>Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked >for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl >documentation for use in GNU.
That's because the documentation that comes with Perl already is free, by even Stallman's definition. Stallman has actually accepted this as true, but now complains about the quality of the documentation (which is better than any other major GPL'd software project's docs that I've seen).
There are a few docs in the Perl docset that are NOT "free" according to Stallman, but these are only tutorials and FAQs. Everything else is "free" in both senses of the word.
> to embrace and extend Perl MS just has to call it something other than Perl.
Right. Great. If they want to do it, more power to them. I don't believe that free code is only to be used by good guys for good purposes, and I won't define what "good" is. Free is free. As long as they don't call it Perl, I don't care what they do with it.
Perl is not released under both licenses. It is released under EITHER license.
However, anything released with perl should necessarily be released under either as well, not only one specifically, because then users of it no longer have the choice.
# and I think its design philosophy is why, rather than some # implementation detail or other accident. It was interesting to see what # kind of language we would end up with with the design principle of no # design principles. Well, the language we ended up with is one that I # find egregiously bad.
But there were and are design principles. I imagine you know this, though.
# Obviously I was stating my opinion, not trying to offer a proof of why # Perl is bad.
It was not obvious. Usually, in my experience, when intelligent people express their opinions publicly, they try to offer some reason why others should agree. I am not insinuating you are unintelligent, but the opposite: I assumed that because you are intelligent, you were trying to offer some evidence of why Perl is "bad". I assumed incorrectly. I won't do so again.
# The ``X'' that Perl is is ``sucky.'' I hold that truth to be # self-evident.
Nonsense. That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with cretain unalienable rights can be said to be self-evident (and in fact, I believe it was). That Perl is "sucky" is not. Are you kidding here, or are you trying to hurt your argument^Wopinion?
# But don't confuse the act of giving the programmer freedom of # expression, and the act of giving the programmer a simple, consistent, # easy-to-undertand tool. You can do both.
I don't find consistency to be that important, or simplicity. Some of our more complex and inconsitent tools are our most powerful. Like Unix itself. Then again, you probably don't like Unix.
Regardless, Perl is pretty simple. It is also very complex. It is what you want. Babies can speak English, and yet it is rich enough for the most complex expression of ideas.
# Just because a tool is a simple # and easy-to-understand device (like a lever, or rope) doesn't mean it # restricts the artistic expression of those using it. Help, help, I'm # being oppressed!
No, but a canvas and paint offers more room for expression than a rope does. That's why the Louvre has ropes protecting the paintings and not vice versa.
# I consider simplicity, consistency, and orthogonality to be good things # in a tool. I think that when you want to provide a tool to solve a # problem, you should think the problem through, and cover all the # permutations. Figure out what's needed, and do it in a simple way. # That's not the Perl approach. The perl approach is much more haphazzard # than that, and usually involves a new line-noise syntax and some regular # expressions.
If you are talking about the approach of some Perl programmers, that's true. If you are talking about the approach of the developers of perl, that's false.
# Perl most assuredly does encourage a particular programming style. It # does this by the shortcuts it provides. Perl encourages you to think # about everything as text manipulation, when (news flash!) most things # aren't. It encourages use of regular expressions, even when they would # be inappropriate (which, news flash, is almost all the time.) It doesn't # force you, no, but it makes one path easy and the other path hard, and # that's all it takes.
Perl does not encourage bad programming, it attracts bad programmers (and good ones, too). The language cannot be reasonably faulted for allowing bad programmers to program badly with ease. You are wrong to say that regexes are easier than other methods.
And, sure, bit manipulation in Perl is not the easiest (though if you understand bits, it isn't exactly difficult, either). But substr and rindex and index and split are very simple functions to use. I daresay they are significantly easier to use than regexes. The problem with people using regexes when they shouldn't is not technical or linguistic but social. People are incorrectly taught, one way or another, to use regexes when they don't belong. Again, you're talking about bad programmers. They are bad in any language. I'd rather have bad programmers using Perl regexes inappropriately than using C pointers inappropriately.
# Furthermore, ``There's more than one way to do it'' is not a virtue in a # multiple programmer environment. When someone else is going to see your # code (and unless you're doing an art project all on your own, someone # will) your responsibility as a programmer is not only to make the # program work, but also make it maintainable.
You have not demonstrated that TMTOWTDI is the enemy of maintainability. Maybe it is just your opinion, but unless you are going to back it up, don't expect anyone to care what your opinion is.
Perl is not algebra. Perl is an abstraction to a more complex system. There is not scientific reason, no logical reason, no reason at all why this is necessarily wrong or bad. You're arguing from a specific opinion and worse, arguing definitions from definitions. Programming languages are X, Perl is not X, so Perl is not a very good programming language. But what if the idea that programming languages are X is disputed? Indeed, this is the case.
I'm not saying you need to like Perl or its design. You don't. But I would just hope that if you are going to be making a formal argument, as you appear to be doing, that you support your argument a little bit better than you have. Your definition of what a programming language should be is rejected by Larry Wall and the developers of perl, as well as many of the users of perl. So to use that definition as a basis for discussion isn't interesting.
Of course, Perl technically _is_ a formal mathematical system. It's just a really complex one with lots of quirks, idioms, and apparent inconsistencies. But of course its _spirit_ is nothing resembling a formal mathematical system. This is a good thing, your unaccepted definition of "programming languages" notwithstanding.
You say this fuzziness is inappropriate for a computer language. I disagree. I think it is highly apprpriate. Programming is, to me, art. It is a craft. And Perl lets me be expressive. This is important, and in my opinion, Perl's "fuzziness" is essential to the goal of allowing users to be optimally expressive. And the process of creation is just as important (to me) as the end goal.
And since you don't give any real support for your opinion, mine is just as good as yours, except I like mine better, so I win.:)
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, "Creating A New Civilization: Politics of the Third Wave". It summarizes the main points of the larger tome, and is 112 pages long and published first in 1994.
Plus, it has a forward by Newt Gingrich hisself... who can pass THAT up?
Anyway, Perl News will continue to have the latest and greatest about the goings on with TPI and Perl Mongers and perl.org and cpan.org and the professor and Mary Ann.
I suspect that has nothing to do with the MP3 codec, but the Mac OS and QuickTime libraries themselves, where playing in the background is not exactly a Good Thing. I suspect it may be possible to write a program using QT for MP3, and have your program dominate more CPU in the background as SoundApp and MacAmp do so the play is more smooth in the background.
You don't need to go to college for most occupations.
But if you skip college, you probably won't be a very well-rounded individual. You probably won't have very good critical thinking skills. You probably won't understand philosophy or history much. You probably won't be able to write well.
A liberal arts education is the most important thing you can get beyond whatever specific skills you need for whatever job you happen to have. If you don't go to college to get this education, you probably won't get it at all. But if you do, then fine, you really don't have a need to go to college, beyond being able to get certain jobs that require it for no good reason.
# Unfortunately, many, if not all leaders, become totally identified in # their own minds with their ideas. They take attacks on their # positions as personal attacks. It is very hard to avoid this # egotistical disease. # # # In fact, in the world of free software, the ONLY leader who # so far has managed to avoid this, and given his nature probably always # will, is Linus Torvald.
Nonsense. Larry Wall has been avoiding this since long before anyone heard of Linus.
So because many software companies do what you consider wrong, it is OK for GNU to do the same? Something about two wrongs not making a right comes to mind.
I think I can blame them for it. However, I normally don't. I just try to disagree and go on my way. You'll notice that most of my comments on the issue are in defense of Tim and non-GPL, not specifically against RMS and GPL. The quote you correctly attributed to me was not meant to be an attack on RMS.
I notice you did not disagree with what I said, only with the tenor I used. Realize I was not trying to make RMS look bad or attacking him, but only trying to show my perceptions of the reality of his beliefs.
If you share his belief of free software supremacy, proprietary software bigotry, and separatism of the two, as is your right, then that's fine. I won't vilify you for it (I also probably won't defend you against those who do, but that's OK, plenty of others will). But I want people to understand that the GPL does stand for this kind of separatism and bigotry. If people think that it is good in spite of or because of that, fine.
I don't see the morality involved in eating meat. Some people do. I don't see the morality involved in watching TV. Some people do. I don't see the morality involved in driving a gasoline-powered car. Some people do.
I see the morality involved in abortion. Some people don't. I see the morality involved in free software. Some people don't. I see the morality involved in rooting for the Boston Bruins. Most people don't.
This is a religious issue. If you resent that, then there's nothing I can do about it. I resent that you say Tim's agenda is all about money. Of course, there's probably nothing you can do about that.:)
Ethics are not illogical. At least, mine are not. I believe only what I can come to logically (to my mind, of course).
I see with the moral dimension of free software. That said, I have no problem with those who don't. Why should I? I am a Christian, and I do not have a problem with those who don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as originally written. I am a Libertarian, and I do not have problem with people who believe that government should take our responsibility away so that government can take care of us.
Now, I will, of course, argue against opposing views when it is required of me. But people have a right to believe what they want, and they will believe differently. This is one of the constants in life. There is no empirical evidence that shows that Free Software is morally right. It is a philosophical, religious, belief, and one that I mostly agree with.
But just as Jews and Christians and Mormons and Muslims can get together and do good things in the areas they agree, why is it that we in the free software community cannot do the same?
I suppose every religion needs its terroristic zealots, but perhaps we can minimize those here in the name of promoting free software.
I'd rather that RMS, ESR, Tim, etc. just stated their differences and opinions and then we went on our way. To keep drudging up the same disagreements over and again is not, to my mind, useful. Instead we could be promoting the things we do agree on, together.
Nonsense. I don't care what Bruce or Richard would have you believe. For some people and companies -- like Apple and Netscape -- money is an issue. But Tim is defending the Artistic License as much as any in opposition to the GPL, and money is not an issue with that.
It is not about the money. I don't know why people continue to think that it is. We are dealing with philosophical and religious issues of much higher significance than mammon.
I am licensing most of my code only under the AL (except code that must be GPL/AL because it may be distributed as part of a larger GPL/AL work) because I do not want to restrict people, period. I want people to use my code. If they want to incorporate it into a pay product, great. Wonderful.
I don't know how it is reasonable to say this has anything to do with "money talks". And I don't know how the AL resricts anyone's freedom, including the community's.
You don't have to like the AL. You may believe that all software based on free software in any way should also be free. But this is a religious belief that I and many other people do not share, and it is not about money.
# RMS doesn't want to force people to write free software either. Neither # does he believe it all must be free. This is one of the major # misconceptions about RMS.
What he DOES say is that you cannot mix his free software with yours unless you agree to his terms (i.e., make your software free). He DOES want to force people to write free software in that sense. And this is the primary philosophical differences.
RMS wants to force people to make free software whenever he can (which is only achieved by the copyleft). He wants everyone to use free software as long as they come into his free software world and don't leave. He wants a separation between free and nonfree software. He want two sets of water fountains, he wants clear delineation between fronts and backs of the bus.
Me, I just want people to use my software, and to destroy as many barriers to that goal as possible. cf. Artistic License.
# Why waste your time on political bullshit? # Shut up and write some code that we _need_, not code so you # can justify creating your own non-FSF distribution.
Why waste your time telling him he is wasting his time?
It is his time to "waste", not yours. If he wants to do spend his valuable time doing it, why the hell should you care?
I am always annoyed by people who care what other people do with their time. When you are Tom's slavemaster, you can care what he does with his time. Until then, his time is his to do with as he pleases, and his time, wasted or not, does not concern you.
They are not meant to compete, so there will be no market deciding anything. If anything, they will, ideally, complement each other.
I have my own gripes about the pricing for the ORA conference, but I don't know there is much that can be done. This year it is in Monterey, which will be even more expensive, I think. But realize that the ORA conference is not for hackers, it is for businesses. The market the Perl Conference is aimed at, it seems, is used to paying that kind of fee for a conference. And hey, it helps pay for www.perl.com, so it can't be all bad.:)
Threads like this prove to me it is time to do away with anonymous cowards posting on Slashdot. If you are going to ignorantly claim that Larry Wall, of all people, doesn't know anything about modern programming languages, at least tell us who you are so we know not to look at your comments anymore.
You might as well just say that Ted Turner doesn't know anything about the TV business. And I want to know who is saying these dumb things so I can avoid them more easily in the future as I am looking for interesting comments.
# Wouldn't it make more sense to use something like # Java? It's more widely supported, faster, and can # be compiled to native code for even more speed. # Not to mention the porting process would probably # be easier, since you could cut and paste parts of # the code.
ROTFL! Java more widely supported than Perl? You're kidding, right? And porting easier? You must not know Java well. Its similarity to C is about the same as Perl's. And speed? Hehehehe. You really crack me up.
# All operating systems will return unexpected values if given garbage as # input. (Try passing a 100MB string to sprintf(), for example). There is # no proper way for String2Date to read the programmer's mind if they are # stupid enough to use 2 digit dates.
Right. If you have good date, StringToDate will have no problems. If you have bad data, fix it on the way in based on your own assumptions, or pass it in and accept what may be a wrong answer. Apple chose the least confusing choice, which is not the right choice for many people. They may have chosen poorly. But they did not choose incorrectly. Any guess -- and make no mistake, any function like this has to guess if the data is bad -- any guess is a guess, and will be sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
# >"Apple's Web site says Macintosh computers can handle # >internally generated dates correctly all the way to the # >year 29,940 as long as the software running on them manages # >dates correctly as well." # # This is absolutely WRONG. # # The only Mac routine that can read the system clock is GetDateTime(). # GetDateTime() returns a 32-bit integer, which overflows before 2040. # There is no 64-bit version of this call! In addition, HFS and even HFS+ # disks allocate only 4-byte integers for the date/time. This means that # all file dates go screwy around 2040.
You are saying it says something it does not say. Apple can absolutely handle internally generated dates correctly all the way to 29,940. It cannot currently get those dates from the system clock. But that does not change the fact that it can handle internally generated dates all the way to 29,940. The truth of the above sentence is determined on how you interpret the vague "internally generated": does it mean the system clock only, or other dates, and does it mean all internally generated dates, or just some? Taking it as literal as possible, we must conclude that it means not necessarily all internally generated dates (esp. because of the word 'can'), and that "internally generated" does not necessarily mean just from the system clock.
"Royalties on a technology that still isn't really accepted yet?"
Jobs said that FireWire is in every digital camcorder on the market. That sounds like "accepted" to me. If you want your peecee to talk to digital camcorders, and all major manufacturers do, then you put in FireWire. Period.
And I warned people on EFNet #perl, and they are staying away from Slashdot today.
The first words that popped into my head when I saw it were "FUCK Slashdot" and "Bastards". I have calmed down a bit, but that was really lame of you to post it on the main page. I skimmed and missed the part about it being a spoiler. Now I know more than I want to know. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
>Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked
>for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl
>documentation for use in GNU.
That's because the documentation that comes with Perl already is free, by even Stallman's definition. Stallman has actually accepted this as true, but now complains about the quality of the documentation (which is better than any other major GPL'd software project's docs that I've seen).
There are a few docs in the Perl docset that are NOT "free" according to Stallman, but these are only tutorials and FAQs. Everything else is "free" in both senses of the word.
> to embrace and extend Perl MS just has to call it something other than Perl.
Right. Great. If they want to do it, more power to them. I don't believe that free code is only to be used by good guys for good purposes, and I won't define what "good" is. Free is free. As long as they don't call it Perl, I don't care what they do with it.
Perl is not released under both licenses. It is released under EITHER license.
However, anything released with perl should necessarily be released under either as well, not only one specifically, because then users of it no longer have the choice.
# Nevertheless, Perl blows
Huh huh, OK Beavis.
# and I think its design philosophy is why, rather than some
# implementation detail or other accident. It was interesting to see what
# kind of language we would end up with with the design principle of no
# design principles. Well, the language we ended up with is one that I
# find egregiously bad.
But there were and are design principles. I imagine you know this, though.
# Obviously I was stating my opinion, not trying to offer a proof of why
# Perl is bad.
It was not obvious. Usually, in my experience, when intelligent people express their opinions publicly, they try to offer some reason why others should agree. I am not insinuating you are unintelligent, but the opposite: I assumed that because you are intelligent, you were trying to offer some evidence of why Perl is "bad". I assumed incorrectly. I won't do so again.
# The ``X'' that Perl is is ``sucky.'' I hold that truth to be
# self-evident.
Nonsense. That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with cretain unalienable rights can be said to be self-evident (and in fact, I believe it was). That Perl is "sucky" is not. Are you kidding here, or are you trying to hurt your argument^Wopinion?
# But don't confuse the act of giving the programmer freedom of
# expression, and the act of giving the programmer a simple, consistent,
# easy-to-undertand tool. You can do both.
I don't find consistency to be that important, or simplicity. Some of our more complex and inconsitent tools are our most powerful. Like Unix itself. Then again, you probably don't like Unix.
Regardless, Perl is pretty simple. It is also very complex. It is what you want. Babies can speak English, and yet it is rich enough for the most complex expression of ideas.
# Just because a tool is a simple
# and easy-to-understand device (like a lever, or rope) doesn't mean it
# restricts the artistic expression of those using it. Help, help, I'm
# being oppressed!
No, but a canvas and paint offers more room for expression than a rope does. That's why the Louvre has ropes protecting the paintings and not vice versa.
# I consider simplicity, consistency, and orthogonality to be good things
# in a tool. I think that when you want to provide a tool to solve a
# problem, you should think the problem through, and cover all the
# permutations. Figure out what's needed, and do it in a simple way.
# That's not the Perl approach. The perl approach is much more haphazzard
# than that, and usually involves a new line-noise syntax and some regular
# expressions.
If you are talking about the approach of some Perl programmers, that's true. If you are talking about the approach of the developers of perl, that's false.
# Perl most assuredly does encourage a particular programming style. It
# does this by the shortcuts it provides. Perl encourages you to think
# about everything as text manipulation, when (news flash!) most things
# aren't. It encourages use of regular expressions, even when they would
# be inappropriate (which, news flash, is almost all the time.) It doesn't
# force you, no, but it makes one path easy and the other path hard, and
# that's all it takes.
Perl does not encourage bad programming, it attracts bad programmers (and good ones, too). The language cannot be reasonably faulted for allowing bad programmers to program badly with ease. You are wrong to say that regexes are easier than other methods.
And, sure, bit manipulation in Perl is not the easiest (though if you understand bits, it isn't exactly difficult, either). But substr and rindex and index and split are very simple functions to use. I daresay they are significantly easier to use than regexes. The problem with people using regexes when they shouldn't is not technical or linguistic but social. People are incorrectly taught, one way or another, to use regexes when they don't belong. Again, you're talking about bad programmers. They are bad in any language. I'd rather have bad programmers using Perl regexes inappropriately than using C pointers inappropriately.
# Furthermore, ``There's more than one way to do it'' is not a virtue in a
# multiple programmer environment. When someone else is going to see your
# code (and unless you're doing an art project all on your own, someone
# will) your responsibility as a programmer is not only to make the
# program work, but also make it maintainable.
You have not demonstrated that TMTOWTDI is the enemy of maintainability. Maybe it is just your opinion, but unless you are going to back it up, don't expect anyone to care what your opinion is.
Perl is not algebra. Perl is an abstraction to a more complex system. There is not scientific reason, no logical reason, no reason at all why this is necessarily wrong or bad. You're arguing from a specific opinion and worse, arguing definitions from definitions. Programming languages are X, Perl is not X, so Perl is not a very good programming language. But what if the idea that programming languages are X is disputed? Indeed, this is the case.
:)
I'm not saying you need to like Perl or its design. You don't. But I would just hope that if you are going to be making a formal argument, as you appear to be doing, that you support your argument a little bit better than you have. Your definition of what a programming language should be is rejected by Larry Wall and the developers of perl, as well as many of the users of perl. So to use that definition as a basis for discussion isn't interesting.
Of course, Perl technically _is_ a formal mathematical system. It's just a really complex one with lots of quirks, idioms, and apparent inconsistencies. But of course its _spirit_ is nothing resembling a formal mathematical system. This is a good thing, your unaccepted definition of "programming languages" notwithstanding.
You say this fuzziness is inappropriate for a computer language. I disagree. I think it is highly apprpriate. Programming is, to me, art. It is a craft. And Perl lets me be expressive. This is important, and in my opinion, Perl's "fuzziness" is essential to the goal of allowing users to be optimally expressive. And the process of creation is just as important (to me) as the end goal.
And since you don't give any real support for your opinion, mine is just as good as yours, except I like mine better, so I win.
pudge@pobox.com
http://pudge.net/
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, "Creating A New Civilization: Politics of the Third Wave". It summarizes the main points of the larger tome, and is 112 pages long and published first in 1994.
... who can pass THAT up?
Plus, it has a forward by Newt Gingrich hisself
Actual assets are about $3000, a fax machine, and the domain names, I believe.
This was first made public on the Perl News (specifically, http://www.perl.org/cgi-bin/tpi-news?type=text&tex t=Votes+to+Dissolve), which is on perl.org but is not run by The Perl Institute directly (I run it :).
Anyway, Perl News will continue to have the latest and greatest about the goings on with TPI and Perl Mongers and perl.org and cpan.org and the professor and Mary Ann.
I suspect that has nothing to do with the MP3 codec, but the Mac OS and QuickTime libraries themselves, where playing in the background is not exactly a Good Thing. I suspect it may be possible to write a program using QT for MP3, and have your program dominate more CPU in the background as SoundApp and MacAmp do so the play is more smooth in the background.
You don't need to go to college for most occupations.
But if you skip college, you probably won't be a very well-rounded individual. You probably won't have very good critical thinking skills. You probably won't understand philosophy or history much. You probably won't be able to write well.
A liberal arts education is the most important thing you can get beyond whatever specific skills you need for whatever job you happen to have. If you don't go to college to get this education, you probably won't get it at all. But if you do, then fine, you really don't have a need to go to college, beyond being able to get certain jobs that require it for no good reason.
# Unfortunately, many, if not all leaders, become totally identified in
# their own minds with their ideas. They take attacks on their
# positions as personal attacks. It is very hard to avoid this
# egotistical disease.
#
#
# In fact, in the world of free software, the ONLY leader who
# so far has managed to avoid this, and given his nature probably always
# will, is Linus Torvald.
Nonsense. Larry Wall has been avoiding this since long before anyone heard of Linus.
So because many software companies do what you consider wrong, it is OK for GNU to do the same? Something about two wrongs not making a right comes to mind.
I think I can blame them for it. However, I normally don't. I just try to disagree and go on my way. You'll notice that most of my comments on the issue are in defense of Tim and non-GPL, not specifically against RMS and GPL. The quote you correctly attributed to me was not meant to be an attack on RMS.
I notice you did not disagree with what I said, only with the tenor I used. Realize I was not trying to make RMS look bad or attacking him, but only trying to show my perceptions of the reality of his beliefs.
If you share his belief of free software supremacy, proprietary software bigotry, and separatism of the two, as is your right, then that's fine. I won't vilify you for it (I also probably won't defend you against those who do, but that's OK, plenty of others will). But I want people to understand that the GPL does stand for this kind of separatism and bigotry. If people think that it is good in spite of or because of that, fine.
I don't see the morality involved in eating meat. Some people do. I don't see the morality involved in watching TV. Some people do. I don't see the morality involved in driving a gasoline-powered car. Some people do.
:)
I see the morality involved in abortion. Some people don't. I see the morality involved in free software. Some people don't. I see the morality involved in rooting for the Boston Bruins. Most people don't.
This is a religious issue. If you resent that, then there's nothing I can do about it. I resent that you say Tim's agenda is all about money. Of course, there's probably nothing you can do about that.
Ethics are not illogical. At least, mine are not. I believe only what I can come to logically (to my mind, of course).
I see with the moral dimension of free software. That said, I have no problem with those who don't. Why should I? I am a Christian, and I do not have a problem with those who don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as originally written. I am a Libertarian, and I do not have problem with people who believe that government should take our responsibility away so that government can take care of us.
Now, I will, of course, argue against opposing views when it is required of me. But people have a right to believe what they want, and they will believe differently. This is one of the constants in life. There is no empirical evidence that shows that Free Software is morally right. It is a philosophical, religious, belief, and one that I mostly agree with.
But just as Jews and Christians and Mormons and Muslims can get together and do good things in the areas they agree, why is it that we in the free software community cannot do the same?
I suppose every religion needs its terroristic zealots, but perhaps we can minimize those here in the name of promoting free software.
I'd rather that RMS, ESR, Tim, etc. just stated their differences and opinions and then we went on our way. To keep drudging up the same disagreements over and again is not, to my mind, useful. Instead we could be promoting the things we do agree on, together.
Nonsense. I don't care what Bruce or Richard would have you believe. For some people and companies -- like Apple and Netscape -- money is an issue. But Tim is defending the Artistic License as much as any in opposition to the GPL, and money is not an issue with that.
It is not about the money. I don't know why people continue to think that it is. We are dealing with philosophical and religious issues of much higher significance than mammon.
I am licensing most of my code only under the AL (except code that must be GPL/AL because it may be distributed as part of a larger GPL/AL work) because I do not want to restrict people, period. I want people to use my code. If they want to incorporate it into a pay product, great. Wonderful.
I don't know how it is reasonable to say this has anything to do with "money talks". And I don't know how the AL resricts anyone's freedom, including the community's.
You don't have to like the AL. You may believe that all software based on free software in any way should also be free. But this is a religious belief that I and many other people do not share, and it is not about money.
# RMS doesn't want to force people to write free software either. Neither
# does he believe it all must be free. This is one of the major
# misconceptions about RMS.
What he DOES say is that you cannot mix his free software with yours unless you agree to his terms (i.e., make your software free). He DOES want to force people to write free software in that sense. And this is the primary philosophical differences.
RMS wants to force people to make free software whenever he can (which is only achieved by the copyleft). He wants everyone to use free software as long as they come into his free software world and don't leave. He wants a separation between free and nonfree software. He want two sets of water fountains, he wants clear delineation between fronts and backs of the bus.
Me, I just want people to use my software, and to destroy as many barriers to that goal as possible. cf. Artistic License.
# Why waste your time on political bullshit?
# Shut up and write some code that we _need_, not code so you
# can justify creating your own non-FSF distribution.
Why waste your time telling him he is wasting his time?
It is his time to "waste", not yours. If he wants to do spend his valuable time doing it, why the hell should you care?
I am always annoyed by people who care what other people do with their time. When you are Tom's slavemaster, you can care what he does with his time. Until then, his time is his to do with as he pleases, and his time, wasted or not, does not concern you.
I have my own gripes about the pricing for the ORA conference, but I don't know there is much that can be done. This year it is in Monterey, which will be even more expensive, I think. But realize that the ORA conference is not for hackers, it is for businesses. The market the Perl Conference is aimed at, it seems, is used to paying that kind of fee for a conference. And hey, it helps pay for www.perl.com, so it can't be all bad. :)
Threads like this prove to me it is time to do away with anonymous cowards posting on Slashdot. If you are going to ignorantly claim that Larry Wall, of all people, doesn't know anything about modern programming languages, at least tell us who you are so we know not to look at your comments anymore.
You might as well just say that Ted Turner doesn't know anything about the TV business. And I want to know who is saying these dumb things so I can avoid them more easily in the future as I am looking for interesting comments.
Please fix it. :)
# Wouldn't it make more sense to use something like
# Java? It's more widely supported, faster, and can
# be compiled to native code for even more speed.
# Not to mention the porting process would probably
# be easier, since you could cut and paste parts of
# the code.
ROTFL! Java more widely supported than Perl? You're kidding, right? And porting easier? You must not know Java well. Its similarity to C is about the same as Perl's. And speed? Hehehehe. You really crack me up.
# All operating systems will return unexpected values if given garbage as
# input. (Try passing a 100MB string to sprintf(), for example). There is
# no proper way for String2Date to read the programmer's mind if they are
# stupid enough to use 2 digit dates.
Right. If you have good date, StringToDate will have no problems. If you have bad data, fix it on the way in based on your own assumptions, or pass it in and accept what may be a wrong answer. Apple chose the least confusing choice, which is not the right choice for many people. They may have chosen poorly. But they did not choose incorrectly. Any guess -- and make no mistake, any function like this has to guess if the data is bad -- any guess is a guess, and will be sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
# >"Apple's Web site says Macintosh computers can handle
# >internally generated dates correctly all the way to the
# >year 29,940 as long as the software running on them manages
# >dates correctly as well."
#
# This is absolutely WRONG.
#
# The only Mac routine that can read the system clock is GetDateTime().
# GetDateTime() returns a 32-bit integer, which overflows before 2040.
# There is no 64-bit version of this call! In addition, HFS and even HFS+
# disks allocate only 4-byte integers for the date/time. This means that
# all file dates go screwy around 2040.
You are saying it says something it does not say. Apple can absolutely handle internally generated dates correctly all the way to 29,940. It cannot currently get those dates from the system clock. But that does not change the fact that it can handle internally generated dates all the way to 29,940. The truth of the above sentence is determined on how you interpret the vague "internally generated": does it mean the system clock only, or other dates, and does it mean all internally generated dates, or just some? Taking it as literal as possible, we must conclude that it means not necessarily all internally generated dates (esp. because of the word 'can'), and that "internally generated" does not necessarily mean just from the system clock.
"Royalties on a technology that still isn't really accepted yet?"
Jobs said that FireWire is in every digital camcorder on the market. That sounds like "accepted" to me. If you want your peecee to talk to digital camcorders, and all major manufacturers do, then you put in FireWire. Period.
And I warned people on EFNet #perl, and they are staying away from Slashdot today.
The first words that popped into my head when I saw it were "FUCK Slashdot" and "Bastards". I have calmed down a bit, but that was really lame of you to post it on the main page. I skimmed and missed the part about it being a spoiler. Now I know more than I want to know. Thanks.