in reply to blaming perl for not using a build policy

I say it is his fault

The artistic license under which perl is distributed states quite clearly "You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package ..." (and goes on to specify some conditions that apply if you *do* modify the source).

In view of that, why on earth would you then use a perl that has been built by someone else for the purpose of helping to run an operating system - and, furthermore, expect it to serve your *own* purposes !! He gets no sympathy from me, unless RedHat have failed to adhere to the conditions of the license under which perl is distributed.

Cheers,
Rob
  • Comment on Re: blaming perl for not using a build policy

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: blaming perl for not using a build policy
by kyle (Abbot) on Aug 26, 2008 at 12:07 UTC

    why on earth would you then use a perl that has been built by someone else for the purpose of helping to run an operating system

    Does this argument not also apply to any number of other tools on the operating system? Why use the system's bash? Why use the system's libc? I install a distribution specifically so that I don't have to compile all my own software from scratch. I don't think it's off the wall to assume that what's good enough for my distribution's purposes is good enough for mine.

    I also think it's normal that an OS's version of some software is not suitable for what I'm doing, especially if what I'm doing is particularly sensitive to performance or particular features. That, however, should be the exception, not the rule. For more mundane work, I expect the OS's tools to be acceptable, not, as in this case, a thousand times slower than necessary.

[reply]
      I don't think it's off the wall to assume that what's good enough for my distribution's purposes is good enough for mine

      Except that my take on this is that, whereas "bash" is being provided primarily for *you* to use, "perl" is there primarily because the system needs it.

      And you *are* quite free to "assume that what's good enough for my distribution's purposes is good enough for mine". It's your right to complain about the fact that your assumption is in error that I'm not so sure about :-)

      Why use the system's libc?

      I don't know ... probably for convenience ... which presumably is the same reason that you'd use the system's perl. But, having accepted the system's libc, I don't think you can then go and complain about it (unless it has been jiggered with in a way that contravenes the license under which it is distributed). Same goes for the system's perl.

      Cheers,
      Rob
[reply]

        "bash" is being provided primarily for *you* to use, "perl" is there primarily because the system needs it.

        Certainly there are a lot of users who will use bash but never use Perl. Likewise there are a lot of users who will use Firefox and never use bash. I don't think it's right to say one of them is "for the system" and the other isn't.

        Are we saying that Perl is used so infrequently by system owners that its suitability for general use isn't important?

        It's your right to complain about the fact that your assumption is in error that I'm not so sure about :-)

        Reminds me of a Dilbert comic I can't find (but did find quoted a few places).

        Dilbert: ...and people who don't bother to vote have no right to complain.
        Dogbert: Why not?
        Dilbert: Why not? It's obvious. No vote means no right to complain. You can't get much more logical than that. Besides, that's how I was raised.
        Dogbert: You were raised by bumper stickers?

        My own wise-ass remark is that complaining about the results of a particular perl build is well within the license, so it must be unreasonable to complain about those complaints.

[reply]

In Section Meditations