in reply to Re^6: Perl 6 Module manager
in thread Perl 6 Module manager

The examples here are: These interoperability examples have something in common. A criminal monopolist.

It offends me when I hear them, and the millions like them, being written off as "dumb".
I am, frankly, the archetypical stupid user in quite a lot of areas -- and don't have problems with people that think other subjects than computers are worth their time. (I would love to spend decades on quite a few other subjects, personally.)

But it offends me when my life quality is lowered by convicted criminals, which e.g. make systems that are designed to be too complex to interoperate!

Update: OMG, this was my first negatively voted post ever. It even ended up on Worst of the day. (My only other negative of all time is four levels below this.)

I will stay out of the classical holy wars (at least, those irrelevant to Perl).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Perl 6 Module manager
by wazoox (Prior) on Apr 22, 2006 at 17:02 UTC
    Don't worry, sometimes post get downvoted for no understandable reason. Looks like some people can't even stand strong opinions (probably because they have none by themselves).
[reply]
Re^8: Perl 6 Module manager
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 21, 2006 at 00:05 UTC

    On the monopoly issue, I agree with you. It's a shame that the DoJ watered down their ruling so that it amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist. (Makes you wonder why? But that's a different conspiracy theory:). Maybe the EU will do something more effective?

    I wonder if Apple, and Sony, and DELL and a raft of smaller players aren't moving in the same direction? I'm not a lover of government intervention in business, it usually just creates red-tape and costs that we consumers have to bear, but maybe it will take action and legislation by governments to sort out these issues in the modern world.

    As for your "quality of life". Is that any more important (other than to you), than that of all those who's quality of life would be severely curtailed if they couldn't use their computers to conduct their lives as they currently do?

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      If business stopped intervening in government I might be a bit more sympathetic to government not intervening in business. :-)

[reply]
      I'm not a lover of government intervention in business
      Only (some) politicians and lawyers are! :-)

      But monopolies and oligopoles are generally harmful to consumers. (There would probably be attempts to go the regulation way even without Microsoft.)

      About "Quality of life" -- I wasn't clear enough, it seems.

      Microsoft systems are written to be too complex to be compatible with. Or even to interact with the document formats!! That is arguably bad for every user and programmer.

[reply]

        I'm not sure that I buy the too complex argument. RTF is pretty well supported elsewhere and supports most of what word supports, except the bits that probably shouldn't be incorporated into a document format anyway, like some of the macro stuff which is just plain dangerous.

        A little documentation goes a long way. If the word format(s) were documented, it would be possible for other programs to interoperate with them. But that takes will, and the vision to see that open formats generally benefit everyone, not just the originators. Proprietory formats are not illegal, or even immoral, just bad for business--for everyone, producers and consumers alike--but try convincing marketing types of that.

        With the word format, I often think that the reluctance to document it is as much to do with embarrassment over some of the cruft that made it's way in there in the early years, and persists for compatibility, as any malevolance. The same applies in other areas also.

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Meditations