-07-02 Thread Abigail
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 06:59:07PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > As a Solaris gal, this might all seem perfectly sensible. Myself, I'm > doubly screwed running Linux (which is not Windows or Solaris) on a > PowerPC (which is not Intel or Sparc). Sun might have perfectly valid > business r

[OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-07-02 Thread Stephen Zander
> "schwern" == schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: schwern> Sun doesn't give out its JDK source code freely, they schwern> have all sorts of restrictions. If I wanted to port the schwern> JDK I can do it, but I need special permission from Sun schwern> to distribute it. This

Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-30 Thread Me
All, of course, imho: > Were something dreadful to happen to Larry and his estate chose to > change the licensing terms of the current *implementation* Well they can only do that to a copy of their own, not existing copies. While the law isn't clear on a lot of nuances related to more complex o

Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-30 Thread Elaine -HFB- Ashton
Stephen Zander [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>Speaking as someone with feet firmly in both camps (I'm a Blackdown *>member and the Debian maintainer for the jdk and some of the largest *>perl modules in that distribution), IMNSHO the fatal assumption made *>by millions of people is that Java is O

Re: [OT] Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-30 Thread schwern
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 01:49:45PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote: > Perl's great blessing is also it's great curse; there's a single > implementation and that *implementation* happens to be OpenSource. > Try writing a second Perl implementation from scratch. Fortunately, we don't have to. :) Perl

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-30 Thread schwern
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:42AM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > If Java sucks to install on some boutique/niche platforms it > could mean that a) noone has told them about the issues I can't even conceive they're not accutely aware. > b) noone in the FreeBSD/Linux world has taken it upon

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-30 Thread Elaine -HFB- Ashton
Adam Turoff [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>This is the issue in a nutshell. Let's not mix business issues *>with technical ones. Let's not mix cluster management with simple *>end-user installation. Let's not mix businesses losing millions *>by the microsecond with the guy who just wants his l

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-30 Thread Adam Turoff
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 05:20:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There's the trick, Solaris is Sun's Blessed Platform. As a > Linux/PowerPC user, I know how Ziggy feels. I'm almost totally > ignored by Sun and I'd imagine I'd have just as much trouble getting > it working as he did. This is

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Chip Turner
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 05:29:53PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > > Not all OS, though most, have Perl in the base install and those that do > > even have problems. Config.pm has issues on HP and Sun, RedHat has spotty > > RPMs that occsaionall

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 05:29:53PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > Not all OS, though most, have Perl in the base install and those that do > even have problems. Config.pm has issues on HP and Sun, RedHat has spotty > RPMs that occsaionally go awry. That's their fault. Find a better distrib

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 06:51:33PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > *>That's their fault. Find a better distribution. > > There are a lot of Solaris 8 users out there and to have a broken OEM Perl > is not optimal. That response would not be well received. If distributes a broken Perl with

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Elaine -HFB- Ashton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>There's the trick, Solaris is Sun's Blessed Platform. As a *>Linux/PowerPC user, I know how Ziggy feels. I'm almost totally *>ignored by Sun and I'd imagine I'd have just as much trouble getting *>it working as he did. *> *>You can almost argue t

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Christopher Masto
Having gone through much the same pain a couple of weeks ago (although I just broke down and installed the linux-jdk-1.3.1 port after Sun's web site told me to come back later), I eagerly await a pure-Perl replacement for FOP (http://xml.apache.org/fop/index.html)). -- Christopher Masto S

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread schwern
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 03:41:51PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > I don't believe I was saying that. My point was that you had a bad > experience installing Java on FreeBSD and have declared that it sucks to > install it. Unsurprisingly, I have never had a problem installing or > supporting J

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread schwern
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 01:18:07PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > And support depends on what model you have. If you can afford commercial > supprt, I'd guess Java would be easier hands down since SUN has > wonderful support in my experince. I don't think we want to drag "you can throw alot

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Elaine -HFB- Ashton
Adam Turoff [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>Allow me to clarify: a degenerate case for installing a *single* *specific* *>version of Perl never requires transfers or temporary disk space measured *>in quarter gigabytes. For a single user on a single machine, no, but considering disk space is chea

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Adam Turoff
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 01:18:07PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: > Adam Turoff [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: > *> > *>Nevertheless, a degenerate case for installing Perl never requires > *>transfers or temporary disk space measured in quarter gigabytes. > > Sure it can. Allow me to clarify: a

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Elaine -HFB- Ashton
Adam Turoff [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>Nevertheless, a degenerate case for installing Perl never requires *>transfers or temporary disk space measured in quarter gigabytes. Sure it can. Sysadmins are frequently asked to keep multiple versions of Perl around for people who have a tool that wo

Re: Perl Doesn't Suck

2001-06-29 Thread Adam Turoff
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:02:28PM -0400, Christopher Masto wrote: > Having gone through much the same pain a couple of weeks ago (although > I just broke down and installed the linux-jdk-1.3.1 port after Sun's > web site told me to come back later), I eagerly await a pure-Perl > replacement for F