Another reason to ignore CGI::Builder is that it's from DOMIZIO, the original "phone home" guy. Google for the history: it's quite illuminating.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
It really depends.
There's the ``well, if you had nothing to hide there'd be no problem'' or there's the ``all i was colecting is MAC address, hostname, public IP and version''
I guess the real question is how much private information you really think this module collected?
Personally I'd be on the authors side, ``he wrote it, and gave it to me for nothing, I may as well say hi'' although I'd be in favour of there being a button there to say hi. I mean, trading anonymous usage statistics for nifty software isn't that much of a price to pay, is it?
... and in relation to the topic of the thread. I'm playing arround with some CGI scripts, and i'm doing the roll my own thing first, just because I can. the site is for me, it holds my bookmarks, and has a timesheet on it... it's not critical, for anyone, and i think that it's worth keeping up with interacting with Template, CGI and CGI::Session, just so i know how they work.
However if I wanted to achieve something useful, I'll take `modules for 500 bob' since there are more of them, they've spent longer working on it than I have and they're better at it than me.
@_=qw; ask f00li5h to appear and remain for a moment of pretend better than a lifetime;;s;;@_[map hex,split'',B204316D8C2A4516DE];;y/05/os/&print;
| [reply]
[d/l] |
That reads a little harsh - or is it just me? I read the thread I found about it, and apart from a little naivety, I don't see what's so bad with that. After all, we all make mistakes (wink, wink). I'm sure you would say, "well yes, but I meant no harm", to which I would say "Touché" :)
(note: NOT meaning to offend here - just make the point that sometimes people with the best intentions can do things that do not appear that way).
| [reply] |