other perl groups

[Paul Lalli]

0


Programming Perl O' Reilly
Does that help out some?

Really? Did you miss these parts?

From section 1.3.1:
For longer scripts, you can use your favorite text editor (or any other
text editor) to put all your commands into a file and then, presuming
you named the script gradation (not to be confused with graduation),
you'd say:
perl gradation
From the preface:
Most operating system vendors these days include Perl as a standard
component of their systems. As of this writing, AIX, BeOS, BSDI, Debian,
DG/UX, DYNIX/ptx, FreeBSD, IRIX, LynxOS, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, RedHat,
SINIX, Slackware, Solaris, SuSE, and Tru64 all came with Perl as part of
their standard distributions. Some companies provide Perl on separate
CDs of contributed freeware or through their customer service groups.
Third-party companies like ActiveState offer prebuilt Perl distributions
for a variety of different operating systems, including those from
Microsoft.

Which part of these sections did you not understand when trying to figure
out "what is recommended to be download and what to use to run perl." ?

Paul Lalli

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Programming Perl O' Reilly

That's *the* recommended reference book, but it's not really geared towards
a beginner. It's really a reference, not a tutorial.

If you're new to Perl, you might have better luck starting with "Learning
Perl" (same publisher).

sherm--

 

[pfancy]

That's *the* recommended reference book, but it's not really geared towards
a beginner. It's really a reference, not a tutorial.

If you're new to Perl, you might have better luck starting with "Learning
Perl" (same publisher).

sherm--

Sounds good. I will do that. thank you a million.

 

[Jim Cochrane]

Really? Did you miss these parts?

From section 1.3.1:
For longer scripts, you can use your favorite text editor (or any other
text editor) to put all your commands into a file and then, presuming
you named the script gradation (not to be confused with graduation),
you'd say:
perl gradation
From the preface:
Most operating system vendors these days include Perl as a standard
component of their systems. As of this writing, AIX, BeOS, BSDI, Debian,
DG/UX, DYNIX/ptx, FreeBSD, IRIX, LynxOS, Mac OS X, OpenBSD, RedHat,
SINIX, Slackware, Solaris, SuSE, and Tru64 all came with Perl as part of

[Warning - topic change]

Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard component,
it's also true that most computers these days do not have Perl installed.
(I can only think of advantages to MS including Perl with their OS -
can't think of any disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't
do it. Am I missing something?)

 

[Tad McClellan]

[Warning - topic change]

Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard component,
it's also true that most computers these days do not have Perl installed.
(I can only think of advantages to MS including Perl with their OS -
can't think of any disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't
do it. Am I missing something?)

Could they charge more if they did?

 

[Jim Cochrane]

[Warning - topic change]

Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard component,
it's also true that most computers these days do not have Perl installed.
(I can only think of advantages to MS including Perl with their OS -
can't think of any disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't
do it. Am I missing something?)

Could they charge more if they did?

Probably not. But their OS would probably be taken more seriously by
developers; and it would make it much easier to release Perl-based products
(either open-source or commercial, or both) for Windows. It seems this
would tend to increase the power and thus the popularity of their OS and,
as a result, reduce the market share they're losing to Linux. But maybe
they don't want that.

I much prefer to develop on UNIX/Linux myself, but I like to develop
portable software, and having Perl (as well as a Java RE) be a standard
component of Windows would tend to make this a lot easier. (Now that MS
and Sun have "made friends", the JRE situation seems more likely.)

 

[Matt Garrish]

[Warning - topic change]

Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard component,
it's also true that most computers these days do not have Perl installed.
(I can only think of advantages to MS including Perl with their OS -
can't think of any disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't
do it. Am I missing something?)

Could they charge more if they did?

Probably not. But their OS would probably be taken more seriously by
developers; and it would make it much easier to release Perl-based products
(either open-source or commercial, or both) for Windows. It seems this
would tend to increase the power and thus the popularity of their OS and,
as a result, reduce the market share they're losing to Linux. But maybe
they don't want that.

Compare the developer market with the business and consumer markets and it
might explain why Windows is so lacking in any programming tools (business
market == servers and desktops). I suspect our good friends at M$ are more
interested in what extra profit they can squeeze out of providing their own
ready-made solutions than in providing a stable platform for anyone else.
Linux is a god-send if for no other reason that it has forced M$ to at least
ackowledge that their OS and most of their software is riddled with bugs
("Please don't go to Linux, we promise longhorn will be better! Would you
like to pre-order?"). But now I'm getting off on a tired old rant.

Then again you never know, they may be secretly working on MSPerl or Perl#.
I'm sure they could beat Perl 6 to market... ; )

Matt

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

JC> Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard
JC> component, it's also true that most computers these days do
JC> not have Perl installed. (I can only think of advantages to
JC> MS including Perl with their OS - can't think of any
JC> disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't do it.
JC> Am I missing something?)

If Microsoft included Perl, they couldn't charge people for Visual
Basic, and people who mastered Perl on the Microsoft platform could
easily pack up and move to another platform without a lot of trouble.

So they can't charge for it, it cuts into sales of one of their
products, and it doesn't lock people into their platform.

Charlton

 

[Walter Roberson]

:Then again you never know, they may be secretly working on MSPerl or Perl#.

It would come with a license that said that you could only make
socket connections to machines that had Microsoft licenses;
and you'd need a Passport account to use MSCPAN . Certain modules
would be "integrated with the operating system" and declared
non-overridable -- @INC would be ignored for them, or one
of the Windows directories would *always* be searched first.

 

[Richard Williams]

:Then again you never know, they may be secretly working on MSPerl or Perl#.

It would come with a license that said that you could only make
socket connections to machines that had Microsoft licenses;
and you'd need a Passport account to use MSCPAN . Certain modules
would be "integrated with the operating system" and declared
non-overridable -- @INC would be ignored for them, or one
of the Windows directories would *always* be searched first.

Curiously enough, MS does distribute Perl and several GNU development
tools (at no cost) as part of their Cygwin-style 'Windows Services for
Unix' (shouldn't that be the other way round?):

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/features/default.asp

All part of a 'robust scripting environment', apparently (it probably
wouldn't be diplomatic to ask them what scripting langages might be rather
less robust). For the unitiated, 'Windows Services for Unix' is MS's
purely altruistic attempt to provide a temporary crutch for benighted
Unix users who must soon be weaned away from their crack-like dependence
on desperately outdated administration tools, brought into the Light
of a Modern Enterprise-class operating system, and introduced to the Joys
of editing the Registry and applying this week's Critical Outlook Patch.
Or something.

Richard.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

I can't understand why anyone doesn't understand Microsoft doesn't
include Perl in its OS.

Count yourselves lucky. Digital Unix used to come with Perl 4
(presumably because it was used by some of the installation
scripts) - long after Perl 4 had passed its use-by date.

 

[Jim Cochrane]

Jim Cochrane ([email protected]) wrote on MMMDCCCXCIII September
MCMXCIII in <URL::}
:} Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard component,
:} it's also true that most computers these days do not have Perl installed.
:} (I can only think of advantages to MS including Perl with their OS -
:} can't think of any disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't
:} do it. Am I missing something?)


I think that's bloody obvious. If you sell something, you are supposed
to support it as well. Perl development is something that isn't under
Microsoft's control. Considering the platforms Microsoft is mostly
targeting (the desktop, servers with prepacked solutions), I can't
understand why anyone doesn't understand Microsoft doesn't include Perl
in its OS.

You have a point. On the other hand, other commercial OSs (such as, I
believe, Mac OS X and Solaris 9) come with several well established
free software packages, including several GNU utilities and Perl.
Companies like Sun and Apple also don't have control over Perl, so why do
they include it? Sure, MS is focused on the desktop and GUI-based servers,
but it seems that they would compete better with UNIX systems if they
would realize that such utilities are taken for granted by many developers,
as well as being a reasonable choice for implementation of many server and
some desktop applications. And .Net is designed to be used with a large
range of languages (including Perl, I believe). Wouldn't it be more
appealing to those considering using it if more of these languages were
available (if not officially supported, at least included as "extras")?

 

[Jim Cochrane]

JC> Unfortunately, since MS does not include Perl as a standard
JC> component, it's also true that most computers these days do
JC> not have Perl installed. (I can only think of advantages to
JC> MS including Perl with their OS - can't think of any
JC> disadvantages, so I'm can't understand why they don't do it.
JC> Am I missing something?)

If Microsoft included Perl, they couldn't charge people for Visual
Basic, and people who mastered Perl on the Microsoft platform could
easily pack up and move to another platform without a lot of trouble.

So they can't charge for it, it cuts into sales of one of their
products, and it doesn't lock people into their platform.

Yes, that sounds like the typical provincial MS outlook. On the other hand,
from that point of view, aren't they shooting themselves in the foot by
providing a platform, .net., that is language agnostic?

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

You have a point. On the other hand, other commercial OSs (such as, I
believe, Mac OS X and Solaris 9) come with several well established
free software packages, including several GNU utilities and Perl.

Neither of those vendors seem to be under any illusion about their
ability to take over the universe. Hence or otherwise deduce...

 

[Walter Roberson]

:Take the set of people using Windows. Pick 100 random people from it.
:Ask them whether they miss having Perl under Windows.

:Take the set of people using a different OS than Windows. Pick 100
:random people from it. Ask them whether they would have used Windows
:instead if Windows had included Perl.

:Of the two hundred questions asked - how many "Yes" answers do you expect
:to get? Right. So does Microsoft.

Depends what you mean by "used Windows". I'm a unix sort of guy who
does some code development. I'd be very unlikely to switch to Windows
as my primary desktop -- but my perl code could be used pretty much
unchanged on Windows, then I'd be a lot more likely to do a Windows port
for the sake of my users (who aren't generally unix sort of people.)

[What I gather from sampling postings here, is that adapting
unix-developed perl code for Windows is still a bother, rather than
just a matter of a few tweaks.]

 

[Matt Garrish]

Take the set of people using Windows. Pick 100 random people from it.
Ask them whether they miss having Perl under Windows.

Take the set of people using a different OS than Windows. Pick 100
random people from it. Ask them whether they would have used Windows
instead if Windows had included Perl.

Of the two hundred questions asked - how many "Yes" answers do you expect
to get? Right. So does Microsoft.

Take that sampling where I work and then remove Perl from all the computers
of the people who say yes and you'd have a whole lot of unhappy people. Home
users might not care or notice, but most of the places I've worked have
implemented Perl scripts to "magically" perform mundane text processing
tasks for the employees (i.e., all they have to know is how to click on an
icon). Then again, we've created an image with Perl that we ghost onto new
boxes, so it's not really a big issue for me if M$ includes Perl or not.

Matt

 

[Jim Cochrane]

Walter Roberson ([email protected]) wrote on MMMDCCCXCVI
September MCMXCIII in <URL:`' In article <[email protected]>,
`' :Take the set of people using Windows. Pick 100 random people from it.
`' :Ask them whether they miss having Perl under Windows.
`'
`' :Take the set of people using a different OS than Windows. Pick 100
`' :random people from it. Ask them whether they would have used Windows
`' :instead if Windows had included Perl.
`'
`' :Of the two hundred questions asked - how many "Yes" answers do you expect
`' :to get? Right. So does Microsoft.
`'
`' Depends what you mean by "used Windows". I'm a unix sort of guy who
`' does some code development. I'd be very unlikely to switch to Windows
`' as my primary desktop -- but my perl code could be used pretty much
`' unchanged on Windows, then I'd be a lot more likely to do a Windows port
`' for the sake of my users (who aren't generally unix sort of people.)

But that doesn't sell more Windows copies. You're doing people who already
run Windows a favour. Microsoft won't care - they already sold Windows to
them. So, there's no gain for Microsoft to include Perl.

However, some of these people may decide, at some point: "I'm tired of
not being able to use these useful programs because Microsoft didn't
include Perl on my system. Next time I need to upgrade my OS, I'm
switching to Linux - I see I can get a Linux machine at Walmart for $xxx.xx."
[I suppose I should shut up, since I wouldn't be particularly disappointed
if a substantial number of people decided to do this, and I don't want to
tip MS off. Sure, it's unlikely, but the future is uncertain. - ".5 * "]

`' [What I gather from sampling postings here, is that adapting
`' unix-developed perl code for Windows is still a bother, rather than
`' just a matter of a few tweaks.]

It entirely depends on what you the program is doing. Many things run
without a problem under Windows. Other things are more problematic.


Abigail

 

[Matt Garrish]

Matt Garrish ([email protected]) wrote on MMMDCCCXCVI
September MCMXCIII in

()
() Take that sampling where I work and then remove Perl from all the computers
() of the people who say yes and you'd have a whole lot of unhappy people. Home
() users might not care or notice, but most of the places I've worked have
() implemented Perl scripts to "magically" perform mundane text processing
() tasks for the employees (i.e., all they have to know is how to click on an
() icon). Then again, we've created an image with Perl that we ghost onto new
() boxes, so it's not really a big issue for me if M$ includes Perl or not.


But the point isn't whether people become unhappy if you remove Perl.
It won't make Microsoft sell more copies of Windows. Your example just
shows that even without including Perl in their product, people still use
(and buy) Windows. Show me a company that gives the inclusion of Perl
in the OS any significant weight in the decision whether it's going to be
Windows, or some non-Windows on the desktop. (Or even servers). Hands up,
who installed Linux at work just because Windows doesn't have Perl?

I didn't mean to imply that it does. If, however, they want to be taken
seriously as an OS they have to begin adding in the tools that drive people,
like yourself, to have to resort to other platforms to get their work done
(and that, along with the ridiculous price tag, is what is driving people to
find better solutions). Perl's inclusion alone may not make a difference,
but it's absence is symptomatic of what is wrong with Windows. Do you really
want Movie Maker on your workstations, or Perl?

If I worked for Microsoft I would be very afraid of Linux...

Matt

 

[John Bokma]

If I worked for Microsoft I would be very afraid of Linux...

Why?

 

[Matt Garrish]

Why?

Because I can't see Windows in the workplace as anything more than a
temporary solution to the difficulty imposed by unix on average users. The
best of both worlds would be an easy to use system that can be extended and
developed to meet a business's needs. Windows is not that. Linux is also not
that, but is much closer to becoming it than Windows. M$ can come up with
all the "revolutionary" new layers of abstraction it wants, but what's under
the hood is still a shambles.

To cut to the chase, though, the faster revenues drop the faster heads get
chopped. Linux is a powerful, secure, cheap and quickly becoming easy-to-use
OS. You do the math...

Matt