[9078] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2696 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 19:07:27 1998
Date: Fri, 22 May 98 16:00:20 -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: 2696
Today's topics:
Re: .= food for thought? (Craig Berry)
Re: .= food for thought? (Craig Berry)
Re: Clearly define "free software" ralsina@unl.edu.ar
Daemon code??? braunb@my-dejanews.com
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Abigail)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (le Fanttme)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <recon@cavalry.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <recon@cavalry.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <recon@cavalry.com>
How to execute a system command from Perl (NT) <costello@hyperspectral.com>
Re: Progress 4GL and Perl DBD/DBI <imran@visi.net>
Re: replace line in file <lance@nospam.net-school.com>
Re: Sequestration (Charles DeRykus)
Re: Timeout problem (Charles DeRykus)
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit (Abigail)
Re: Win32 NT Perl Wrapper <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:04:30 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: .= food for thought?
Message-Id: <6k4spe$q1a$1@marina.cinenet.net>
Charlie Stross (charlie@antipope.org) wrote:
: >But that raises an interesting question. It would be handy to have a
: >concatenation operator that works thusly:
: >
: >$var = "string" . $var; # $var OP "string";
: >
: >It would come in handy.
:
: Ahem: you mean like this?
:
: DB<1> $var = "bar";
: DB<2> $var = "foo" . $var;
: DB<3> print $var, "\n";
: foobar
No, he was asking for an op= form for prepending a string; like if it were
(say) @=, you could do
$var = 'bar';
$var @= 'foo';
and get 'foobar' in $var.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:27:39 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: .= food for thought?
Message-Id: <6k4u4r$q1a$2@marina.cinenet.net>
Belg4mit (belg4mit@aol.com) wrote:
: >All of these could lead to syntactic ambiguities. For example, if I say
: >$a =.4;
: >do I mean to assign 0.4 to $a, or to append the string "4" to $a?
:
: no ambiguity, $a =. 4 vs $a = .4 (use spaces like you should)
But these spaces aren't required by the language as it stands. Adding
that requirement would break a lot of existing code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:04:33 GMT
From: ralsina@unl.edu.ar
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6k4spg$s6q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
In article <wsn3ee296bf.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>,
robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
>
> > GPL prohibits distribution of joint GPL and non GPL-compatible work.
> > And since this joint work is derived from the GPL'd work, it is covered
> > by the GPL. An example of this is xmcd+motif under linux. I am free
> > to use, copy, modify and redistribute modifications of xmcd source
> > according to the GPL. However, the moment I link it with motif under
> > linux, I am violating the GPL. Same thing goes for KDE & Qt (unless
> > you're running SuSE).
> >
>
> Yes, that's both a plus and a minus. You just have to decide what your
> goals are, so you know what tradeoffs you want to make.
Sorry, this response is for the previous poster, but I can't find his article
;-)
Linking a program in any way in any system can not be a violation of the GPL:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
So there, compiling and linking are outside the scope of the GPL and thus
can't be a violation of it.
Redistributing a program linked in a certain way may be, tough, but as long as
you compile things yourself, no matter what you do, you can't break it.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:47:18 GMT
From: braunb@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Daemon code???
Message-Id: <6k4v9l$ib$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Hello,
I'm looking for code to implement a UNIX daemon in perl. I searched the
perl.com references but couldn't find anything there. I could always
implement W. Richard Steven's Unix Network Programming code example, but,
I'd rather not re-invent the wheel.
Any leads would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Braun Brelin
bbrelin@dnai.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:20:33 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k4tnh$tl$1@client3.news.psi.net>
Greg Lindahl (lindahl@pbm.com) wrote on MDCCXXV September MCMXCIII in
<URL: news:6k4ja5$mrd@news1.newsguy.com>:
++ abigail@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
++
++ > Could you also point
++ > out why 'free' isn't mentioned for the manuals of Ghostscript, tcsh,
++ > PIC, X-window applications and the various X-window managers?
++
++ Last I looked at the task list, it mentioned the need for a free
++ manual for the C language. You should consider the Perl entry to be a
++ compliment to Perl's popularity; the C entry is not an insult to K&R's
++ excellent book.
I'm not saying the entry is an insult to the books about Perl. It's
an insult to the amount of free documentation (many of which is made
by the authors of the books) available for Perl. I don't get as much
documentation with a C compiler as I get with Perl. Not by a long shot.
Abigail
--
perl -wleprint -eqq-@{[ -eqw\\- -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -e\\-]}-
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:31:50 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1h3ee2z5i1.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> > That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
> > software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that was
> > actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep people
> > from making changes to the software.
> Do you have any evidence to indicate that this is actually being done?
> If you do not, would you mind s/is/could be/ at a strategic point in that
> sentence when you say similar things in the future? Thank you.
It is *NOW* a lever, albeit a perhaps unintentional one. If I wanted
to make a variant of perl, and modify perlfaq accordingly, I am
already stuck...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:32:46 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <7E52F4A23A745FA1.E65BA4FCC2AFC606.09B10913222F282F@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 13:12:01 GMT, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
Eeckels) wrote:
>In article <5D477EF9ADF9340C.9A26ECAEE0E326D0.E84EBB992569E55E@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
>> On 22 May 1998 08:58:26 GMT, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
>> Eeckels) wrote:
>>
>>>Unless you're having a free (ahem, no charge) network connection, or
>>>use your company's feed to download Perl for your own use, why do
>>>you think electronic distribution doesn't make money for someone
>>>else but the original author?
>>
>> Because an infrastructure charge does not constitute a publication
>> charge. When you're being charged for your network connection, you're
>> not being charged for the "publication" of the perl documentation.
>
>So we're indeed splitting hairs. The point was already made that
>for some people (those without or with expensive network connections)
>a CD or a book might be better -or the only- options to get hold
>of the Perl documentation. If I'm not mistaken, the current PerFAQ
>license makes that impossible.
You are mistaken. The PerlFAQ is available on CDs -- legally so.
Because the people who are putting it on the CDs are not charging
extra because they are putting the PerlFAQ on the CDs.
What cannot happen is that a German publisher cannot take the PerlFAQ
and publish a book from it and not give Mr. Christiansen his due
royalties -- unless the book is sold at base cost. What cannot happen
is that a Ukrainian CD-ROM presser cannot take the PerlFAQ and produce
a CD with the PerlFAQ on it and charge $20 because the PerlFAQ is on
the CD.
Therein lies the difference, Mr. Eeckels.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:38:18 GMT
From: fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <D34479C0E2D7A03E.D8D9016C45C46CAF.7569F4539B8B8392@library-proxy.airnews.net>
On 22 May 1998 13:15:45 +0200, David Kastrup
<dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>fantome/@/usa/./net (le Fanttme) writes:
>
>> Mr. Margolin said zero, zip, zilch, nada, and EXACTLY *nothing* about
>> specifically GNU GPLed documentation, but "free" documentation.
>> Without specifying the license, I must approach the statement as if
>> someone made free documentation under a sane license, not the GNU GPL,
>> and probably under something similar to what Mr. Christiansen has
>> written -- since his copyright and license are what are at issue here.
>"Free" is not tantamount to "GPL", even for the FSF. The license in
>question disallows making profits off the documentation, for example
>disallowing RedHat to include it on their CDROMs (they make their
>living off the CDROMs, so obviously can't provide them "at cost").
You are, of course, mistaken on this. RedHat is not making its profit
from the inclusion of Perl or the PerlFAQ on its Linux CDs. The
inclusion of Perl and the PerlFAQ would raise the cost of the CD by
pennies (well, at least $0.0375, estimating 8Mb for the size of the
Perl distribution on a $3 CD) plus the actual cost of burning that 8Mb
on the CD. I would bet heavily that the Perl stuff doesn't raise the
consumer cost of the RedHat CDs at all, making it a legal inclusion.
>The license in question disallows any further development of the docs
>by anybody but the author, even if the author were to become sick,
>disinterested, or (heaven forbid) dead.
This is a potential problem, but there are established ways of
handling this without resorting to letting everyone modify your
documentation. There is even less need to let Que or Addison-Wesley or
any other publisher publish Tom's works hardcopy without providing
royalties.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fantome*@*vnet*.*net * http://fantome.vnet.net/
---------------* aziegler*@*vcela*.*com * -------------------------
Remove the stars to email me * Ni bhionn an rath ach
my words my opinions my ideas * mar a mbionn an smacht
-- I Argue Ideas, Not Beliefs: Give Up Your Dogma --
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 11:35:03 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1h1ztmz5co.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
> :That restriction means that the documentation is not as free as the
> :software, and it would be very nice to have Perl documentation that
> :was actually free, instead of one which is used as a lever to keep
> :people from making changes to the software.
>
> What a terribly obvious lie. Please don't repeat it.
> And yes, I know lie is a nasty word. You have said
> a nasty thing.
I will repeat it, because you don't weem to pay attention.
If I want to change Perl, and distribute appropriately modified
documentation based on perlfaq, then I cannot. I must distribute my
documentation as an appendix, which is to say, I cannot distribute one
nice manual describing one nice software product.
Worse still, if I am redhat, I cannot distribute perlfaq at all.
Accordingly, the documentation is not free, in the libre sense used by
the free software community. It would be very nice if there were good
perl documentation that was free in the libre sense.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:51:20 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <recon@cavalry.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <3565F358.4ABDAF56@cavalry.com>
Tyson Richard DOWD wrote:
>
> Because I can't modify it without your permission. And if you
> decide to become nasty one day (as sometimes happens to people when they
> get old), or you decide that you don't want Perl or even just perlfaq
> to go a particular direction, I'm screwed.
>
> I choose free software because I know that I can do it myself if
> necessary. This is why modification is important to me. This is
> why I have a problem with your license.
>
> But it's not a huge problem. I'm not going to create a new
> perlfaq. Probably no-one is, unless there is a Perl fork one day,
> or your licensing restricts packagers too much. As far as I am
> concerned, you have every right to license you work as you see fit.
> But I don't think it is fair for you to criticize the FSF for
> having different goals to you.
Geez! You people act as if Tom's Documentation is *the only*
documentation out there!
That just is not true. As I read Tom's original post in this thread, his
beef was *not* that the FSF wanted to write documentation about perl,
rather that they calimed there was no 'free' documentation. Unless
specifically stated otherwise, 'free' is used as it is defined in
webster's dictionary. Of which, the only references that could be
applied to software:
4 a : having no trade restrictions
b : not subject to government regulation of foreign exchange
c : not subject to restriction or official control
and:
10 : not costing or charging anything
Under that definition, Tom was/is correct in his response. Of particular
note would be the other manuals requested. Example: "A manual for
programming X-window applications" There are proprietary books onhow to
do that, but you see no reference made to them. Why the need to specify
a 'free manual' for perl, but not for others. if the others already have
them, why is there a 'need' for them.
As I understand it, I can take Tom's perlfaq, reproduce and distribute
it, as long as it reamins verbatim and free-of-charge. It would appear
the FSF does the same thing:
"""
Copyright (C) 1997, 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place
- Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA
Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium, provided
this notice is preserved.
"""
There is nothing that says I cannot write a manual for perl and make it
free, and open-source, nor is there aprohibition on me charging for
that. Documentation is *not* software.
--
Bill Anderson Cyberhighway Internet Services, SYCON
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."
Plurality should not be assumed without neccesity.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:23:43 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <recon@cavalry.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <3565FAEF.1BBAE148@cavalry.com>
Paul D. Smith wrote:
>
> %% Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> :Your documentation is neither freely redistributable (as it may not be
> :redistributed by free software vendors like RedHat that make a living
> :from doing so),
>
> tc> This is false. It may and must be included in a full distribution
> tc> of Perl. I've written this before and will make it clearer in the
> tc> future copyrights.
>
> :nor freely maintainable as you prohibit any modifications by others.
>
> tc> This is false. The Perl release manager (Larry's designated
> tc> pumpkin holder) coordinates all maintenance and updates of the
> tc> Perl set. They are perfectly allowed to apply fixes and
> tc> maintenance to me documents, and I've told them that in person.
>
> I understand (since this thread, though, not before) that this is what
> you _intend_, Tom, but that's not at all what your license actually
> _says_. I distinctly recall this point being made a couple of months
> ago during the authorship blowup on p5p, too. Perhaps it wasn't made
> quite clear enough exactly what the problem was.
>
Tom has the right to give permission to anyone he sees fit
> Organizations like Debian, RedHat, and the FSF live and die by licensing
> and they will pay very close attention to the _text_ of the license.
> If you want perlfaq to be distributed in any context under which perl
> itself can be distributed, please modify the license to say this.
>
> Right now latest.tar.gz is seriously (IMO) impacted by the inclusion of
> perlfaq and its licensing; it means that either RedHat et. al. must open
> up the distribution and remove perlfaq before including perl or, if your
> statement that they can't do so is correct, they can't ship Perl at all!
>
As I understand the liscense, they can distribute it. they can not
however, charge explicitly for perlfaq itsself.
"""
Furthermore, you may include this document in any distribution of the
full Perl source or binaries, in its verbatim documentation, or on a
complete dump of the CPAN archive, providing that the three stipulations
given above continue to
be met.
"""
Redhat, et al. do not charge for it. They charge for the service of
placing the various programs, etc. on the CD. Therefore, RedHat et al.
are perfectly fine regarding the perlfaq.
--
Bill Anderson Cyberhighway Internet Services, SYCON
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."
Plurality should not be assumed without neccesity.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:30:23 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <recon@cavalry.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <3565FC7F.57CBE276@cavalry.com>
John Stanley wrote:
>
> In article <pudge-2205981045040001@dynamic417.ply.adelphia.net>,
> Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
> >In article <p5vhqy2x8g.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com wrote:
> ># First, this gives permission only for distribution "via electronic means
> ># or printed copy", and it's not at all clear to me that sticking it on a
> ># CD falls under either of those categories. Why not just say "by any
> ># means"?
> >
> >I can't answer the question, but I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind
> >that a CD is electronic means. How could it not be?
>
> Because there are no electronics directly involved in distributing CD's?
>
> Yes, it takes electronics to create the CD, but it also takes
> electronics to create a book. It takes electronics to read a CD, but by
One can create abook without using even electricity.
Last tim eI spoke with my lawyer, he said that a cd is electronic media.
> the time you read it it is already distributed. And you can scan a book
> using electronics, too.
>
> There are GPS units on most of the trucks that the boxes of CD's are
> shipped around the country, but that is ancillary to the distribution
> process. And, of course, the same trucks carry books.
>
> So, if a CD is "electronic means", a book would have to fall into that
> category.
>
No, it does not.
> And yes, I would agree that instict says that CD-ROM is "electronic
> means", but the fact that there is no electronics in the distribution
> process is the answer to your question "how could it not be?"
Distribution requires it reach a destination. in order for the stuff on
a cd to reach it's destination, it has to transfer via electronic means.
the physical container is not an issue. As your argument goes, this
email was not transferred via electronic means because it was carried
over copper wire, and or fiber-optic cable.
The term distribution does not apply to the container of the
data/item/information being distributed.
--
Bill Anderson Cyberhighway Internet Services, SYCON
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."
Plurality should not be assumed without neccesity.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:42:43 GMT
From: Ed Costello <costello@hyperspectral.com>
Subject: How to execute a system command from Perl (NT)
Message-Id: <3565FF95.E2963B68@hyperspectral.com>
Suppose I have a system command assigned to a Perl variable.
For example,
% $cmd = "programname -a1 -b2 -c3";
How can I execute this command from within the Perl script. I tried
several permuations of $cmd, $$cmd, etc. but with no luck. Is this
possible with Perl/NT?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Cheers!
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Costello
costello@hyperspectral.com
HyperSpectral Sciences, Inc.
4749-A Bennett Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
925.455.7710 (voice)
925.455.7711 (fax)
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:12:31 GMT
From: Imran Shah <imran@visi.net>
Subject: Re: Progress 4GL and Perl DBD/DBI
Message-Id: <3565E88A.C90DCFD9@visi.net>
Jeff Kalchik wrote:
> I'd like to see this too. Because I don't have a copy of ESQL on my
> platform, I've been tinkering with a Perl module that executes
> progress queries via a system call.
>
> If you're interested, I can email you a copy.
> -------------------------
>
Hello Jeff -
I read your message on comp.lang.perl.misc. I have also been looking for
a perl module for querying Progress. I'd be grateful if you could send me
a copy of your module.
Thank you
Imran Shah
Research Scientist, Bioinformatics
A T C C
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:48:03 GMT
From: "Lance Hollman" <lance@nospam.net-school.com>
Subject: Re: replace line in file
Message-Id: <01bd85d3$6dd7e120$7df486cd@myname>
Ryan McGuigan <ryan@mail.ramresearch.com> wrote in article
<6k4k74$nk6$1@news13.ispnews.com>...
> I need to replace a single line in a text file, I'd like to be able to
> open it in read/write mode, read down to the correct line and replace it
> with something else. The problem is, if the line I'm overwriting is
> longer than the new line, it doesn't overwrite the whole line.
Check the 5th section of the FAQ which recommends using temporary files.
Lance
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:12:14 GMT
From: ced@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Charles DeRykus)
Subject: Re: Sequestration
Message-Id: <EtDpoE.9H1@news.boeing.com>
In article <MPG.fcf86406eb300039896e9@news.min.net>,
John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
>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.
>
>
And I backed Tom all the way - I'm glad though he was the
one fighting the infidels :)
--
Charles DeRykus
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:18:31 GMT
From: ced@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Charles DeRykus)
Subject: Re: Timeout problem
Message-Id: <EtDpyv.9yt@news.boeing.com>
In article <6k4rmm$2f9$1@baker.cc.tut.fi>,
Tommi Reiman <tkr@assari.cc.tut.fi> wrote:
> How could I set out a timeout for a function so that if it dosn't return
>a value in $timeout seconds, the function will be 'killed'??
>
>
perldoc -f alarm
On most non-Unix systems though, alarm's not available.
--
Charles DeRykus
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 22:42:44 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <6k4v14$15r$1@client3.news.psi.net>
robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote on MDCCXXV September
MCMXCIII in <URL: news:wsnlnru1016.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>:
++ abigail@fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
++ >
++ > Other points in the list only mention 'manual'. But the point for Perl
++ > adds "free". And the context given are "proprietary books". IT DOES NOT
++ > SAY A SINGLE BIT ABOUT THE EXISTING MANUALS. It doesn't say that the
++ > manuals aren't free in FSF religion. It says that there are proprietary
++ > books.
++ >
++
++ Tom C. was originally complaining because his manuals are free[1] and
++ that wasn't recognized by the page. That's why people keep bringing up
++ the existing manuals. No need to yell.
++
++ Probably the existing free[2] manuals should be mentioned. It is
++ possible that they did not exist or the F[3]SF was not aware of them at
++ the time the page was written - apparently it is a pretty old task
++ list item.
It's quite silly to call them "urgent" then. Someone might pick an
item, invest time to write documentation, only to hear "oh nice, but
that was done 3 years ago". I've been working with Perl for more than
3 years now. All that time there was good, free documentation available.
If the FSF can't update their list of "urgent tasks" every 3 years,
what's the point in putting them on the web? (Considering the copyrights
mentioned on the document are of 1997 and 1998 - no year prior is
mentioned).
++ FWIW the FSF is sort of out-of-touch and out-of-date as a general
++ rule. For example, the latest GNU Bulletin is full of minor
++ inaccuracies about various GNU projects. I don't think RMS really
++ follows most forums where discussion takes place, or surfs the net, or
++ however it is people stay up with the latest developments in the
++ free[4] software world.
I'd say it's extremely out of touch in this case. If you can't be
bothered updating your list of tasks every now and then - don't
publish them.
Abigail
--
perl -wle\$_=\<\<EOT\;y/\\n/\ /\;print\; -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -eEOT
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:24:35 -0500
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <keithmur@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Win32 NT Perl Wrapper
Message-Id: <3565FB22.28F82BB5@mindspring.com>
Cameron Dorey wrote:
>
> [cc'd to gs]
>
> Good morning, Gurusamy,
>
> Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
> >
> [snip about AS Win32 port]
> >
> > As for the necessity of wrappers, consider the fact that file associations
> > are broken for redirections. Or that they're not available in
> > poor-mans-win32 (aka Windows95).
>
> Maybe I misunderstand you here and/or file associations, but in using
> your Win32 port under Win95, I "associated" .pl files with perl.exe just
> like you do in NT and can double-click on a script and get it to run,
> such as the simple example below (testassoc1.pl):
>
> #!/dummy_path_to_perl -w
>
> open (OUTFILE, ">c:/testfile.txt") || die "open: $!";
>
> print OUTFILE "This is a test.";
>
> close (OUTFILE) || die "can't close c:/testfile.txt: $!";
>
> A DOS box appears for an instant, closes, and testfile.txt shows up in
> the c: directory just fine. Am I missing something here, are we talking
> apples and oranges?
>
Another nice way to do it is make a program that uses CreateProcess() to
fire off the 'perl whatever.pl' command; then you can manipulate STDIN,
STDOUT, STDERR however you like. You can make it have a window or not,
as you please. I wrote a Delphi program that does this and is smart
enough to know not to make a window if all the STD*s are directed to
files or the null device.
Frankly, I'd rather *not* associate the .pl with perl; Notepad is my
preferred association, so I can look at them when I click them.
------------------------------
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 2696
**************************************
