[9102] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2720 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue May 26 04:08:05 1998
Date: Tue, 26 May 98 01:00:36 -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 Tue, 26 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2720
Today's topics:
Re: An unwelcome and undeserved slap (Rodger Donaldson)
Best way to load ASCII files <ericbasley@usa.net>
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <shimpei+usenet+.mil+.gov@BOFH.patnet.caltech.edu>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil birgitt@my-dejanews.com
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil rjk@greenend.org.uk
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Jim Freeman)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Handling Dates Help Please johnny99@sydney.dialix.oz.au
help! sort data / build a database <feng@haas.berkeley.edu>
Making an executable from perl script <jamessun@clp.com.hk>
Re: Making an executable from perl script (Martien Verbruggen)
Re: Perl 5.005_xxx <ljz@asfast.com>
Perl for Internet Programming <bgebhart@juno.com>
Re: Perl for Internet Programming <choirboy@rocketmail.com>
Re: Perl for Internet Programming <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: random file names (was: Re: Randon files in Perl 5? <p-fein@uchicago.edu>
SDBM_File growing huge, why? (Tuomas Toivonen)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 04:01:05 +0000
From: rodgerd@orwell.rm.gen.nz (Rodger Donaldson)
Subject: Re: An unwelcome and undeserved slap
Message-Id: <slrn6mkfk1.m8.rodgerd@orwell.rm.gen.nz>
On 26 May 1998 01:33:33 GMT, E. Gkioulekas <egkioule@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Let me explain why. When we talk of a kernel, it's called Linux. No doubt
>about that. When we talk of a system, I claim we should call it GNU/Linux.
You really want *another* thread on this?
Well, you might as well call it GNU/Netscape/XFree86/A variety of authors and
organisations who have contributed code/Linux. And start referring to
GNU-FreeBSD, too.
--
Rodger Donaldson rodgerd@ihug.co.nz
The Pinguin Patrol
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:09:44 +0200
From: eric basley <ericbasley@usa.net>
Subject: Best way to load ASCII files
Message-Id: <356A6AB8.99F79F6E@usa.net>
I'm in the process of building an automate enterely in Perl to load our
main databases.
Input data are made of ASCII files : delimited and fixed width files.
Do you know the best way to load files ?
My wishes is to be able to bind formats specification to files and then
to view files as tables.
Thanks.
Eric.
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 00:34:04 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6kdk8c$8t5$1@Mars.mcs.net>
In article <3569ac1f.0@news.ivm.net>, <Klaus.Schilling@home.ivm.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> >Proprietary software like oracle is immoral.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think that? I can understand the concept that you do
>>>> not want to pay for software that someone else developed and therefore
>>>> owns. I don't understand the concept that the existence of
>>>> this work is immoral. Is someone harmed by the fact that this
>>>> work, which wouldn't otherwise exist, is available to people willing
>>>> to help recover the cost of it's development and encourage further
>>>> such work?
>
>Intellectual property is theft from the collective consciousness, thus evil.
Does that mean you believe that all ideas are 'discovered', as opposed
to being created by individual effort?
>Irrelevant. Anyone who has not been spoilt by multimedia junk and evil
>proprietarists like M$, Lotu$, Apple, Oracle, ... , and is not a
>fool or teenie, can use the best software of all times, the GNU Emacs on a
>vt100, instead of all the wysiwyg junk.
How about a cave wall and some colored berries for pigment?
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 07:30:05 GMT
From: Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6kdr1t$nop$1@justus.ecc.lu>
In article <356a3183.0@coconut-wireless>,
jching@flex.com (Jimen Ching) writes:
> 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.
Your scenario is a bit confused, as you state in point 7 that
you found a bug in your own code and fixed it. You didn't
state that you re-tested the program against the MS library
(sloppy ;-). The user then hit the same bug (8) running your
corrected code with the MS library (so you *did not* validate
your bug fix ;-). This implies that your program needs the
GPL'ed library to run, and would be considered a derivative
work *if* you'd stipulate that in the installation instructions.
If you develop a program that runs on vanilla MS Windows, it
doesn't matter how you developed it (unless, again, you
specifically copied code from someone else). If you install
a library, and test against it, you don't make a derivative
work, for Chrissakes.
Now for your questions:
> 1. At what point was the law broken?
In the scenario you describe, the law was not broken.
> 2. Can you provide a legal document that supports your conclusion?
No.
> 3. Can you point to the clause in the GPL that supports your conclusion?
GPL section 2 paragraph 2:
These requirements apply to to the modified work
as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work
are not derived from the Program, and can be
*resonably* considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them *as separate works*.
But when you distribute the same sections as part
of a whole which is a work based on the Program,
the distribution of the whole must be on terms
of this License, whose permissions for other
licenses extend to the entire whole, and thus to
each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
[my highlights]
So quite clearly, the GPL states that a section that can
a work that can be reasonably considered to be independent,
and is so distributed, doesn't fall under its terms.
If you distribute it as a whole (and stating that your
program needs the GPL'ed library to run qualifies for
the moniker 'part of a whole which is a work based on
the Program'), then your stuff is also covered by the
GPL.
This is all plain common sense.
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Williams and Holland's Law: If enough data is collected,
anything may be proven by statistical methods.
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 06:54:08 GMT
From: Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <6kdoug$njn$1@justus.ecc.lu>
In article <356a366f.0@coconut-wireless>,
jching@flex.com (Jimen Ching) writes:
> 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.
Again. If the program is solely your own work, and the license
for libXYZ and libdb do not state that you have to impose a
particular license on code using them, you have no problem.
You cannot, ever, violate the GPL with your own work, because
*you* decide how to license *your* code. By placing it under
the GPL, you simply cannot violate the GPL, ever. If you'd distribute
libXYZ and libdb, you might be violating *their* licenses, but
you certainly can not violate the GPL, as it doesn't apply to
them.
AFAIK, all commercial OS and compiler licenses state that you
*are* allowed to link against their libraries without restriction.
They don't allow you to copy the product, but many specifically
allow the distribution of certain core libraries. After all,
developing programs that use the services of the OS and/or
compiler is the 'raison d'etre' of such products.
Summary: you cannot violate the GPL when you release your
code under it (unless your code is a work derived
from GPL'ed code).
IANAL, but my uncle is ;-)
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Williams and Holland's Law: If enough data is collected,
anything may be proven by statistical methods.
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 04:59:30 GMT
From: Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei+usenet+.mil+.gov@BOFH.patnet.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6kdi7i$7qh@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> writes:
>
>Abigail (abigail@fnx.com) wrote in article <6k4tnh$tl$1@client3.news.psi.net>
>]perl -wleprint -eqq-@{[ -eqw\\- -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -e\\-]}-
>
>
>~% perl -wleprint -eqq-@{[ -eqw\\- -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -e\\-]}-
>Missing ].
>~%
>
>Just another bit of buggy code ? :-)
No, just another shell that wants [ for itself. It runs fine under sh.
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.patnet.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
perl -w -e '$_="not a perl hacker\n";$q=qq;(.);x9;$qq=qq;345123h896789,;;;$s=
pack(qq;H6;,q;6a7573;);$qq=qq;s,^$q,$s$qq;;$qq=~s;(\d);\$$1;g;eval$qq;print;'
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 04:33:34 GMT
From: birgitt@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6kdgmv$917$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
In article <6kcga6$nbr$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>
>
> But open source does mean that the software is not tied to its
> original authors. Anyone who wants to can come along and modify
> the software, or even fork off new versions. Forking off a new
> version does not imply that you don't respect the authors work
> or that you want to deny them recognition.
Then can you please explain the following situation to me:
[non technical newbie]
Someone develops a software package written in Perl.
He starts of with a very small GPLed program, written by someone
else and starts building on it.
Soon the second author's work is much, much larger than the first
first author's work. It stays GPLed, each having their copyrights
for their own part of the package.
The package grows tremendously, because the second author puts
everything he got into it, includes many, many modules from other
authors also all GPLed which are all distributed with the package.
Now let's say six authors are to some extent involved to make the
package as a whole workable.
The package starts to get quite complex, quite powerful
and is used by thousands of ISPs and endusers. It is crucial that
it works properly, as the ISPs use it for commercial use and
let the enduser pay for it.
It is a typical consumer oriented application, and in this
sense very much like other ordinary goods and services.
Now, the second author, who did ninety percent of all the
work on the package, has the right to change the licence
under which he is distributing the package, as he is as
the main author of the package the only person who is allowed
to change the license from being GPLed to something of
his liking, at least that's what I believe.
He still can decide to make it open source
and non-profit, but might want to distribute it differently
and find some kind of monetary support for future development
of the package.
He could also decide to make it a for-profit product.
Now, I think it gets a bit complicated.
How do you take care of all the other authors, especially
if their input was minor ?
The more authors modify the package, add to it
the more likely it get's too complex and eventually
buggy or dangerous. Who takes the responsability
and does the work to check if all the modifications
work together. Most probably the main author has to
and will.
I learned in this thread that one can not even sue MS
for damages through faulty software (kudos for Ford ;-).
All the GPLed software has always paragraphs like "no
merchantibility, no liability" etc in their copyright
statements, which obviously needs to be there during
the development process.
But why should that be a good thing if a software package
comes into its final stage of development? I understand the
advantage of having "the world community" democratically
developing software, but then in the end, you might want to
have a product which is safe and you want someone standing
up for the product and you also might want a product which
has a final point of development and no upgrades anymore.
So I can't imagine that any originally under GPL developed
software can stay that way for ever.
And it's quite complicated to change the license, if so many
parties were involved in the development.
Am I wrong, naiv ? Please teach me a lesson ;-). I want to learn.
>
> But in any case, we're not talking about forcing people to release
> their software as open source. We are discussing (or at least I am)
> the reasons why open source software is better for the public.
>
I thought, you can have open source software and not being under GPL.
Birgitt Funk
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 03:03:43 +0100
From: rjk@greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <wwv90npg54w.fsf@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
adam@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk (Adam Spiers) writes:
> You have stated your respect for Tom and obviously appreciate
> not only the enormous contributions he's made to Perl but also
> his enormous intellect (let's not beat about the bush here :-).
> Why, then, do you assume that Tom has not thought very carefully
> about what he is trying to achieve?
As far as I can tell his objective, with regard to Perl documentation,
is to provide good Perl documentation which is free according to his
definition.
Doing things like referring to the idea of GPL'd documentation as
"unspeakable evil" in no way helps this objective, and very possibly
alienates those who think the GPL is a good thing - many of whom would
otherwise be allies in the general field of free software.
So, the reason I don't think he's thought things out particularly
carefully is that he's choosing what I consider a very bad method of
achieving his goals.
YMMV.
> I can understand you being put off by his emotional language,
> but I suspect that if your written work had been abused like
> some of his has, you would feel as strongly as he does about
> those issues, so please try not to let it bother you. The
> important issues are not how emotional the language is, but what
> the language is trying to say.
It'd be nice if that were true. Unfortunately, it's not only
important what you say, but how you say it. For example, if I were to
punctuate everything I wrote with personal insults to other readers of
this newsgroup, I doubt I'd be taken very seriously.
(Maybe nobody takes me seriously anyway, but that's not the point.)
> If I understand the issues correctly myself (and please correct
> me if I'm wrong, which is entirely possible as I haven't had
> enough time to follow the whole discussion), Tom's main
> objection to the Perl documentation being GPLed is that it
> restricts how people can use the code examples from it in their
> own code. In other words, he wants the Perl documentation to be
> "free" in an even stronger sense than the GPL! How anyone can
> object to this I have no idea.
(I think you ought to read the copyright notices to perlfaq and
perltoot.)
You wouldn't build a house using only a hammer; similarly, sometimes
to make the best of a copyright work, it's sometimes appropriate to
use more than one license
One could distribute a manual as a whole under the GPL but also place
example code containing in it in the public domain; this would achieve
the goal you describe above. Licensing the whole work under similar
terms to X11 (or BSD, without the advertising clause) would also work.
However, the perltoot license (for example) prohibits modification.
So if we're going to argue about weaker or stronger senses of freedom,
it has much less freedom than a GPL'd work.
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1998 23:26:59 -0600
From: jfree@caldera.com (Jim Freeman)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6kdjr3$jau$1@caldera.com>
In article <392E8AF883790FB2.47102D500F233DB8.9532F9C163CA3B4F@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
le Fanttme <fantome/@/usa/./net> wrote:
>On 25 May 1998 12:18:45 +1000, Stuart Cooper
><stuartc@ind.tansu.com.au> wrote:
...
>>Richard Stallman might ask for our money; but he doesn't sell out his ideals.
>
>He can't find buyers for his ideals -- only zealots.
...
He found what he was looking for ?
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 08:25:49 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m2lnrp8s5u.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
birgitt@my-dejanews.com writes:
@> Someone develops a software package written in Perl.
@>
@> He starts of with a very small GPLed program, written by someone
@> else and starts building on it.
@>
@> Soon the second author's work is much, much larger than the first
@> first author's work. It stays GPLed, each having their copyrights
@> for their own part of the package.
@>
@> The package grows tremendously, because the second author puts
@> everything he got into it, includes many, many modules from other
@> authors also all GPLed which are all distributed with the package.
@> Now let's say six authors are to some extent involved to make the
@> package as a whole workable.
@>
@> The package starts to get quite complex, quite powerful
@> and is used by thousands of ISPs and endusers. It is crucial that
@> it works properly, as the ISPs use it for commercial use and
@> let the enduser pay for it.
@>
@> It is a typical consumer oriented application, and in this
@> sense very much like other ordinary goods and services.
@>
@> Now, the second author, who did ninety percent of all the
@> work on the package, has the right to change the licence
@> under which he is distributing the package, as he is as
@> the main author of the package the only person who is allowed
@> to change the license from being GPLed to something of
@> his liking, at least that's what I believe.
Wrong. In that case he is in violation of the original GPL license
under which he acquired the original small GPL program. He first has
to completely replace it by something written by him.
@> He still can decide to make it open source
@> and non-profit, but might want to distribute it differently
@> and find some kind of monetary support for future development
@> of the package.
@>
@> He could also decide to make it a for-profit product.
@>
@> Now, I think it gets a bit complicated.
@>
@> How do you take care of all the other authors, especially
@> if their input was minor ?
This is easy. Either you have a copyright waiver signed by them
agreeing not to sue you for use of their stuff. Or you risk being
sued by them for breach of the copyright on their contribution which
can be reasonably assumed to be done under the GPL. Or you replace
each contribution by something written entirely by you.
[...]
@> But why should that be a good thing if a software package
@> comes into its final stage of development?
Hypothetical. No software reaches that state.
@> So I can't imagine that any originally under GPL developed
@> software can stay that way for ever.
How should it change? Especially if it reaches stable state, what
incentive would there be to take anything but the public available
GPLed version?
@> And it's quite complicated to change the license, if so many
@> parties were involved in the development.
Near to impossible.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik, Universitdtsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 08:31:47 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <m2k9798rvw.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> 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.
The right thing here includes never dying, never to develop any mental
disorder, never to grow senile, never to be as busy as to not be
effectively able to maintain the stuff (apart from never doing
something unamiable to anybody with his rights to the docs which I
would not entirely want to guarantee seeing how capable of
overreacting and hate tirades he is).
Your trust is more than a single human can guarantee to deserve.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f|r Neuroinformatik, Universitdtsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 06:36:39 GMT
From: johnny99@sydney.dialix.oz.au
To: johnny99@sydney.dialix.oz.au
Subject: Handling Dates Help Please
Message-Id: <6kdntn$llv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
I'm currently struggling with the implementation of a calendar for my site.
I've got a Perl script which calculates the date and transfers the browser to
the appropriate page for that date, using an array derived from
localtime(time).
Today is 26/5/98, so the "today" script would take you to a page called
98-05-26.html -- but what I'd like to do is enable browsers to go backward and
forward with buttons on the pages marked "Next Day" and "Previous Day".
I know how to do this by adding/subtracting from the 26 and making it 27 or 25
etc., but what happens when I get to 1 June? I'll end up with Previous Day
being the zero of June and so on, won't I?
Obviously I could do this by having all the filenames just be based on 'number
of days of the year so far', but I hope there's some way around this /without/
having to change all 365 filenames...
TIA
jh
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 16:17:22 -0700
From: patience <feng@haas.berkeley.edu>
Subject: help! sort data / build a database
Message-Id: <3569FC02.9760D76B@haas.berkeley.edu>
Hi,
I need to sort data of 1000+ subjects. I could really use some advise
or tips. : )
The data is in five fields saved in a text file, that is, the subject's
GroupName, LastName, FirstName, SID, and score. Then another subject
will be on the newline, and so on.
I need to sort the data by GroupName, then LastName, then FirstName, and
lastly SID. For two weeks, there will be more than 15,000 subject
total.
I am using RedHat Linux 4.1. Should I build a database for this? I
know Perl pretty well and just learned the basic of SQL. I know on RH
4.1, there are two database programs, namely, postgres95 and mb5.0-6.
Should I use one of these two, or do you have a better way to solve my
problem?
Thank you very very much for helping out! : )
-- Patience
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:03:12 +0800
From: js05947 <jamessun@clp.com.hk>
Subject: Making an executable from perl script
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980526112226.10933A-100000@sclpinet>
Hello,
Is it possible to 'compile' a perl script program to exe file
under WinNT environment so that the exe file can be executed
on every WinNT machine without installing the perl package on
that machine?
Thanks.
Please reply with e-mail as I have a very slow news feed.
James Sun
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 06:08:14 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
To: js05947 <jamessun@clp.com.hk>
Subject: Re: Making an executable from perl script
Message-Id: <6kdm8e$dqb$1@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
[Posted and Mailed]
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980526112226.10933A-100000@sclpinet>,
js05947 <jamessun@clp.com.hk> writes:
>
> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to 'compile' a perl script program to exe file
> under WinNT environment so that the exe file can be executed
> on every WinNT machine without installing the perl package on
> that machine?
# perldoc perlfaq3
/How can I compile my Perl program into byte code or C?
There also is something called perl2exe around, but I have no idea if
that is really what you need.
> Please reply with e-mail as I have a very slow news feed.
Even more reason to first consult the perl FAQ.
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 00:03:53 -0400
From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>
Subject: Re: Perl 5.005_xxx
Message-Id: <ltra1hptjq.fsf@asfast.com>
Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com> writes:
> 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.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> [ ... ] It was never my intention to deny access to anyone.
Well, perhaps I have gotten into the habit of sometimes seeing
elitism, condescension, and paternalism in c.l.p.m in cases when it
isn't actually there. If I wasn't already projecting those
expectations, I wouldn't have misread your words in a way that
made them seem to be conveying those sentiments.
So, I apologize as well.
> "Common things should be easy, uncommon
> things should at least be possible."
I totally agree.
--
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"$x\n"'
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 04:30:36 GMT
From: "Bob Gebhart" <bgebhart@juno.com>
Subject: Perl for Internet Programming
Message-Id: <6kdghc$b8l@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
Hoo, boy, am I confused! Help!
We need to write a bunch of Internet/Intranet applications. Two things are
required:
(1) Interactive, "on-the-fly" data checks
(2) ftp file transfers in both directions.
Java or JavaScript will let us do the data checks, but as far as I can
tell, neither will permit ftp file transfers. ActiveX will.
How can I use Perl to initiate ftp file transfers in both directions?
---Bob
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 23:35:23 -0500
From: "Bryan" <choirboy@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Perl for Internet Programming
Message-Id: <6kdgv0$gih@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
Check out the CPAN archive. I know there are some modules that will allow
you to do this. Sorry this message is so general, but maybe it will get you
headed in the right direction...
Bryan
Bob Gebhart wrote in message <6kdghc$b8l@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Hoo, boy, am I confused! Help!
>
> We need to write a bunch of Internet/Intranet applications. Two things are
>required:
>
> (1) Interactive, "on-the-fly" data checks
>
> (2) ftp file transfers in both directions.
>
> Java or JavaScript will let us do the data checks, but as far as I can
>tell, neither will permit ftp file transfers. ActiveX will.
>
> How can I use Perl to initiate ftp file transfers in both directions?
>
>---Bob
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 04:53:39 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Perl for Internet Programming
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980525215316.7133I-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On 26 May 1998, Bob Gebhart wrote:
> How can I use Perl to initiate ftp file transfers in both directions?
The Net::FTP module may do what you need. Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 04:19:09 GMT
From: Peter A Fein <p-fein@uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: random file names (was: Re: Randon files in Perl 5?)
Message-Id: <87n2c5vf42.fsf@bj2-64.rh.uchicago.edu>
Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com> writes:
> 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?
One could fake pids by having each copy of the script read a number
from a common file (say /tmp/my.pid.faker), store it in a variable and
the increment the value in the file. Though I'd be sure to lock
the file before doing this. Kludgy, but it should work.
--
Peter Fein 773-834-6206
1005 E. 60th St. Chicago, IL 60637
p-fein@uchicago.edu http://pfein.home.ml.org/
------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1998 04:41:19 GMT
From: toivotuo@fishpool.com (Tuomas Toivonen)
Subject: SDBM_File growing huge, why?
Message-Id: <slrn6mkhuc.ccb.toivotuo@gfanrend.fishpool.com>
I have a simple web application that uses SDBM_File and FreezeThaw for
persistent storage. A sub-optimal ascii dump of the dbm file produces >200K
of data. However, the dbm file itself is over 57 megabytes which is way too
heavy for the good old 486 Linux web server.
Question: Is this normal dbm file behaviour or am I missing something?
--
tuomas.toivonen@fishpool.com fishpool creations ltd
http://www.fishpool.com/~toivotuo/ http://www.fishpool.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 2720
**************************************
