[9101] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2719 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue May 26 00:07:25 1998
Date: Mon, 25 May 98 21:00:25 -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 Mon, 25 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2719
Today's topics:
Re: An unwelcome and undeserved slap (E. Gkioulekas)
Re: An unwelcome and undeserved slap (Josh Fishman)
Re: c.l.p.misc is `perl support' (was Re: O'Reilly has <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Jimen Ching)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Jimen Ching)
Copylefting manuals <rao+usenet@oryxsoft.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Josh Fishman)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <rra@stanford.edu>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <rra@stanford.edu>
Have we got a good free Perl manual? <rao+usenet@oryxsoft.com>
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx (Bob Trieger)
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx <ljz@asfast.com>
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx <jdf@pobox.com>
Re: Problem with Renaming a file to a new name that's s <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Re: random file names (was: Re: Randon files in Perl 5? <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Splitting A Text Area <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Why can't I my() a typeglob reference? <mgregory@asc.sps.mot.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 01:38:43 GMT
From: egkioule@u.washington.edu (E. Gkioulekas)
Subject: Re: An unwelcome and undeserved slap
Message-Id: <6kd6f3$256c$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>egkioule@u.washington.edu (E. Gkioulekas) writes:
>> I agree with you that the two communities should think of themselves as
>> allies.
>One point on which Tom has been actively misleading people is that
>this is some sort of war between 2 separate communities -- it isn't.
>I've contributed to both perl and the FSF, and I think Tom's flamewar
>is an incredibly unconstructive act. I suspect I'm not that unusual.
I have also contributed both to Perl, Tcl and FSF-related stuff. This is why
I don't want to see the leaders of these communities to think and speak
in territorial terms. There is no war between our communities, and I hope
everyone realizes that no matter what Tom or anyone says, the _communities_
should not allow such a war to begin.
Elef.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:22:03 -0400
From: josh@vortex.nyu.edu (Josh Fishman)
Subject: Re: An unwelcome and undeserved slap
Message-Id: <slrn6mk9sv.clr.josh@vortex.nyu.edu>
On 25 May 1998 15:51:33 GMT, Greg Lindahl
<lindahl@pbm.com> wrote:
>egkioule@u.washington.edu (E. Gkioulekas) writes:
>
>> I agree with you that the two communities should think of themselves as
>> allies.
>
>One point on which Tom has been actively misleading people is that
>this is some sort of war between 2 separate communities -- it isn't.
>I've contributed to both perl and the FSF, and I think Tom's flamewar
>is an incredibly unconstructive act. I suspect I'm not that unusual.
I do hope that what both of you (the above quoted authors) express
isn't unusual. Personally, I find Tom's references to RMS, the GPL
and the GNU community insulting and emberassing. E.G.:
>> >That web page and the subsequent commentary offered by their attendant
>> >sycophants constitute nothing short of a veiled yet viscious insult
>> >hurled at those of us who've worked incredibly hard for more a decade
>> >to produce the free 1,000 page book that *is* the Perl documentation.
- Josh
--
O< ( ( [ Linux: the choice of a GNU generation. ]
_NH >=O ) ) [ ]
<_>-<_ + :::::-. [ ``Is that spam? One measly little 2K message?'' ]
HCl<O> :::`-' [ -- Kevin Reichard <reichard@mr.net> ]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 02:14:25 GMT
From: Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Subject: Re: c.l.p.misc is `perl support' (was Re: O'Reilly has helped promote the acceptance of Perl)
Message-Id: <8caf8593sy.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com>
>>>>> "Russell" == Russell Schulz <Russell_Schulz@locutus.ofB.ORG> writes:
Russell> a. a book is `support'?
Russell> b. usenet is `support'?!
Russell> please clarify.
Please clarify your need for clarification. It seems mighty clear to
me, and to the thousands of others that turn to my books and Usenet
every day for help.
print "Just another Perl hacker," # but not what the media calls "hacker!" :-)
## legal fund: $20,990.69 collected, $186,159.85 spent; just 98 more days
## before I go to *prison* for 90 days; email fund@stonehenge.com for details
--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@teleport.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 17:05:39 +1000
From: jching@flex.com (Jimen Ching)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <356a3183.0@coconut-wireless>
Stefaan A Eeckels (Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu) wrote:
>When an original program uses a library that is under the GPL,
>and such a library is not a copy or workalike of an existing
>library (such as libc), but an original work (eg the SANE
>scanner libraries, or the KDE base libraries[1]), the program
>should be released under the GPL, as it is considered to be
>a derivative work.
This is exactly what I was trying to disprove. Now, with this
paragraph in mind, please REREAD my post and answer questions
1, 2 and 3. Specifically, I am questioning the concept of a
'unique' library. When you refer to a library, please assume
the definition of a library is 'a library [that] is not a copy
or workalike of an existing library'. This is a distinction of
the definition of a library that I've never heard before.
I do not believe the copyright law makes such distinction.
Answer questions 1, 2 and 3 to prove me wrong.
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) jching@flex.com wh6brr@uhm.ampr.org
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 17:26:39 +1000
From: jching@flex.com (Jimen Ching)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <356a366f.0@coconut-wireless>
Barry Margolin (barmar@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
>The GPL doesn't allow you to distribute incomplete derived works that
>require the user to buy other, proprietary software to use them. This
>would permit you to create a derived work that's *almost* functional, but
>then require the user to purchase a little "enabler" from you that makes
>the program work. In order to prohibit these end-runs around the rules,
>the GPL has to prohibit all such combinations.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this can hold up in a court of law. Does
the copyright law allow this restriction? Here's an example.
I write a program that uses the gmp library, libXYZ, and a solaris system
library (libdb or something). I place my code under the GPL. I link my
program dynamically to libXYZ, and the solaris library. But I statically
link with gmp. So when I distribute my program, I must distribute the
source. But I don't have the source to libXYZ or the solaris library.
Did I violate the GPL? Please spare me the OS exception rule. If I
distribute a solaris binary (only). The user must still buy the solaris
hardware and OS and the libXYZ. So this fits the definition of an
'enabler', even with the OS exception rule. Your definition of an
incomplete derived work is invalid. If you disagree, please point me
to the clause in the GPL that you got this definition from. The closest
thing I can remember about an 'incomplete derived work' has something
to do with missing makefiles and/or build tools. There's nothing about
a separate software package, which is what we're talking about here.
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) jching@flex.com wh6brr@uhm.ampr.org
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 22:55:28 -0400
From: Paul Fisher <rao+usenet@oryxsoft.com>
Subject: Copylefting manuals
Message-Id: <87solxoi5b.fsf@io.oryxsoft.com>
[Richard Stallman tried to post this message on Friday May 22 but it
did not get through. He has asked me to post it for him. -- Paul]
In the GNU project, we never use the GNU GPL for manuals. The GPL was
designed for programs, and it is complicated in order to deal with the
issues that arise for programs. For manuals, that complexity is not
necessary. We recommend using a much simpler kind of copyleft for GNU
manuals. (Look at the GNU Emacs Manual, for example.)
Tom Christiansen is concerned that copylefting a manual inevitably
means that examples in it can't be copied into non-free programs.
Whether that consequence would be a bad thing is debatable; but people
should know that this is not an *inevitable* consequence of
copylefting a manual.
If you write a manual, and you want to let people copy the examples
you wrote into their own programs without any limitation, that's as
easy as can be. Just say in the manual that this is permitted, and it
is permitted.
There is complete flexibility in doing this. You can be specific, and
make this exception for particular examples, or you can be general and
do it for all the examples you wrote. You cannot, however, do it for
examples that someone else wrote, unless he gave the copyright to you.
How to handle the examples he wrote is up to him.
One other limit on your flexibility is that you can't stop people from
copying small examples no matter what you say. Small quotations from
a book are "fair use"; people don't need special permission for them.
As a result, this issue is moot for most manuals. It arises only if
the manual contains large examples that are general enough to be
useful to copy. Most manuals do not, but perhaps some do.
If you use a simple copyleft for manuals, as the GNU project does,
then an exception is technically needed even to permit copying the
examples into GPL-covered programs. We would definitely make this
exception if there is a need for it. But I don't think the GNU
manuals contain large examples that are general enough to be useful to
copy into programs. If you think you see one, please let me know.
Is it a good idea to permit using large examples in non-free programs
also? This is a complicated question, and I think the answer depends
on the details. Fairness says no; writing non-free programs is
refusing to cooperate with the free software community, so that
activity does not deserve any help from us. On the other hand, in
some limited cases, it can be useful for free software development to
permit such use--as long as we remember that we are treating the
software privateers better than their actions deserve.
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 23:54:12 -0400
From: Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <8667itadqz.fsf@strangepork.interhack.net>
cmcurtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net> writes:
[I hate following-up to myself, but I've gotten more specific mail
than posted followups. So there are a few things I'd like to clarify
here, out in the open, by now this is probably only going to be read
by the news archivers :-)]
> Tom's writings, collected over a period of years, have been
> surreptitiously copied and modified time and again. He is completely
> justified in his indignation.
Some folks seemed to get the impression that I was confusing Tom's
post with his indignation with publishers and wannabe authors. I was
not. It was my hope to show that there is good reason behind Tom's
restrictive usage guidelines for his documentation.
> What bothers me about the GNU community is that there is a level of
> arrogance in assuming that the One True Way(tm) of software
> development (and apparently documentation, as well!) is based on
It was pointed out that not everyone in the GNU community feels the
same way about this sort of thing. I should not have conveniently
lumped everyone together.
However, the main issue here is an apparent lack of appreciation for
how the Perl community works, and has worked, for a long time. Just
submit patches, documentation updates, etc., to the author in
question. Why the need for reinventing the excellent documentation
that we have?
This problem is complicated by the FSF's somewhat peculiar use of the
word "free". English speaking people worldwide almost always
recognize this to mean "gratis". Even a Debian developer posted a
reply to my question on <news:alt.usage.english> to the effect of the
FSF's definition of "free" in the context of software, but in the case
of a book, he still identified "free" as meaning "gratis".
So it is annoying that the FSF does not recognize Perl documentation
as "free". I'll have more to say about this later.
--
Matt Curtin cmcurtin@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 02:47:38 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6kdaga$8sj$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Birgitt Funk <ngouah@erols.com> writes:
>David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Martin Schwartz <schwartz@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>>
>> > In my opinion the destiny of wide spread free software projects is, that
>> > they will be untied from the creators.
>Why should that be ? Contrary I think if the major work of a project
>was done by one to three persons and the project is released at no-cost
>and with open source code, the authors deserve not only high respect for
>what they are doing, but their authorship should always be respected.
Respect is one thing. Absolute dependence is another.
Many (most) people completely respect Linus Torvalds as the original
author of the Linux kernel, and as long as he wants to co-ordinate it
they will support his decision. But they also want the assurance that
if there is a problem, they don't *have* to rely on Linus (even though
the often do rely on him!). If Linus gets bored of computers and
starts to earn a living as a penguin trainer instead, we can just say
"thank you for all your work" and find someone else who wants the job.
No drama necessary. This is done out of respect. It is not done
because of the licensing.
If Linus (heaven forbid) turns into "Dr Evil" and starts trying to
take over the world with a horde of penguins with laser beams mounted
on their heads, everybody else can (regretfully) decide after a waiting
period where no messages from Linus come from his (evil) penguin cave,
that he probably hasn't got time to work on the kernel anymore,
so we should find someone else (and beware of killer penguins).
If Linus decides that perhaps a microkernel is the way to go after
all, and wants to completely re-write the kernel, ditching previous
efforts, people who want to work on the old kernel can still do that.
In these cases, the original author is respected, and the original
author has shown respect for his peers by acknowledging that they
might part ways at some stage, and so they should use a license
that allows for changes in "ownership".
There are very few cases where any of this stuff has actually happened.
With free software when it does, there is a way to resolve the
situation so that both sides can get their way.
>Since when are people denied the right of recognition if they donate
>huge chuncks of their work to the public ?
Recognition is not a problem, but having control forever is a problem.
>> > I even think that for democratic
>> > reasons this has to be the case.
>What is undemocratic about it ? Like being so democratic and social(istic)
>that we don't respect private ownership anymore ? You should know where
>this ends up, don't you ?
Where does it end up?
Charity?
Public works?
Helping others?
>> This is not the problem, many projects remain bound to one person.
>> What is a problem is when the task is irretrievably bound to one
>> person. Then things can get ugly and out of hand.
>>
>Even this is no real problem. Like in other areas of life you can designate
>other persons of your own trust who can replace your functions and inherit
>your work, be a curator of it and continue to insure that what the founders
>had in mind will be respected, continued and not misrepresented.
You are asking users to trust the author (and representatives), but the
author doesn't trust the users.
>Tom Christiansen should not only write a much, much more precise license,
>but also a will. He has the right to protect his work and he can designate
>a group of people who he thinks understand what his intentions are.
He can do whatever he likes. People are only trying to tell him why
they aren't 100% happy with his documentation. He can agree, disagree,
or agree to disagree. So long as he doesn't stop other people from
writing their own documentation and licensing it as they see fit.
>This thread is vivid proof that sloppy licence language is doing "unspeakable
>damage" to all of you, developers, software users, endusers.
Oh yes, because you have to take a strict interpretation.
If an author wants people to have certain rights with their work, they
should be in a license.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:02:29 -0400
From: josh@vortex.nyu.edu (Josh Fishman)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <slrn6mk8o9.clr.josh@vortex.nyu.edu>
On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:59:08 GMT, le Fanttme
<fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
[ labor analogy; GPL == ``no slave labor'' ]
>In other words, the GNU GPL requires that you foolishly
>anthropomorphise software -- when the software cannot make any
>determination about its own destiny. Further, it requires that you
>foolishly anthropomorphise software when humans cannot be cloned at no
>cost or impact to the original ... like software can.
But, but, but ... in 10 years, when my IA-128 + PPC/G9 + Alpha48
Beowulf cluster gains sentience, I'm betting it'll be friendlier
than it would have been were it based on non-free software.
What will *you* do when your network demands emancipation?
-- Josh ``if they'd only GPL'd SkyNet'' Fishman
--
O< ( ( [ Linux: the choice of a GNU generation. ]
_NH >=O ) ) [ ]
<_>-<_ + :::::-. [ ``Is that spam? One measly little 2K message?'' ]
HCl<O> :::`-' [ -- Kevin Reichard <reichard@mr.net> ]
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 20:36:09 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m367ititzq.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Tyson Richard DOWD <trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au> writes:
> This is all very well, but in the end he is asking the entire Perl
> community to trust him to do the right thing.
Yes. Which this member of the Perl community has absolutely no qualms
whatsoever in doing.
> In other words, he says "I don't trust you not to screw up my
> documentation, so you have to trust me not to screw up my
> documentation".
I disagree with this phrasing of the problem because it makes it sound
much more personal than I believe it actually is. Tom doesn't trust at
least *some* people enough to make his documentation available to everyone
under open licensing terms. He does trust some specific people that much
(such as the Perl release manager). I have no idea if he trusts *me* that
much or not because I've never asked and have no reason to.
A person's decision to not release something under a given license doesn't
mean that they don't trust *you*. That's an overused rhetorical device in
these debates.
> As he is the one doing the work, this is his right, but you can
> understand how people might wish that he would release some control over
> the documentation.
Sure, but it would be nice if those people would show at least some
recognition of the issues involved and phrase their pleas for such
documentation more carefully.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 20:43:19 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m33edxitns.fsf@windlord.Stanford.EDU>
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Stuart Cooper <stuartc@ind.tansu.com.au> writes:
> The FSF is to be applauded for trying to produce free (in their sense)
> documentation for Perl. The O'Reilly Perl books, excellent as they are,
> are not free- I can't photocopy them for friends, download them from the
> web etc. etc. If the O'Reilly books are indispensable documentation for
> Perl as a whole, than Perl as a whole is not free (in the GNU and the
> monetary sense).
You're ignoring the existence of the gratis Perl documentation which comes
with the Perl distribution, which you *can* photocopy for friends and
download from the web, and which is better in many respects than the
O'Reilly books.
> Of more concern is the "commercialisation" of Perl; with O'Reilly
> seemingly becoming the owners of Perl. The Perl Resource Kit (PRK) is
> the most obvious example of this trend; with the non-free "commercially
> enhanced" JPL stuff; it comes with a Software License Agreement (make
> one copy only for backup purposes, register for 30 days free support,
> special discount offers etc).
You've obviously not had the benefit of reading the extensive discussion
on this subject that's been previously posted to the Perl groups. Please
read that before continuing along this vein, as you're laboring under
quite a number of rather incorrect assumptions down to the nature of Larry
Wall's contract with O'Reilly.
> Volumes 1 and 2 of the PRK I found interesting; straight copies of the
> module documentation with a 'compilation copyright' (the compilation
> doesn't seem that original either; the chapters are organised in the
> same order as a view of CPAN. Maybe CPAN is in violation of ORA's
> "compilation copyright"?)
I have a module in the PRK; I was asked in advance, like every other
author of that documentation, if it could be included. The terms clearly
did not cause me to lose any rights to my material. Again, you're
unfamiliar with the details of the situation.
> The copyrighting of the image of a camel is another interesting issue.
Trademarking.
> It makes me wonder where Perl is heading. How much of Perl is free, how
> much will remain free?
Please familiarize yourself with what Larry Wall has to say on this
subject rather than randomly speculating on the basis of incomplete
information.
> Tom C, O'Reilly have made a comfortable living from making non-free
> documentation on free GNU software.
You have no idea from what sources Tom Christiansen derives his income.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -- Russ Allbery, Just Another Perl Hacker
$^=q;@!>~|{>krw>yn{u<$$<[~||<Juukn{=,<S~|}<Jwx}qn{<Yn{u<Qjltn{ > 0gFzD gD,
00Fz, 0,,( 0hF 0g)F/=, 0> "L$/GEIFewe{,$/ 0C$~> "@=,m,|,(e 0.), 01,pnn,y{
rw} >;,$0=q,$,,($_=$^)=~y,$/ C-~><@=\n\r,-~$:-u/ #y,d,s,(\$.),$1,gee,print
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 22:48:13 -0400
From: Paul Fisher <rao+usenet@oryxsoft.com>
Subject: Have we got a good free Perl manual?
Message-Id: <87vhqtoihe.fsf@io.oryxsoft.com>
[Richard Stallman tried to post this message on Saturday, but it did
not get through. He has asked me to post it for him. -- Paul]
Once upon a time, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a copy of a
free manual, but I found it simply unreadable, and gave up. Perl
users told me that there were better manuals, but they were not free.
Why was this? Their authors had sold the manuals to O'Reilly, instead
of contributing them to the free software community. It wasn't the
first time and (to our community's great loss) it was far from the
last. O'Reilly and other publishers have enticed a great many authors
to withhold their manuals since then. Partly as a result of this,
partly because writing good English is a skill which most good
programmers have not studied, a lack of documentation is one of the
worst deficiencies of free operating systems today.
Perl is an important piece of free software, and it ought to have a
*good* free manual. So I added this item to the GNU task list, hoping
this would encourage someone to write one.
That was a few years ago. If there is now a good free manual, that's
great. I'm always glad to remove an item from the task list because
the job has been done. I might even buy a copy of this manual, if
someone is selling them--especially if it is O'Reilly. (If we buy
O'Reilly manuals only when they are free, we can encourage O'Reilly to
publish and sell more free manuals.)
But before I start celebrating, I ought to verify the facts--in
particular, verify that the manual in question is actually free. The
criterion for free documentation is basically the same as for free
software: users have to be free to redistribute it, with or without
changes, either gratis or for a fee, in any medium.
As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to
have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues
for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For
example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to
modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our
views.
But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
for a manual for free software. The most natural use of such a manual
is to distribute it in free operating systems, along with the program
it documents. And when people exercise their right to modify the
software, and add or change its features, if they are conscientious
they will change the manual too--so they can provide accurate and
usable documentation with the modified program. A manual which
forbids people to be conscientious and finish the job, or more
precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch, does not
do the job.
While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
kinds of limits on modification are ok. For example, requirements to
preserve the original author's copyright notice, the distribution
terms, or the list of authors, are ok. It is also ok to have entire
sections that may not be deleted or changed, as long as these sections
deal with nontechnical topics. (Some GNU manuals have them.) These
restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical matter, they
don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to
fit the modified program. In other words, they are ok because they
don't block the free software community from doing its thing with the
program and the manual together.
However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of
the manual; otherwise, the restrictions do block the community, the
manual is not free, and we need another manual.
To be sure, many users find non-free manuals "useful". And they can
indeed be useful, in a purely materialistic sense, just as non-free
software can. What they can't be is part of the free software
community.
I expect that I'll soon know whether Perl now has a good free manual.
I hope that the answer will be yes, and that I'll be able to delete
that item from the GNU task list. If not, I hope that someone will
change the distribution terms on an existing good manual, or write a
new one. O'Reilly is just beginning to contribute to our community;
most of what they do is still non-free, and thus no contribution. If
O'Reilly's Perl manual is still non-free, making it free would be a
fine way to take the next step in actually contributing to free
software.
Copyright 1998 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium
provided this notice is preserved.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 02:08:29 GMT
From: Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <8ciumt942u.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com>
>>>>> "Lloyd" == Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com> writes:
Lloyd> But the person asking for the location of the Perl beta was
Lloyd> almost certainly not a "newbie".
With this, I must disagree explicitly.
See my other post.
The original requestor is "sneex" -- someone who is wanting to be very
helpful, but cannot distinguish what is known from what is guessed,
and had to be corrected frequently when posting so-called "answers"
both here and in CIWAC.
And I found it ironic that sneex doesn't even know enough about the
CPAN to figure out where the new betas are stored. <sigh> This is
even more proof that current, future, and prior answers from sneex
about Perl things should be taken with several grains of salt.
I don't mind people answering questions... let's just try to keep the
"percentage correctly answered" better than 70%, ok?
print "Just another Perl hacker," # but not what the media calls "hacker!" :-)
## legal fund: $20,990.69 collected, $186,159.85 spent; just 98 more days
## before I go to *prison* for 90 days; email fund@stonehenge.com for details
--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@teleport.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 02:30:18 GMT
From: sowmaster@juicepigs.com (Bob Trieger)
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <6kd9ia$kb6$3@ligarius.ultra.net>
[ posted and mailed ]
Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
-> The original requestor is "sneex" -- someone who is wanting to be very
-> helpful, but cannot distinguish what is known from what is guessed,
-> and had to be corrected frequently when posting so-called "answers"
-> both here and in CIWAC.
Is this personal attack of Sneex really called for? We can't all be experts
and isn't a guess almost as good the correct answer? In most cases, somebody
elses guess will atleast lead you in the right direction or better yet may
prompt somebody else such as yourself to correct the guess whereas you
werten't going to reply to the original question?
-> And I found it ironic that sneex doesn't even know enough about the
-> CPAN to figure out where the new betas are stored. <sigh> This is
-> even more proof that current, future, and prior answers from sneex
-> about Perl things should be taken with several grains of salt.
Nobody's word should be taken as gospel, just as suggestion. I'm not going to
take Sneex' any less nor any more serious than I did before that post. I agree
that perhaps he should have done a little more research before acting in haste
and asking for a hand out publicly, but everyone makes mistakes.
-> I don't mind people answering questions... let's just try to keep the
-> "percentage correctly answered" better than 70%, ok?
Where are the numbers that say Sneex is wrong more than 30% of the time? Or
are you just guessing?
Shit, I'd be happy if 50% of my answers were correct.
Bob Trieger
sowmaster@juicepigs.com
" Cost a spammer some cash: Call 1-888-821-1954
and hang up when somebody answers "
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 22:48:42 -0400
From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <lt4sydrblh.fsf@asfast.com>
Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Lloyd" == Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com> writes:
>
> Lloyd> But the person asking for the location of the Perl beta was
> Lloyd> almost certainly not a "newbie".
>
> With this, I must disagree explicitly.
>
> See my other post.
>
> The original requestor is "sneex" -- someone who is wanting to be very
> helpful, but cannot distinguish what is known from what is guessed,
> and had to be corrected frequently when posting so-called "answers"
> both here and in CIWAC.
>
> And I found it ironic that sneex doesn't even know enough about the
> CPAN to figure out where the new betas are stored. <sigh> This is
> even more proof that current, future, and prior answers from sneex
> about Perl things should be taken with several grains of salt.
>
> I don't mind people answering questions... let's just try to keep the
> "percentage correctly answered" better than 70%, ok?
Well, I don't see how the question of a person's "newbie" status, or
ability to give correct answers more than 70% of the time, or ability
to locate a compressed tar file on CPAN are relevant to his or her
"worthiness" (for lack of a better term at the moment) to play with
the latest Perl beta.
On the other hand, by now "sneex" has no doubt found the latest beta,
and this has certainly become a case of whipping a dead horse ... with
a goodly portion of the flagellation having come from me.
So, I hereby cease.
But I'm still chuckling at the aptness of that "stone knife"
metaphor. :)
> [ ... ]
--
Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com
perl -e '$n=170;for($d=2;($d*$d)<=$n;$d+=(1+($d%2))){for($t=0;($n%$d)==0;
$t++){$n=int($n/$d);}while($t-->0){push(@r,$d);}}if($n>1){push(@r,$n);}
$x=0;map{$x+=(($_>0)?(1<<log($_-0.5)/log(2.0)+1):1)}@r;print"$x\n"'
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 03:34:14 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980525200743.7133G-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 25 May 1998, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> Well, I don't see how the question of a person's "newbie" status, or
> ability to give correct answers more than 70% of the time, or ability
> to locate a compressed tar file on CPAN are relevant to his or her
> "worthiness" (for lack of a better term at the moment) to play with
> the latest Perl beta.
When I posted the message which suggested that would-be users of
experimental versions of Perl should search CPAN for themselves, perhaps I
worded it in a way which made my intentions unclear. I apologize for that.
My intention was especially to keep some reader of this newsgroup from
seeing that URL to the source for a not-even-beta-yet version of Perl,
thinking that that was the latest-and-greatest Perl, installing it in
place of their current, working binary, and having a miserable life as a
result. :-)
If anyone - including the original poster - had asked me in private email
for the URL, I'd be glad to comply. Of course, I'd also recommend that the
standard non-experimental debugged ready-for-prime-time version be the
real one that they should use for any vital task, but it's always their
choice. It was never my intention to deny access to anyone.
"Common things should be easy, uncommon
things should at least be possible."
Cheers!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 23:54:32 -0400
From: Jonathan Feinberg <jdf@pobox.com>
To: sowmaster@juicepigs.com (Bob Trieger)
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <wkk9798z5z.fsf@mailhost.panix.com>
sowmaster@juicepigs.com (Bob Trieger) writes:
> Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
> -> The original requestor is "sneex" -- someone who is wanting to be very
> -> helpful, but cannot distinguish what is known from what is guessed,
> -> and had to be corrected frequently when posting so-called "answers"
> -> both here and in CIWAC.
>
> Is this personal attack of Sneex really called for?
That's not a personal attack, not by any stretch of the imagination.
It is indeed a criticism, but not ad hominem at all.
--
Jonathan Feinberg jdf@pobox.com Sunny Brooklyn, NY
http://pobox.com/~jdf/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 02:11:49 GMT
From: Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with Renaming a file to a new name that's specified by a variable
Message-Id: <8cemxh93xa.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com>
>>>>> "Zenin" == Zenin <zenin@bawdycaste.org> writes:
Zenin> Arthur Dardia <ahdiii@webspan.net> wrote:
Zenin> : In my CGI problem, I have the following code:
Zenin> :
Zenin> : rename "../htdocs/toast/matches/temp.html",
Zenin> : "../htdocs/toast/matches/'.$in{filename}.'";
Zenin> Always, always, always test your return values of system calls....
Zenin> One more hint: Unless your CGI script does it's own chdir(), the
Zenin> exact location that it's run could be anywere. Because of this
Zenin> relative paths such as "../somewhere" are *very* likely to fail.
And a much bigger problem... are you SERIOUSLY taking arbitrary
form input and using it in a pathname? Scary! Very scary!
print "Just another Perl hacker," # but not what the media calls "hacker!" :-)
## legal fund: $20,990.69 collected, $186,159.85 spent; just 98 more days
## before I go to *prison* for 90 days; email fund@stonehenge.com for details
--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@teleport.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 02:33:58 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: random file names (was: Re: Randon files in Perl 5?)
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980525193303.7133C-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Alex Barilo wrote:
> Tom Phoenix wrote in message ...
> > BEGIN {
> > my $count = 0;
> > my $base = "/tmp/mytemp.$$.$^T";
> > sub temp_name { $count++; "$base.$count"; }
> > }
> >
> >Of course, there's no guarantee that you won't have a filename collision
> >this way, but it's pretty unlikely. Hope this helps!
>
>
> Yes, this is highly likely if I have several copies of my script running.
Only on a system which doesn't support process-IDs ($$), right? If you
don't have pids, is there some other way to distinguish copies of your
scripts?
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 02:37:37 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Splitting A Text Area
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980525193452.7133D-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Mon, 25 May 1998, David Stinemetze wrote:
> How do you split a text area to get differnt variables
I'd probably use one or more of the functions in perlfunc, depending upon
just what I wanted to do. Maybe something like this.
my @words = split / /, $textarea;
Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 10:11:35 +0930
From: Martin Gregory <mgregory@asc.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Why can't I my() a typeglob reference?
Message-Id: <r8solxkgn4.fsf_-_@asc.sps.mot.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> But there are big problems there in both cases. Passing \*STDOUT is
> much better, as is passing \&something is much better.
>
> &callme(\&SOMETHING);
> &something(\*STDOUT);
>
> I don't understand what the big fear here is.
I'm afraid for various reasons of confusion. Maybe someone can clarify
one. Why can't I do
open(FH, $FileName) or die;
my $FilePointerThingo = \*FH;
@Contents = <$FilePointerThingo>;
(Am I correct in understaning that I can't do that: somewhere I read
that you have to use local() instead, which scares me, because I don't
understand why.)
I think I'd feel a lot happier if I understood that! (Because then I
could just hide that nasty typeglob reference in a nice my variable and
never worry about it again.)
Thanks,
Martin.
------------------------------
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 2719
**************************************
