[9038] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2656 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 03:07:42 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 00:00:44 -0700
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 21 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2656
Today's topics:
Re: Any build-in function to get the host name? (Martien Verbruggen)
Re: books for learning perl <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: HELP: Can't Print cgi based Calendar (Martien Verbruggen)
Sybase <sixtoeb@pop3.cris.com>
Re: Year2000 compliant? (Craig Berry)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 05:53:40 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: Any build-in function to get the host name?
Message-Id: <6k0fh4$9ir$1@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <6k0604$r1u$1@titan.globalserve.net>,
lidong@globalserve.net (Alex Dong Li) writes:
> Is there a build-in function to get the host name?
# perldoc perlfaq9
/How do I find out my hostname/domainname/IP address?
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 05:59:17 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: books for learning perl
Message-Id: <6k0frl$827$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, plikidis@sias.com writes:
:I would suggest the idiot's guides... they are excellent.
But most programmers aren't idiots -- and don't like being called the same.
--tom
--
"It's a cult. Don't encourage them."
--Rob Pike on the FSF
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 05:50:34 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0fba$6on$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
:Please don't try telling people who have licensed their work much more
:liberally than you have licensed yours about definitions of freedom.
I am perfectly happy to tell anyone who flips off the rights of the author
to control the artistic destiny of his work just where they can stick
that flipping finger.
--tom
--
"It's a cult. Don't encourage them."
--Rob Pike on the FSF
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 98 06:04:26 GMT
From: Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3563c3ea.0@news.ivm.net>
>
> Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
>
> From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
References:
> <6jvuc3$dg4$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
> <m33ee4mlwj.fsf@fred.muc.de>
> <6k01o2$hq6$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
> <864syk5psm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>
>If FSF doesn't like this, they can go write their own Perl. This is
>smelling worse and worse. I'll wait till I hear from Richard or his
>duly appointed representative, but if it's as bad as private mail
>has indicated, things are going to have to change between us and you.
Once the guile regexp handling is powerful enough, there won't be any need
for perl in GNU-grown stuff anymore. Even the whole perl could one day be
emulated from within guile, the powertool of the gnu generation. As far as I
remember, perl is nowadays only needed for automake.
Klaus Schilling
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 98 06:08:45 GMT
From: Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3563c4ed.0@news.ivm.net>
>
> Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
>
> From: cadams@ro.com (Chris Adams)
> References:
> <6jvuc3$dg4$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
> <6k01mb$lpv$1@news.ro.com>
> <6k02ha$hq6$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
>
>I agree that Linux would probably not exist in anything like its current
>form without GNU tools. However, it would also be useless without
>networking and other tools from the *BSD world, XFree86, and other
>random bits like Perl. Even to call it a Linux based GNU system is
>stretching it to me. Sure Linux fulfills the GNU objectives, but so do
>the *BSD except they aren't GNU licensed. They are still free however.
>I think they even may use a few GNU tools.
X is not needed at all by the GNU/Linux system. One can do extremely well
without any GUI stuffs. Thus I don't have any X stuff installed at all.
Klaus Schilling
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:09:10 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0ge6$827$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de writes:
:Once the guile regexp handling is powerful enough, there won't be any need
:for perl in GNU-grown stuff anymore. Even the whole perl could one day be
:emulated from within guile, the powertool of the gnu generation.
This is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. No one knows about
guile. No one cares. It will never, ever, ever replace Perl. Mark my
words.
--tom
--
"It's a cult. Don't encourage them."
--Rob Pike on the FSF
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:13:23 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0gm3$827$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de writes:
:X is not needed at all by the GNU/Linux system. One can do extremely well
:without any GUI stuffs. Thus I don't have any X stuff installed at all.
Oh stop this silliness. It's Linux. Adding the word "GNU" is an insult.
Amazing how a group with the ironic name of "FSF" should be working so hard
to screw up free software and divide its proponents by bashing them
with religion.
--tom
--
"It's a cult. Don't encourage them."
--Rob Pike on the FSF
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 06:24:42 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <KMP81.57$152.572215@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k0f8b$6on$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>Now, as to modification, why would screw with something counter to its
>author's intentions and wishes?
You've never heard of bug fixes? Perhaps Tom intends to fix a particular
bug, but his schedule prevents him from doing it as soon as you need. So
you make the fix and then share it with your friends. That's the type of
activity the GPL promotes.
I'm not saying that the Perl license prohibits this, but it sure sounds
like you're discouraging this type of activity. What's the point of open
source if you then discourage people making use of it?
Regarding modifying the documentation, what if there's a mistake in it?
I can understand your not wishing people to make false authorship claims in
the documentation. But it seems like you're throwing the baby out with the
bathwater, by prohibiting all modifications just to protect the one
paragraph that lists the authors.
Regarding the word "free", it's obvious that you and RMS differ in your
preferred definition of this word. But the FSF's sense of freedom is well
known, so when you see it used in FSF publications like the GNU Bulletin,
it should be read in that context. When it says "free version of Perl
documentation", it's clear that he means "having the freedom to share *and
modify*" because that's what the GPL is all about. He's not lying when he
says your documentation isn't free; he's just talking a slightly different
language than you are, and by his definition, he's correct. It would be
highly inefficient for him to have to explain his usage every time, when
they've published lots of papers that explain the freedoms the FSF cares
about.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 01:33:38 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0hs2$ks4$1@Venus.mcs.net>
In article <6k0eki$63i$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>
>:I'm not particularly fond of the FSF's concept of 'free' because it
>:extends to restricting distribution of anything that requires linking
>:with proprietary code other than standard operating systems. However
>:I do find it odd that the perlfaq copyright prohibits distribution
>:on commercial CDROMS:
>
>People were bundling the internet faqs and charging folks $100 for the
>CDs and doing no work on their own, nor paying royalties to the author.
>I don't permit that. You will not use me for your profit. I want people
>to be able to get it for free. That's my bottom line. Tricking them
>into thinking they have to pay you a buttload just to get what they can
>get *for free* is morally corrupt.
What if you include perl as a standard utility on a $100,000 computer
system? Can you include perlfaq?
>You're supporting commerical trickery and fleecing of the ignorant
>into paying for what's free. I oppose it. Now, who's really for free
>software here?
I wasn't 'supporting' anything of the kind. I just would like the
mismatch between the perl and perlfaq copyright sorted out. But,
since you brought it up, personally I don't see why it is anyone's
business what agreement is reached between a buyer and seller as
long as the product is not misrepresented. If the buyer knows that
perlfaq is available for free and still agrees to the price of a
package that includes it, how does that price concern you? There
are still places where a $100 CD is a bargin compared to the
communications charges to get something for free. I'm not in
the CD business but I think people who don't have cheap internet
access should not have additional barriers imposed on them. I think
the CPAN stuff is also handled badly in this regard. Why should
your access be different based on whether you pay a communications
company or a CDROM publisher to get it?
>In any event, documentation isn't software.
The real issue that I would like to have clarified is whether inclusion
of perlfaq in the standard perl distribution causes additional limits
on how perl itself can be distributed?
>: Permission is granted to distribute this document, in part
>: or in full, via electronic means or printed copy providing
>: that (1) that all credits and copyright notices be
>: retained, (2) that no charges beyond reproduction be
>: involved, and (3) that a reasonable attempt be made to use
>: the most current version available.
>:
>:AND the perlfaq is embedded in the standard perl distribution whose
>:Artistic License allows if not encourages such distibution.
>
>Permit me to point out more of the Artistic License:
>
> 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of
> this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
> Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
> you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
> commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial)
> software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package
> as a product of your own.
"No charges beyond reproduction" does not have much relationship
to "a reasonable copying fee".
>There's also the point in the AL about not being allowed to muck with Perl
>in a way that breaks it and still distribute it as "perl". That point
>and point 5 from the AL are the spirit that I'm trying to capture here.
>You don't charge for my stuff. You don't screw with it. You may include
>it verbatim in larger aggregations.
But your copyright doesn't say that. It says you can't charge more
than reproduction costs which I would interpret as disallowing all
CDROM distributions or inclusions with computer systems.
>Just because I follow the AL and not the GPV doesn't mean that you can't
>deliver Perl with my documentation. In fact, you can't deliver Perl
>*without* it, because that would be removing something from the standard
>distribution (the documentation, to be precise). This is not allowed.
>A free perl is a complete perl, and anything else may not be called perl.
>In short, you may not deliver a castrated, incomplete Perl and still
>call it perl. If anyone is doing this, please report them so they can
>be notified that they are in violation of Perl's licensing.
I don't see how you can legally deliver an unaltered perl distribution
in any situation where profit is involved unless you separate perlfaq
or change the copyright to match perl itself.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:34:18 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0hta$qbu$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
>:If it were just about a naming right, people wouldn't be worried.
>:If would fit quite nicely into an Artistic style license then.
>:But as far as I know it isn't a naming right, it's a no-modification
>:license.
>Either you misunderstand Perl's license, or I do. I wouldn't let you --
>if it were contrary to my wishes -- make a changed copy (as opposed to
>a mirror) of my website either. I certainly wouldn't let you sell
>access to it. I won't let you turn something that's free into nonfree.
Artistic License:
----
3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating
how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least
ONE of the following:
a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make
them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet
or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive
site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to
include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or
organization.
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict
with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide
a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly
documents how it differs from the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or
executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files,
together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where
to get the Standard Version.
b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of
the Package with your modifications.
c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly
document the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together
with instructions on where to get the Standard Version.
d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
----
So you are find to modify Perl so long as you rename the executables
and give instructions on how to get the standard version. Essentially,
the Artistic license is keeping hold of the name "Perl" and the
names of the various binaries.
If you don't understand this, I suggest you cool down and start learning
before you go ballistic in public.
>Now, as to modification, why would screw with something counter to its
>author's intentions and wishes? That's evil. And if you don't want
>to do something to fight the original author, then the author will
>be happy to apply your patches. It's *his* work, damn it, not yours.
>Again I ask: what happened to basic respect for others' work here?
This is completely irrelevant. Just because you've had a few plagarists
rip off your book doesn't mean that's what the FSF is going to do.
You didn't see Netscape go nuts about the various free software web
browsers being developed, screaming at people "why don't you respect
Navigator and ask us to make changes".
If people want to make a free set of Perl documentation, they are
completely free to do it. You have no right to barge in an accuse them
of being evil for simply wanting to create something they believe will
be better. Even if it might affect your bottom line.
So "what has happened to basic respect for others' work" is that you
aren't showing any for someone else's work. If they want to release
freely modifiable documentation, surely that's their business? Even
the reasons they do it are really their business.
As to why you would want to modify it, others have tried to answer this.
If you can modify Perl freely, but not its documentation, then you
only have *half* a freely modifiable solution. If your documentation
was (say) under the same license are Perl, then you could be sure that
no matter what happens, you can have perl (or some variant) with
accurate documentation. Even if you (that is, Tom Christiansen) get
flattened by a bus, or get taken over by evil spirits.
>But thank you for your clarification. You have entirely convinced me
>that Perl should have nothing whatsoever to do with the FSF or GNU,
>because they work to infect, restrict, and destroy free software and
>piss in the faces of people who are doing Good Works.
I assume you'll keep compiling it with gcc though. And I guess it will
still be distributed under dual Artistic and GPL licenses.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 06:36:56 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <cYP81.58$152.572215@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k05s3$nq9$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> kimoto@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu writes:
>:The end of etc/WHY-FREE in the emacs distribution says:
>:
>:: Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
>:: Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
>:: without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
>:: alteration is not permitted.
>:
>:I understand that this file is not software documentation,
>:but there do seem to be some concerns parallel with Tom's.
>
>Good find. I'm happy to see that Richard is in full agreement with me.
This documentation is not a utilitarian piece of software, it's a personal
statement by RMS. What purpose would it serve for people to be able to
modify it?
I don't think RMS is opposed to all copyrights. He believes that software
users should be able modify it to suit their needs, i.e. that software
that's modifiable is more useful than static software. And since
documentation needs to match the software, it also needs to be modifiable.
Works of art, criticism, rhetoric, etc. are generally not enhanced by being
modifiable. Their purpose is mainly to exhibit the creator's beliefs,
feelings, opinions, etc., and modifications by others generally detract
from this goal.
In fact, the GPL itself has a copyright notice that prohibits
modifications. In practice, I suspect RMS would only enforce this if
someone were to distribute a modified copy that claimed to be *the* GNU GPL
(i.e. they modified some of the clauses, but didn't modify the title). I
don't think he really minds people using the GPL as a model for similar
licenses, although he would certainly prefer it if they just used the GPL
as it is.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:42:11 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0ic3$qm2$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc, trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
>:Please don't try telling people who have licensed their work much more
>:liberally than you have licensed yours about definitions of freedom.
>I am perfectly happy to tell anyone who flips off the rights of the author
>to control the artistic destiny of his work just where they can stick
>that flipping finger.
Excuse me, they are not trying to touch your work at all.
Unless I am misreading this thread, it is illegal for them to modify
your documentation. They won't touch it. They will write a
replacement instead. It's just like someone writing a competing book.
Except this one will be free to be modified and published by anyone.
You can oppose this for technical reasons, you can oppose it because it
is a waste of effort, you can oppose it because it may lead to
fragmentation. But you can't try to use author's "moral rights" to
try to control other people's work.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:48:08 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0in8$bma$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss,
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
:What if you include perl as a standard utility on a $100,000 computer
:system? Can you include perlfaq?
Absolutely. In fact, if you include Perl, you have to.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:50:28 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0irk$bma$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss,
les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
:I don't see how you can legally deliver an unaltered perl distribution
:in any situation where profit is involved unless you separate perlfaq
:or change the copyright to match perl itself.
Bundling the FAQ with the complete distribution is of course perfectly
fine -- and mandatory. I'm talking about people putting my FAQ in their
own books and charging for it. That I won't stand for. If you want to
distribute the FAQ *unbundled*, you must not charge more that it cost
you to copy it.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:52:43 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0ivr$bma$4@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss,
trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
:I assume you'll keep compiling it with gcc though. And I guess it will
:still be distributed under dual Artistic and GPL licenses.
No. This will be fixed. The threat of GPV evil lurking in the documentation
must be removed. Perl is pro-free documentation. The FSF is against it
due to its virus. This will be fixed in the next release.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:43:11 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k0idv$bma$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
It is imperative that no documentation be placed under the GPL due to its
insidious viral nature. For example, the Perl documentation is meant to
be used to take examples from to use in your programs. We want people
to do this.
Guess what? You just became infected with the Gnu Public Virus! That
means you have relinquished your freedom to decide what happens to your
own work. You've been robbed.
We're sorry. We're really, really sorry. We didn't mean to give
you the bug. It's not something we in the Perl community like to do,
usurping of authorship and making people's decisions for them. And we
certainly never, ever meant to be carriers of this horrible disease.
GPV'd documentation is not free -- in fact, it's extremely *ANTI*-free.
It is a creeping poison. Support free documentation. Remove the GPV
from all free documentation to restore it to freedom.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:01:22 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: HELP: Can't Print cgi based Calendar
Message-Id: <6k0fvi$9ir$2@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <35638D35.1C27@akuweb.com>,
Fahim Jafary <jafary@akuweb.com> writes:
> I have setup a cgi based Calendar which works FINE. However when I try
> to print it by clicking on the Print button in Netscape MOST OFTEN I get
> a message "There are no pages to print". ON the other hand, sometimes
> it WILL print fine. Can anyone help??
And how exactly does this have anything to do with perl? Even if that
CGI calendar thingy is written in perl it has absolutely nothing to do
with perl. If the script works, it's not perl's problem. You might
have something wrong with your HTML, you might have a faulty browser,
you might have an OS problem, you might have your printer set up
incorrectly. None of these have _anything_ to do with perl at all.
I suggest that you ask this on one of the groups that deals with CGI,
HTML, your OS, your browser, or your printer.
> Please email me DIRECTLY as I don't access this newsgroup often.
Well, that is _your_ loss. If you had read it a bit, you would have
realised that you shouldn't have posted this here. You would have
known about the groups that do talk about this, and you wouldn't have
wasted time waiting for an answer from this group.
If you had read it a bit, you might have learned useful things.
Apart from that, it is plain rude. I WANT an answer. I WANT it now. I
will NOT do anything myself to get it. You will HAVE to give it to me
on a platter. Gimme, gimme, gimme.
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 02:00:38 EDT
From: "Becerra" <sixtoeb@pop3.cris.com>
Subject: Sybase
Message-Id: <6k0fu6$oqs@examiner.concentric.net>
I am trying to do the same with Sybase System 11.
May be the answer to your post will be the same one for me.
I hope...
Sixto
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:25:54 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: Year2000 compliant?
Message-Id: <6k0hdj$82i$1@marina.cinenet.net>
Mike Stok (mike@stok.co.uk) wrote:
: Why not usde perl 4 for "anything at all" I have several seripts which
: don't seem vulnerable to user-caused buffer overruns as they never process
: user data and perl 4.036's startup time and footprint is less painful to
: old machines running DOS.
:
: Yes, perl 5 is supported and has certain bugs eliminated and a stack more
: features, but as develpmnet has stopped on perl 4 it is finally stable :-)
I figured that anyone asking about perl-y2k issues is probably
(relatively) new to Perl, and thus should be steered toward the current
version. The reference to 'version 4+' in his post made me fear he was
considering Perl 4 for a new project, and indeed his first project. Old
hands with working v4 code are a separate issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 97 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq". The real FAQ, as it
appeared last in the newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send
perl-users FAQ". Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor the FAQ
are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq". It appears twice
weekly in the group, but is not distributed in the digest.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V8 Issue 2656
**************************************
