[9074] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2692 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 14:07:21 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 11:00:31 -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 Fri, 22 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2692
Today's topics:
Re: constants in perl? (Kevin Reid)
Re: ExtUtil::MakeMaker wish (Ken Williams)
Re: Getting hex codes from string (Kevin Reid)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Kenneth Miller)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Ken Fox)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <burley@tweedledumb.cygnus.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (John Stanley)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Hyman Rosen)
Re: More double standards out of the FSF (John Moreno)
OK (Was: Stop Changing Subject Lines!!) (brian d foy)
Re: Parsing Problem with MAC's (Chris Nandor)
Re: Quiet summary (John Stanley)
Re: Sequestration (John Porter)
SPAM from fake TC? (John Moreno)
Re: Tom Christiansen (Chris Nandor)
Re: What's the right idiom? (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Re: Why NOT crypt??? <jgoldberg@dial-but-dont-spam.pipex.com>
Re: wierd regex question <lr@hpl.hp.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:21:18 -0400
From: kpreid@ibm.net (Kevin Reid)
Subject: Re: constants in perl?
Message-Id: <1d9fi4g.iyp8b63hlitcN@slip166-72-108-214.ny.us.ibm.net>
Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 1998, Kevin Reid wrote:
>
> > > This, like your previous question, is fully explained in the standard
> > > Perl documentation included with your system, which I strongly counsel
> > > you to read, and, failing that, at least to grep.
> >
> > What about people not on a UNIX system?
>
> They should install Linux. :-)
>
> But seriously, if your distribution of Perl doesn't come with
> easily-readable and -searchable documentation, it's broken. No two ways
> about it. If that's the case, you should loudly complain to whoever put it
> together. This applies to Unix and non-Unix distributions alike.
Actually, I was thinking more of people who don't know what "grep" is
(of which I am not one).
--
Kevin Reid. | Macintosh.
"I'm me." | Think different.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:30:09 -0400
From: ken@forum.swarthmore.edu (Ken Williams)
Subject: Re: ExtUtil::MakeMaker wish
Message-Id: <ken-2205981330090001@news.swarthmore.edu>
In article <6k22q7$skn$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
ilya@math.ohio-state.edu (Ilya Zakharevich) wrote:
>[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Ken Williams
><ken@forum.swarthmore.edu>],
>who wrote in article <ken-2105981615470001@news.swarthmore.edu>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to get my feet thoroughly soaked with MakeMaker. I'm trying to
>> convert a few straight-perl (no XS) modules to be more easily installable,
>> so I let h2xs build a Makefile.PL for me and all that. Now here's my
>> question: does everybody add the 'dist' entry to the Makefile.PL:
>>
>> 'dist' => { COMPRESS=>"gzip", SUFFIX=>"gz" }
>>
>> ?
>
>Yes.
>
>> If so, couldn't this be put in by default by h2xs, or be the default
>> when no 'dist' argument is given to WriteMakefile()?
>
>There is no guarantee that gzip is (going to be) around.
>
>> I ask because almost all of the entries in CPAN are gzipped, and I assume
>> that people use the 'make dist' option to create their distributions.
>
>I think CPAN recompresses them anyway.
>
>Ilya
Aha. This clears things up. But it seems odd to me that we require
module _users_ to have gzip around, but we don't assume module
_developers_ have it.
Are there large segments of the Perl population that can't do .gz files?
I'm not very cross-platform savvy.
If it's just random assorted Perl developers that may not have gzip, then
perhaps those random developers should be the ones to change their
Makefile.PL.
Of course, I guess this whole issue is a rather minor one, just a time-saver.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:21:21 -0400
From: kpreid@ibm.net (Kevin Reid)
Subject: Re: Getting hex codes from string
Message-Id: <1d9fib7.kfj5dgpiti5oN@slip166-72-108-214.ny.us.ibm.net>
Choo Heng Kek <kek@olympus.irdu.nus.sg> wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I want to read in a string and then print the hex codes of
> each character of the string.
>
> The following is what I do now, but am hoping for more "elegant"
> solutions from perl hackers out there:
>
> @buf = unpack('C*', $string);
> while(@buf){ printf "%02x:", shift @buf }
>
> If $string is "abc", the output is "61:62:63".
>
> Any suggestions or comments?
> Thanks for reading.
Here's a program for hex-dumping files:
foreach $FILE (@ARGV) {
print "\nFile: $FILE\n";
open FILE;
while (!eof FILE) {
read FILE, $data, 16; # < change number to set width of display
foreach (split //, $data) {
printf "%02X ", ord($_);
}
$data =~ tr/\000-\037/~/;
print " $data\n";
}
}
--
Kevin Reid. | Macintosh.
"I'm me." | Think different.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 16:50:35 GMT
From: kemiller@hcs.harvard.edu (Kenneth Miller)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <slrn6mbb6q.o0u.kemiller@hcs.harvard.edu>
On 22 May 1998 03:02:48 GMT, John Stanley wrote:
> In article <6k2nos$b6d$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> >In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> > psmith@baynetworks.com writes:
> >:If you check your dictionary I'll bet you could count on an extremely
> >:small number of hands the words that have one and only one meaning
> >:listed.
> >
> >Really? Please check for yourself. I don't believe you.
> >
> >But that's not the point. The point was that choosing the less common
> >definition over the more common one invites gratuitous confusion.
>
> I checked. The Webster's on my desktop has 25 entries for the word
> "free". It isn't until number 17 that it mentions "without cost". The
> first 16, and several of the last 8, define it in terms of "unfettered"
> or "not limited."
right, but none of those would sound quite right when applied to a
sellable object. if it can be sold, "free" is ambiguous and our minds
will naturally drift towards the admittedly consumerist assumption that
it is without cost. call it "freed software" and you get around that,
since the verb form -always- means emancipation. think "free slave!"
versus "freed slave." and you don't even have to change your acronyms.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 16:53:27 GMT
From: kfox@pt0204.pto.ford.com (Ken Fox)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4ai7$t551@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> kfox@pt0204.pto.ford.com (Ken Fox) writes:
> > Zenin <zenin@bawdycaste.org> writes:
> > > GPL code is only "free" for "free use". It's great for use where
> > > you don't ever want your code used for commercial use, but if you
> > > do it's a nightmare.
> >
> > That's true. That's why it exists.
>
> Sigh. Wrong. There are quite a few business thriving commercially on
> GPLed code.
I understand that, but I believe Zenin meant commercial to mean "selling
the code under software industry standard licensing terms." The
commercial businesses thriving on free software are service industries
involved in supporting or distributing the software.
> They could not, for example, do this effectively on
> code under a license like Aladdin Ghostscript (except Aladdin itself,
> of course).
I thought Aladdin used a non-GPL license for the first year after
a product's release. When Cygnus released a product for sale, they
didn't use the GPL. Has anybody made money on the sale of GPL'd
software alone?
> The GPL is only a hindrance if you want to remain the only party
> being allowed to offer access to the source code. That's the precise
> reason why it is there in the first place.
Right. That's what I meant to say. Which is probably what Zenin
considers anti-commerce.
- Ken
--
Ken Fox (kfox@ford.com) | My opinions or statements do
| not represent those of, nor are
Ford Motor Company, Powertrain | endorsed by, Ford Motor Company.
Analytical Powertrain Methods Department |
Software Development Section | "Is this some sort of trick
| question or what?" -- Calvin
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 12:08:58 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hvhqyxp7p.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
> In article <u1hn2cbtqtz.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>,
> Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <tb@mit.edu> wrote:
> >I don't recall any GNU people telling Linus that his kernel was
> >pointless. I remember lots of people being quite pleased with it.
>
> I do remember quotes from RMS saying essentially "Linux is interesting,
> but the Hurd is the way to go".
That's hardly "pointless". It's "this is good, and we think there is
something better too".
I've always though that there's plenty of room. Some people seem to
really enjoy trying to predict who will "win"; one of the things I
have learned about free software is that everybody wins if there is
diversity and lots of choices.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:55:19 -0400
From: Craig Burley <burley@tweedledumb.cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <y6lnrui9lk.fsf@tweedledumb.cygnus.com>
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
> It might be more PC, but it would be less correct. RMS knows that there
> are other licenses that meet his definition of free, and it would
> presumably be acceptable to him if there were Perl documentation covered by
> any one of them. It doesn't have to be the GPL.
>
> Unfortunately, there's no short term for "free, by the FSF's definition".
> In FSF documents, it's understood that this is what "free" means.
Can *anyone* name *any* GNU *documentation* that is under the
GPL? That GPL that is currently being called the GPV in the
latest round of foaming-at-the-mouth hatred directed at rms and
the entire GNU project over *documentation*?
Offhand, I can't. I checked the gcc docs -- they're not under
the GPL.
BTW, I agree, it would be better if the web pages at ftp.gnu.org
didn't simply say "no free documentation" and "these are no good".
But I don't find those kind of statements nearly as offensive, childish,
and unprofessional as the insulting renaming of things, a la GPV instead
of GPL, MS-DOG instead of MS-DOS, and so on. At least, in context,
"no good *for our uses*" can be fairly implied on web pages describing
a list of tasks *for the GNU Project* (wake up, folks! what *else* is
such a task list going to describe -- more *proprietary* documentation
needing to be written?!).
But while I think rms and the FSF have committed more than a few
PR mistakes, this latest flame-fest surely shows just who is truly
the most arrogant and offensive in its attacks on other members
of the free-software community ("free" in its widest sense here).
People are now being successfully convinced that rms said O'Reilly
documentation was "evil" and flaming *rms*, not those putting
words in rms' mouth, for that. Wow. And *rms* is supposed to be
as "bad" as Bill Gates, eh? Sheesh.
--
"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.org
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 98 17:19:43 GMT
From: Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3565b3af.0@news.ivm.net>
>
> Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
>
> From: ryan@mail.ramresearch.com (Ryan McGuigan)
References:
> <3563c3ea.0@news.ivm.net>
> <6k0ge6$827$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
>guile? What the hell is guile? Hahaha! I have to agree with Tom on this
>one.
Guile is the optimal scripting language , as it allows more logics and flexi-
bility than tcl, perl and java$cript together. It is only used by the elite
ones, such as Stallman, Galassi, Stachowiak, Tendys, Blandy, Djurfeldt, Livshin
, ... while the retarded ones are unable to grasp the logic, elegance, divine
wisdom and beauty of guile.
Klaus Schilling
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 17:44:03 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4dh3$lq2$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <slrn6mbb6q.o0u.kemiller@hcs.harvard.edu>,
Kenneth Miller <kemiller@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On 22 May 1998 03:02:48 GMT, John Stanley wrote:
>> I checked. The Webster's on my desktop has 25 entries for the word
>> "free". It isn't until number 17 that it mentions "without cost". The
>> first 16, and several of the last 8, define it in terms of "unfettered"
>> or "not limited."
>
>right, but none of those would sound quite right when applied to a
>sellable object.
That is not true. Numbers 5,11,18,19, and 20 are:
5. not held or burdened by obligations, debts,
discomforts, etc.; unhindered; unhampered
[free from pain]
11. not busy or not in use; available for other
work, use, etc.
18. not liable to (trade restrictions, etc.);
exempt from certain impositions, as taxes or
duties
19. clear of obstructions; open and unimpeded [a
free road ahead]
20. open to all; esp., without restrictions as to
trade [a free market, free port]
All of which can deal with "sellable" objects.
>if it can be sold, "free" is ambiguous and our minds
>will naturally drift towards the admittedly consumerist assumption that
>it is without cost.
Unless, of course, you happened to read the web page you were hitting
and noticed that they told you what definition they were using.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:35:08 -0500
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3565B74C.854A37EE@mindspring.com>
John Stanley wrote:
>
> In article <6k2nos$b6d$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> >In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> > psmith@baynetworks.com writes:
> >:If you check your dictionary I'll bet you could count on an extremely
> >:small number of hands the words that have one and only one meaning
> >:listed.
> >
> >Really? Please check for yourself. I don't believe you.
> >
> >But that's not the point. The point was that choosing the less common
> >definition over the more common one invites gratuitous confusion.
>
> I checked. The Webster's on my desktop has 25 entries for the word
> "free". It isn't until number 17 that it mentions "without cost". The
> first 16, and several of the last 8, define it in terms of "unfettered"
> or "not limited."
But the way FSF uses it, it doesn't simply mean "unfettered", "not
limited", or any other meaning that is in any dictionary. It means
something much more specific than that. It's as if I thought Perl were
nice, decided I would redefine "nice" in the context of computer
languages to mean only languages with all of Perl's characteristics
(because I thought they were nice), then go around saying no other
language was nice. Small "n", no quotes. Then get upset when folks got
"confused" about what I meant by "nice". Yes, Perl is nice. But it
wouldn't make me any less of a clown, if I did that.
Usually, if you need to come up with a term to describe a new concept,
accepted practice is to either invent an entirely new term or phrase, or
use an existing one that is unmistakable in context. "Free" as used by
FSF is neither.
Isn't it a warning sign when people redefine existing terms in that
way? Like someone who would redefine "town meeting", a traditional
democratic form of self-rule, to mean a political pep rally organized by
a politico, consisting of people hand-picked by a marketing firm? ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:42:29 -0500
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <3565B905.DC80058C@mindspring.com>
Jim Freeman wrote:
>
> In article <u17m3eobkr.fsf@noisy.vggas.com>,
> James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> "cr" == Chris Russo <news@russo.org> writes:
> > cr> Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes?
> > cr> Why not just use the language correctly and be understood?
> >It would be nice to do that, but there is no English word which is
> >closer in meaning to that which the FSF means when it says "Free". If
> >there had been one, the FSF would have used it instead of "Free".
>
> Sovereign ?
>
> c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT <sovereign state>
>
> ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary )
I must confess partiality to "freed", as someone else suggested. It's
short, and nicely conveys the idea that the freedom was conferred upon
the software, and has permanence. Just like a freed slave.
But spoken aloud, one would have to take care to pronounce the "d"
distinctly!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:14:17 -0500
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <3565B269.874E0715@mindspring.com>
Howard Goldstein wrote:
>
[cut]
>
> In the Linux Programmer's Manual section on (IIRC) IPC were a pair of
> trivial and smallish 15 or so line example on creating a SYSV message
> queue. Both examples were prominently tagged with a GPL license.
>
> I'm not sure why these (and other) examples in a manual demonstrating
> basic, important features of an o/s were themselves GPLd. It seemed
> difficult to actually use the features demonstrated in a non-GPLd
> program after I'd been contaminated by exposure to the GPL'd example;
> there were few if any other practical ways to do it.
>
That's the sort of thing that worries me most about the GPL. Insidious
viral nature indeed! Even infects brains!
Seriously, it was sort of trying to force you into accepting Stallman's
vision wholesale, just because you'd seen the code. Weirdly Borglike.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:38:23 -0400
From: hymie@panix.com (Hyman Rosen)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k4d6f$j01@panix3.panix.com>
In article <slrn6marj2.tg9.hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com>,
Howard Goldstein <hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure why these (and other) examples in a manual demonstrating
>basic, important features of an o/s were themselves GPLd. It seemed
>difficult to actually use the features demonstrated in a non-GPLd
>program after I'd been contaminated by exposure to the GPL'd example;
>there were few if any other practical ways to do it.
If there are few or no other ways to do it, then the GPL on the examples
is irrelevant. Copyright does not apply when the expression of an idea is
so limited that there is essentially only one way to do it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:17:37 GMT
From: phenix@interpath.com (John Moreno)
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <1d9flld.18edphexbfgteN@roxboro0-037.dyn.interpath.net>
In comp.lang.perl.misc Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <tb@mit.edu> wrote:
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> > You cannot "modify" Perl in some way to make it not work like the standard
> > release and still call it by that name.
>
> Which is fine, and not the point.
>
> Suppose I modify Perl significantly, by removing many features and
> adding other ones, and embed it in a specialized program where this
> modification was esssential to meet some speed or size constraints.
>
> I'll happily change the name, and I'll be very very careful to give
> credit to everyone who contributed to Perl.
>
> Now, in documenting my new application, I need to document Perl, and
> for that I want to use large portions of the perlfaq text. Now, I
> certainly want to acknowledge the authorship of the text, and I'll be
> happy to give people a copy of the unmodified text too.
>
> But the copyright on perlfaq prohibits me from distributing the
> modified perlfaq. It forces me to write an appendix, which is
> unworkable if the changes to the perl code are extensive and
> pervasive.
Write your own (or modify the existing with clear comments saying what's
your's and what's not) and then ship BOTH.
Anybody with a modicum of intelligence ought to be able to figure out
ways around this (write a perl script that modifies the documentation so
that it fits what you have to say, separate documentation for your
changes, I'm sure there are other ways). It's just not a real problem.
--
John Moreno
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:01:48 -0400
From: comdog@computerdog.com (brian d foy)
Subject: OK (Was: Stop Changing Subject Lines!!)
Message-Id: <comdog-ya02408000R2205981401480001@news.panix.com>
Keywords: from just another new york perl hacker
how many times do you get a straight line like that?
today's Perl topic is Perl Mongers - lots of new stuff at
<URL:http://www.pm.org>.
--
brian d foy <comdog@computerdog.com>
CGI Meta FAQ <URL:http://computerdog.com/CGI_MetaFAQ.html>
Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (CPAN) <URL:http://www.perl.com>
Perl Mongers T-shirts! <URL:http://www.pm.org/tshirts.html>
Godzilla sucked!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:07:02 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Parsing Problem with MAC's
Message-Id: <pudge-2205981301260001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <3565EA63.4D83FB83@mmcc.net>, sales@mmcc.net wrote:
# Is anyone aware of any Problems using the ReadParse subroutine in
# cgilib.pl with MACs.
#
# I've got a script I wrote which allows users to manipulate their web
# page content via their browser, however MACs only seem to post 255
# characters and then truncate the remaining text.
#
# For an online example of this problem, check out
# http://www.flashpage.net/admin/nr & use the add an entry function.
Macs (MACs are something different :) can vary, depending on a variety of
factors (not the least of which is OS version). What version OS, version
MacPerl? Also, you should probably be using CGI.pm instead of cgi-lib.pl
(although speed can be an issue for not using the former).
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 17:52:21 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Quiet summary
Message-Id: <6k4e0l$lvq$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <pudge-2205980818120001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>,
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <6k2p36$55t$1@news.NERO.NET>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU
>(John Stanley) wrote:
>
># The FSF use of the term "free" is made clear on their website, and to
># expect it to be repeated every time the word "free" appears is just
># ridiculous.
>
>I don't think so. Your analogy was a bit off; when Tom says "MacDonalds
>(sic) gives out free catsup (sic ;-)" to people down the street, everyone
>undertsands that ketchup is free at McDonald's in the same fashion;
No, they don't. The people at McDonalds know it is free only because
you buy a hamburger. I.e., there is a cost associated with the free
catsup, and if you have to pay for it it isn't "free" in the sense you
want the word used. The ones Tom is telling will probably assume it is
completely free -- no cost. And yes, catsup is a correct spelling for
the red tomato product you call ketchup.
>the
>fact that this free ketchup is contingent on other criteria (the purchase
>of a burger) does not change the definition of free, while the FSF *is*
>changing (has changed?) said definition.
The FSF is using a different sense of the word than you are; one that
predated Mr. Stallman by quite a few years. They didn't change
anything.
>Furthermore, how hard is it to add a hyperlink?
To every word on every page? You do realize that if they have to define
"free" every time they use it, they will also have to define "this" and
"software" and every other word because there might be people who come
by with a poor grasp of the english language who might be confused just
like Tom was.
As for adding a hyperlink, would that have stopped Tom from waving the
To Do list entry all around? Would the hyperlink have been included in
his posting?
> That's what the web is for, right?
No, that isn't what the web is for.
>I just don't think that is asking too much: a small bit of
>work, in my opinion, would greatly improve the situation.
Then you are volunteering to do it for them?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:49:09 GMT
From: jdporter@min.net (John Porter)
Subject: Re: Sequestration
Message-Id: <MPG.fcf86406eb300039896e9@news.min.net>
On Fri, 22 May 1998 15:44:18 GMT,
in article <35659B6A.3D388EAD@fccjmail.fccj.org>,
webmaster@fccjmail.fccj.org (Bill 'Sneex' Jones) wrote:
> Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >
> > To try to make some amends for the ridiculous amounts of non-Perl crud
> > and destructive flaming that I was largely responsible for inciting over
> > the last two days, <snip ...>
>
> That you are solely responsible is questionable.
Sure, you can question it, but the answer is, "Yes, Tom was solely
responsible." That was maybe the worst case of rant-baiting I've
ever seen on clpm. I think Tom was looking for a fight, in which
case he shoulda just posted on gnu.misc.discuss. Maybe he was
hoping for backup by including the clpm'ers.
John Porter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:18:14 GMT
From: phenix@interpath.com (John Moreno)
Subject: SPAM from fake TC?
Message-Id: <1d9flyf.nkeshg1e1ozieN@roxboro0-037.dyn.interpath.net>
I got a message with these headers this morning, and am wondering if
this is some type of new filter defeating spam? Anybody else get
something like this?
> Date: 05/22 1:53 AM
> Received: 05/22 3:04 AM
> From: Tom Christiansen, Warning@yahoo.com
> Reply-To: Al.Lewis
> To: Stealth Mailer, isw@witzend.com
(of course I know it wasn't from the real TC because the message was
screwed up so that half the headers ended up in the body -- he's more
competent than that).
--
John Moreno
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:03:09 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen
Message-Id: <pudge-2205981257330001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <pudge-2205980832130001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>,
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) wrote:
# In article <u1hhg2jtpel.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>, tb@mit.edu
# (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) wrote:
#
# # Behind almost everything Tom writes on the subject is the question of
# # where he is expecting to get money from.
#
# How much of an asshole can you be? Is this the limit, or are you capable
# of more?
In article <u1hwwbexpna.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>, tb@mit.edu
(Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) wrote:
# He's losing touch, and for his own mental health, we should let him go
# back to writing documentation and teaching classes, which he does
# well.
Thanks for the prompt reply.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 13:47:57 -0400
From: mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Subject: Re: What's the right idiom?
Message-Id: <6k4dod$482$1@monet.op.net>
Keywords: archival brotherhood Perez twosome
In article <y4dn2cza5q1.fsf@hppop.sdrc.com>,
Paul Joslin <paul.joslin@sdrc.com> wrote:
>
> opendir ( HANDLE, $path ) || die ( "$me: cannot opendir $path: $?" );
You want $! there, not $?. $? is meaningless in this context.
See `perlvar' manual for full details.
> File: while ( $file = readdir ( HANDLE ) ) {
>This works great until you have a file or directory named "0".
You should use
while (defined($file = readdir HANDLE)) { ...}
>Yes, I know it's a contrived example.
I don't think it's contrived. It comes up all the time. There's even
a -w warning about it. (``Value of ... can be "0"; test with
defined()'')
Also, I believe it's going to be fixed in 5.005. As you know,
while (<>) {...}
uses `defined' on the input line to test whether or not to terminate
the loop. There was discussion on p5p about this, and some agreement
was reached that this implicit `defined' test should be extended to
certain simple assignments, of which your example was one.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:15:16 +0100
From: "Jeremy Goldberg" <jgoldberg@dial-but-dont-spam.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Why NOT crypt???
Message-Id: <6k4bsl$116$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
>Encapsulate the differences in a module, then. I tend to mistrust
"portable"
>solutions that involve porting a subsystem of the OS to an utterly foreign
OS
>that already has a different, native mechanism (Like the original ports of
Tk
>for Windows and MacOS which apparently emulated X window calls).
Hmm... well, perhaps - but it still doesn't explain the original question,
as to why not allowing crypt() in Windows Perl. But I see your point.
>> >> When you want to send passwords encrypted over the net, but can't
(or
>> >> don't want to) use SSL or a higher-grade encrypt scheme.
>> >
>> >Sounds like a terrible idea, security-wise, unless you use it as a
>> >challenge/response scheme with one side sending the salt and the other
>> >sending the encrypted password.
>>
>> As a simple alternative to nothing at all, it can't be beaten.
>
>Quite the opposite, in fact! Even solutions as flaky as exchanging
cleartext
>passwords or relying on trusted hosts are far preferable to accepting
crypt()ed
>passwords with a chosen salt. The former at least require IP snooping or
>spoofing to crack, the latter simply involves looking up the crypted()
password
>in the (usually world readable) passwd file.
So it was a bad example. Sue me.
>> >I agree that all of these are legitimate uses of crypt on sub-Unix (tm)
>> >systems, but I'm still not sure whether they are that important.
>>
>> It's not a question of important, it's a question of being able to do it
at
>> all. As it stands, you have to write your code, upload it, and then run
it
>> and see if it works properly - no exhaustive testing offline, unless you
can
>> install Linux - which isn't always a practical answer either, or none of
us
>> would use Windoze in the first place.
>
>I'm afraid that I remain doubtful of the value of "exhaustive" testing of a
>security sensitive script on a foreign OS. Note that if the script is
mostly
>not security sensitive, you can get a lot of testing done by simply
defining
>crypt() to be the identity function.
Which goes a long way to letting bugs of the
comparing-crypted-against-uncrypted slip through - shoddy coding, perhaps,
but still a problem.
It's being able to use a simple built-in crypt() function that is the main
thing... instead of worrying about modules. A good reason for Windows users
who are concerned about it to get the ActiveState port, in fact.
Ho hum - I think that's the last word I'll say on it, anyway, since it
wasn't even my question :)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:05:23 -0700
From: "Larry Rosler" <lr@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: wierd regex question
Message-Id: <6k4b8t$96k@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>
[posted and emailed]
thonge@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6k48hq$rse$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
...
>In the interest of keeping my Cgi program modular, I want to include
the
>verification formats in hidden feilds in the actual HTML document. is
there
>any way to read a regex into a $calar and then compare the contents of
a field
>against it? like this (command line version) (now, please tell me if
my
>pattern is right to match a social security number)
>
>print "Input >";
>chomp ($in = <STDIN>);
>$test = '/\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}/';
>if ($in =~ $test) {
> print "Yup";
>} else {
> print "Nope";
>}
>
>As far as my linited logic and regex experiance can tell, this should
work as
>long as $test is actually seen as the pattern /\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}/.
It's not. This should do better:
$test = '\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}';
if ($in =~ /$test/) {
And to match a(n?) SSN and nothing else, use:
$test = '^\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}$';
or
if ($in =~ /^$test$/) {
If any of this is used in a loop where $test doesn't change, append 'o'
after the pattern:
if ($in =~ /^$test$/o) {
--
Larry Rosler
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
lr@hpl.hp.com
------------------------------
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 2692
**************************************
