Re: *.perl.org facelift
2008/12/9 Léon Brocard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Great start. Has anyone downloaded slash, the software that use.perl.org runs? Is its templating system flexible? slash's CVS contains the use.perl.org theme: http://slashcode.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/slashcode/ ... which would make it even easier for people to tweak. Any volunteers? Léon
Re: Perl is Alive!
p.s. maybe we could have an auction item - let's buy back perl.com? This sounds like a good idea. If Tom has a deal with ORA (sorry O'R) then it's his business, if I was him, and I'm not, I'd want to see the value of moving the domain name before even entering into the discussion, and currently perl.com offers good content. And the association with a large company like O'R is only good for Perl's reputation. Well Tom knows the value of the domain name - he's been getting good rent for it for 8 years. But if I was him I would want to rid my hands of it. I think TPF could buy it for a few peppercorns - and a clause that says they won't sue. Also perl.com is hosted at O'R's expense, with their design and development and it looks pretty good. And I personally trust them fully with the job. I don't mind what O'R is doing with perl.com. I personally think Tom should assign the domain name to the TPF and the TPF should license it back to O'R on a yearly basis. The TPF can then put the license fee to good use for the benefit of the community - but what TPF does with perl.com is for them to decide - they are the rightful owners. There is a lot of work to be done to help Perl, not least the core development that I believe is seeing less resource, and arguing about the ownership of a domain name and 2nd guessing what Tom is doing is a waste of our time. Standing up for what's right is never a waste of time. I've spoken to Tom directly about this. I know what I'm talking about. Perl is supposed to be about open source and openness but shine some light on the cracks and you soon get the 'cabal treatment'. It's really sad to see. We're open as long as you don't look too hard. If you really want to help perl.com, perl.org or perlbuzz; write some articles that appeal to the wider world outside the goldfish bowl of the Perl community. Haha. That old jedi mind-trick, 'there's nothing to see here - go and write an article'. Come on! Let's do proper open source - where people show some fairness and respect for other's IP. It will be good for Perl(R) and good for the community. What does the Perl community *really* stand for? Is it about openness and respecting each other's intellectual endeavours? Or is it a front for a self-interested cabal? Perl has got a BIG future - Perl6, Parrot, Artistic 2.0 etc are all brilliant. But sometimes we forget that out of all Perl's intellectual properties the Perl(R) trade mark is the most valuable and enduring. We should all be standing up to protect it where we can[1]. So are we moving forward? or has the Ruby guy got a point? whois perl.com PERL.COM.IS.AN.OLD.WASHED.OUT.LANGUAGE.USE.RUBY-CODE.COM.PERL.COM I hope not. Greg, instead of wasting time replying to me - why don't you do the right thing and email Alison? Let's get this sorted out and put Perl(R) on the best footing for the future. Nige [1] Don't just take my word for it - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl_trademark But our responsibility is also partly the responsibility of the whole Perl community. By helping us protect the Perl trademark, you help us protect the openness and integrity of the Perl language
Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...
2008/12/10 Hakim Cassimally [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 12/9/08, Tim Sweetman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com Looks like my Nokia has gone crazy and is imagining left-softbutton clicks out of nowhere. Guess which application I have as my default shortcut... (Sorry for the noise) osf'
Re: BCS: Geeks, Gizmos Gadgets Christmas Show n'Tell
2008/12/5 Léon Brocard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.nlondon.bcs.org/ This is tonight. You have to sign up in advance. See you there! Léon
Re: *.perl.org facelift
Léon Brocard wrote: http://slashcode.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/slashcode/ ... which would make it even easier for people to tweak. Any volunteers? I'll gladly take it on, but I haven't heard anything back from pudge to suggest that he's open to the idea. A
Re: Perl is Alive!
Nigel Hamilton wrote: but what TPF does with perl.com is for them to decide - they are the rightful owners. I really don't understand this argument at all. If anyone could lay a claim to perl.com, it's Larry himself (and I really don't see him doing that). But I don't understand why you think that TPF has a better claim to it than Tom. Perhaps you're assuming that TPF has a level of officiality (is that the right word?) that it doesn't have and (as far as I know) doesn't aspire to. Both Tom and O'Reilly have been very good for Perl. Without them I don' think that we'd be here having this conversation. If they make some money off the back of it, then I have no objections to that. Dave...
Re: Perl is Alive!
Nigel Hamilton wrote: Well Tom knows the value of the domain name - he's been getting good rent for it for 8 years. Could you tell the list how much you think this good rent is? (Disclaimer: I was the managing editor of perl.com for a large proportion of those 8 years.) -- Hubris is when you really do have it, enough so only the gods slap you down. Pretentiousness is when you don't have it, and everyone slaps you down. Arrogance is somewhere in between. - Thorfinn
Re: Perl is Alive! (Dispatch war rocket AJAX...)
Nigel Hamilton wrote: TPF have never owned the domain perl.com - but they have always had a right to own it. The TPF and the community have a right to get the goodwill back. Tom has never been the owner of the goodwill and trademarks associated with Perl. Tom Christiansen was one of the figureheads of the Perl community long before TPF existed. In particular, he was responsible for much of the core documentation and, of course, the camel book. In my mind, that makes him very much an owner of the goodwill associated with Perl, if not the legal trademark. I believe (but don't have any facts to hand) that he was hosting perl.com before Perl was trademarked. My earliest recollection of Perl being trademarked was around '97 or '98 when ORA started doing Perl conferences and I'm sure perl.com was around before that. I also find it very hard to believe that he would have registered and run perl.com without Larry's consent. So the fact that Larry (presumably) consented to him owning perl.com could be construed by a court of law as a failure on Larry's part to adequately protect his trademark. By not telling Tom to stop with perl.com he may have given up his right to claim that perl.com was an integral part of the Perl[tm] trademark. IANAL but I think that trying to paint Tom as a cyber-squatter would be morally questionable if not legally shaky. return perl.com to its rightful owner. I agree that it would be in Perl's best interests if TPF controlled perl.com but I'm not convinced that they have a right to demand it. A PS I think we should make Perl is Alive! the unoffical secret verbal handshake by which Perl mongers make themselves known to each other (spoken in the style of Brian Blessed in Flash Gordon, of course). The correct response would be something along the lines of Dispatch war rocket AJAX to bring back the document body from a server-side Perl web application handler powered by Catalyst, DBIx::Class, TT, Moose, and many of the other fine modules available from CPAN that make Perl a robust and reliable platform for enterprise-ready solutions. Hmm... might need to make the response a little more snappy... but I think it's got promise :-)
Re: Perl is Alive! (Dispatch war rocket AJAX...)
2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree that it would be in Perl's best interests if TPF controlled perl.com but I'm not convinced that they have a right to demand it. I think even this point might be open to debate.
Re: Perl is Alive!
2008/12/10 Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] but what TPF does with perl.com is for them to decide - they are the rightful owners. I really don't understand this argument at all. If anyone could lay a claim to perl.com, it's Larry himself (and I really don't see him doing that). But I don't understand why you think that TPF has a better claim to it than Tom. Perhaps you're assuming that TPF has a level of officiality (is that the right word?) I'm not assuming anything. The Perl Foundation own the trade mark to Perl and all the goodwill that goes with it. They are the official holder of Perl's intellectual property - including the Perl brand - it's most valuable asset[1]. that it doesn't have and (as far as I know) doesn't aspire to. It does own the brand and we should all be aspiring to protect it for the good of the community[1]. Both Tom and O'Reilly have been very good for Perl. No doubt. I'm not debating that. But the fact is perl.com has been *very* good for Tom. I'm talking about a significant amount of money that could have gone on TPF grants. Without them I don' think that we'd be here having this conversation. We might also be talking about Perl6 being released *this* Christmas. I'm not against the arrangement with O'Reilly - this can remain the same - it's just the licence fee needs to paid to the rightful owner - that's fair. Nige [1] The work of The Perl Foundation includes making sure that Perl code and documentation are free and open for all to use, and remain free and open for all to use. One of the many ways we do this is through the Perl trademark.
Re: Perl is Alive! (Dispatch war rocket AJAX...)
2008/12/10 Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree that it would be in Perl's best interests if TPF controlled perl.com but I'm not convinced that they have a right to demand it. I think even this point might be open to debate. How about we don't? /joel
Re: Perl is Alive!
Nigel Hamilton wrote: I'm not against the arrangement with O'Reilly - this can remain the same - it's just the licence fee needs to paid to the rightful owner - that's fair. Constantly repeating that TPF is the rightful owner of the domain doesn't make it true. Dave...
Re: Perl is Alive!
Nigel Hamilton wrote: Well if you were the managing editor why don't you tell us? ;-) For a very simple reason: I want you to admit that you have no idea. -- You're not Dave. Who are you?
Re: Perl is Alive! (Dispatch war rocket AJAX...)
TPF have never owned the domain perl.com - but they have always had a right to own it. The TPF and the community have a right to get the goodwill back. Tom has never been the owner of the goodwill and trademarks associated with Perl. Tom Christiansen was one of the figureheads of the Perl community long before TPF existed. In particular, he was responsible for much of the core documentation and, of course, the camel book. Fantastic. You've made lots of contributions too. Lots of people have made contributions freely and generously. Not to mention Larry's contribution! The goodwill in Perl should be the community's asset. In my mind, that makes him very much an owner of the goodwill associated with Perl, if not the legal trademark. Well I'm glad that this is only the situation in your mind. Because in the real world The Perl Foundation owns the trademark and they hold it for the benefit of the community - Tom does not own the goodwill in Perl. Nige
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Léon Brocard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You can check out the website code using Subversion: svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website/ Sorry, this should be svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website-shiny/ Léon
Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:28 +, Tim Sweetman wrote: Although I think there are two further things that would help: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up I agree with this very strongly. In which context, can I call to your attention that 'n00b' isn't generally meant in any complimentary light. The words 'beginner' and 'newcomer' adequately cover what you probably meant, without throwing in derisory overtones. This is one of my little personal crusades, so don't feel too singled out :) I really do think that Perl has already suffered very serious damage from the way the middle-to-senior members of the community treat newcomers - it almost put me off Perl myself, when I joined #perl on freenode (linpeople.org then) about nine years ago and got insulted about 200 times as much as I got helped. Fortunately #linpeople were much friendlier, and that's why I'm here now (and why I'm staff on freenode now). I suspect the prevailing attitude is why so many young developers have turned to PHP over the last ten years - it's got a community that welcomes experience-free beginners who need hand-holding and help to find which of them have the potential to be good developers. Yes, we're turning away all the script kiddies and other idiots. We're also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to write a properly designed large application - in any language. I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this is from Programming Perl (http://www.unix.com.ua/orelly/perl/prog3/ch00_01.htm): Most important, you don't have to know everything there is to know about Perl before you can write useful programs. You can learn Perl 'small end first'. You can program in Perl Baby-Talk, and we promise not to laugh. Or more precisely, we promise not to laugh any more than we'd giggle at a child's creative way of putting things. Many of the ideas in Perl are borrowed from natural language, and one of the best ideas is that it's okay to use a subset of the language as long as you get your point across. Any level of language proficiency is acceptable in Perl culture. We won't send the language police after you. A Perl script is correct if it gets the job done before your boss fires you. I am sure that this attitude was an important part of the initial Perl success. It is true that many of us became a bit disillusioned about it after the encounter of certain Perl script archives and similar enterprises disseminating bad Perl code, but I think this has been fixed for a long time. -- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Léon Brocard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: London.pm has done many great things in the past. We shall do great things in the future. Let's concentrate for now on something that we have the power to change in the short term. http://london.pm.org/ is our web site. It's orange, which is nice. However, I can spot a few things that we can improve: 1) It still lists Greg as leader 2) It doesn't list how to check out the website as below I've pointed out minor things above, but surely there are greater concepts that I've missed. What can you think of? You can check out the website code using Subversion: svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website/ Please send patches to the list for now. Would it a) be better to have a separate list for this b) better to rename website-shiny to website? The website one is from before we toshed it up a bit (well Andy did and we just cargo-culted his design) a couple of years ago. /J\
Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this is from Programming Perl (http://www.unix.com.ua/orelly/perl/prog3/ch00_01.htm): While I understand why you did it, I would kindly like to request that we don't promote sites which host stolen copies of ORA books. It's not fair to ORA, who give the perl community a great deal of support.
Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:28:58PM +, Tim Sweetman wrote: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up * A culture surrounding the language that didn't privilege obscurity over sensible engineering Well, these are just broad generalisations. Men are from Mars, too. The Perl user groups I know and those of which I'm part of (be it in real life, on irc or on mailing-lists) do not insult people and are actually quite welcoming to new people. Alas, the way we treat our newcomers has only so much influence on how other people on some irc channel treat theirs. As for the culture of obscurity, I have yet to find any book on Perl with more than page on the topic (if any). Well, except for Advanced Perl Programming, 2nd ed, which has a whole chapter titled Fun with Perl (but note that it's not titled Sensible engineering with Perl). Actually, it seemed to me that the Perl culture was one of automated testing. -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) Ignorance weaves a web from which none can escape. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #52 (Epic))
Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:28 +, Tim Sweetman wrote: Although I think there are two further things that would help: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up I agree with this very strongly. In which context, can I call to your attention that 'n00b' isn't generally meant in any complimentary light. The words 'beginner' and 'newcomer' adequately cover what you probably meant, without throwing in derisory overtones. This is one of my little personal crusades, so don't feel too singled out :) I really do think that Perl has already suffered very serious damage from the way the middle-to-senior members of the community treat newcomers - it almost put me off Perl myself, when I joined #perl on freenode (linpeople.org then) about nine years ago and got insulted about 200 times as much as I got helped. Fortunately #linpeople were much friendlier, and that's why I'm here now (and why I'm staff on freenode now). I suspect the prevailing attitude is why so many young developers have turned to PHP over the last ten years - it's got a community that welcomes experience-free beginners who need hand-holding and help to find which of them have the potential to be good developers. Yes, we're turning away all the script kiddies and other idiots. We're also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to write a properly designed large application - in any language. I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this is from Programming Perl Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps
Re: Perl is Alive!
2008/12/10 Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nigel Hamilton wrote: Well Tom knows the value of the domain name - he's been getting good rent for it for 8 years. Could you tell the list how much you think this good rent is? (Disclaimer: I was the managing editor of perl.com for a large proportion of those 8 years.) Well if you were the managing editor why don't you tell us? ;-) Nige
london.pm.org web site
London.pm has done many great things in the past. We shall do great things in the future. Let's concentrate for now on something that we have the power to change in the short term. http://london.pm.org/ is our web site. It's orange, which is nice. However, I can spot a few things that we can improve: 1) It still lists Greg as leader 2) It doesn't list how to check out the website as below I've pointed out minor things above, but surely there are greater concepts that I've missed. What can you think of? You can check out the website code using Subversion: svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website/ Please send patches to the list for now. Léon
Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:28 +, Tim Sweetman wrote: Although I think there are two further things that would help: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up I agree with this very strongly. In which context, can I call to your attention that 'n00b' isn't generally meant in any complimentary light. The words 'beginner' and 'newcomer' adequately cover what you probably meant, without throwing in derisory overtones. This is one of my little personal crusades, so don't feel too singled out :) I really do think that Perl has already suffered very serious damage from the way the middle-to-senior members of the community treat newcomers - it almost put me off Perl myself, when I joined #perl on freenode (linpeople.org then) about nine years ago and got insulted about 200 times as much as I got helped. Fortunately #linpeople were much friendlier, and that's why I'm here now (and why I'm staff on freenode now). I suspect the prevailing attitude is why so many young developers have turned to PHP over the last ten years - it's got a community that welcomes experience-free beginners who need hand-holding and help to find which of them have the potential to be good developers. Yes, we're turning away all the script kiddies and other idiots. We're also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to write a properly designed large application - in any language. I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this is from Programming Perl Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
Jonathan Stowe wrote: Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps Not really, no. It appears that the author is directly responsible for publishing his work, on his website. In what way is that violating his copyright?
Re: Perl is Alive! (Dispatch war rocket AJAX...)
2008/12/10 Nigel Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well I'm glad that this is only the situation in your mind. Because in the real world The Perl Foundation owns the trademark and they hold it for the benefit of the community - Tom does not own the goodwill in Perl. The law isn't physically real either - it's just a bunch rules that may or may not be applied depending on a wide variety of things including but not limited to the moods of parties involved, previous actions of all involved, and importantly at least 2 useful parties giving half a jot.. which I'm afraid we're still 2 short of. A. -- http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Dirk Koopman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jonathan Stowe wrote: Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps Not really, no. It appears that the author is directly responsible for publishing his work, on his website. In what way is that violating his copyright? I think you are confusing Nicholases announcement of MJDs Higher Order Perl to the post to which I was replying which contained a well know URL to a site on a Ukrainian domain that is serving infringing copies of O'Reilly books. or are you actually suggesting that Yuriy Mykhaylov is a secret author of the third edition of Programming Perl ? /J\
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
Jonathan Stowe wrote: 2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:28 +, Tim Sweetman wrote: Although I think there are two further things that would help: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up I agree with this very strongly. In which context, can I call to your attention that 'n00b' isn't generally meant in any complimentary light. The words 'beginner' and 'newcomer' adequately cover what you probably meant, without throwing in derisory overtones. This is one of my little personal crusades, so don't feel too singled out :) I really do think that Perl has already suffered very serious damage from the way the middle-to-senior members of the community treat newcomers - it almost put me off Perl myself, when I joined #perl on freenode (linpeople.org then) about nine years ago and got insulted about 200 times as much as I got helped. Fortunately #linpeople were much friendlier, and that's why I'm here now (and why I'm staff on freenode now). I suspect the prevailing attitude is why so many young developers have turned to PHP over the last ten years - it's got a community that welcomes experience-free beginners who need hand-holding and help to find which of them have the potential to be good developers. Yes, we're turning away all the script kiddies and other idiots. We're also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to write a properly designed large application - in any language. I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this is from Programming Perl Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps I guess Perl community is quite generous on sharing information/books compare to some other programming communities. There are high quality online books shared by TPF http://www.perl.org/books/library.html I don't know their online copyright status but specially Beginning Perl by Simon Cozens is my favourite suggestion to novice Perl programmers...
Re: Perl is Alive!
On 10 Dec 2008, at 10:01, Nigel Hamilton wrote: But the fact is perl.com has been *very* good for Tom. Careful. That's starting to sound like sour grapes. -- Mike Whitaker - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:28 +, Tim Sweetman wrote: Although I think there are two further things that would help: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up I agree with this very strongly. In which context, can I call to your attention that 'n00b' isn't generally meant in any complimentary light. The words 'beginner' and 'newcomer' adequately cover what you probably meant, without throwing in derisory overtones. This is one of my little personal crusades, so don't feel too singled out :) I really do think that Perl has already suffered very serious damage from the way the middle-to-senior members of the community treat newcomers - it almost put me off Perl myself, when I joined #perl on freenode (linpeople.org then) about nine years ago and got insulted about 200 times as much as I got helped. Fortunately #linpeople were much friendlier, and that's why I'm here now (and why I'm staff on freenode now). I suspect the prevailing attitude is why so many young developers have turned to PHP over the last ten years - it's got a community that welcomes experience-free beginners who need hand-holding and help to find which of them have the potential to be good developers. Yes, we're turning away all the script kiddies and other idiots. We're also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to write a properly designed large application - in any language.
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Paul Orrock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all about leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you make such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft. He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or something else (and TBH you'd have to be to not realise it was obviously copyright infringement). Had I discovered that site myself, via google (it appears as the third link for programming perl) I would have made the assumption that it was a legal site since I imagine ORA have lawyers that are looking for copyright violations and would be great at getting Google to remove it even if they can't get it removed from the ukranian server. Now, you're being naive. It's pretty obviously dodgy. Yet again I find myself shaking my head in sadness at this list because yet again someone has used a very large mallet to beat down an unknown poster who was making a very valid point (he just happened to link to copyrighted material, which yes he shouldn't have done) but he gets a huge long diatribe rather than a simple not sure if you realised but that site is hosting that material illegally, please don't link to it again Actually he got that. There was no diatribe, just a strict notice forbidding posting urls to such blatent copyright infringements. That's not harsh or unreasonable. A. -- http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting
H.O.P. online (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:55:47AM +, Avleen Vig wrote: [Snip reference to copyright infringing site] While I understand why you did it, I would kindly like to request that we don't promote sites which host stolen copies of ORA books. It's not fair to ORA, who give the perl community a great deal of support. And not fair to the authors of those books, who inevitably put a lot more effort into the book than they get back in royalties. Writing nearly any technical book is not a way to make money. However, one book you can download for free now, legitimately, is Higher Order Perl: http://hop.perl.plover.com/book/ I still owe MJD a review. For now, I will continue to substitute the ::Tiny version: Don't just buy this book; read it. Nicholas Clark
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
I am really sorry for starting this. I hereby publicly apologize to Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen, Randal L. Schwartz and the publisher. Cheers, Zbigniew PS. I hope that doing that just once is OK. On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:28 +, Tim Sweetman wrote: Although I think there are two further things that would help: * A Perl user group that didn't just insult n00bs when they turned up I agree with this very strongly. In which context, can I call to your attention that 'n00b' isn't generally meant in any complimentary light. The words 'beginner' and 'newcomer' adequately cover what you probably meant, without throwing in derisory overtones. This is one of my little personal crusades, so don't feel too singled out :) I really do think that Perl has already suffered very serious damage from the way the middle-to-senior members of the community treat newcomers - it almost put me off Perl myself, when I joined #perl on freenode (linpeople.org then) about nine years ago and got insulted about 200 times as much as I got helped. Fortunately #linpeople were much friendlier, and that's why I'm here now (and why I'm staff on freenode now). I suspect the prevailing attitude is why so many young developers have turned to PHP over the last ten years - it's got a community that welcomes experience-free beginners who need hand-holding and help to find which of them have the potential to be good developers. Yes, we're turning away all the script kiddies and other idiots. We're also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to write a properly designed large application - in any language. I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this is from Programming Perl Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps -- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
Jonathan Stowe wrote: Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. Firstly I completely agree on the issues around copyright theft itself and that the link should not have been posted. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all about leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you make such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft. Had I discovered that site myself, via google (it appears as the third link for programming perl) I would have made the assumption that it was a legal site since I imagine ORA have lawyers that are looking for copyright violations and would be great at getting Google to remove it even if they can't get it removed from the ukranian server. Yet again I find myself shaking my head in sadness at this list because yet again someone has used a very large mallet to beat down an unknown poster who was making a very valid point (he just happened to link to copyrighted material, which yes he shouldn't have done) but he gets a huge long diatribe rather than a simple not sure if you realised but that site is hosting that material illegally, please don't link to it again P.
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 2008/12/10 Paul Orrock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all about leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you make such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft. He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or something else (and TBH you'd have to be to not realise it was obviously copyright infringement). The opening line was I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft.. suggesting pre-meditation and malicious intent (which actually logically contradicts the perceived motivation expressed immediately afterwards but never mind that...), neither of which strikes me as particularly likely, and thus I think Paul's read is pretty fair. Let's just be nice, mm'kay? Or should we engineer something so Leon gets to step in for a second time in his so far illustrious career? :-) Ah, the duties of a wartime leader... P Had I discovered that site myself, via google (it appears as the third link for programming perl) I would have made the assumption that it was a legal site since I imagine ORA have lawyers that are looking for copyright violations and would be great at getting Google to remove it even if they can't get it removed from the ukranian server. Now, you're being naive. It's pretty obviously dodgy. Yet again I find myself shaking my head in sadness at this list because yet again someone has used a very large mallet to beat down an unknown poster who was making a very valid point (he just happened to link to copyrighted material, which yes he shouldn't have done) but he gets a huge long diatribe rather than a simple not sure if you realised but that site is hosting that material illegally, please don't link to it again Actually he got that. There was no diatribe, just a strict notice forbidding posting urls to such blatent copyright infringements. That's not harsh or unreasonable. A. -- http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
Jonathan Stowe wrote: 2008/12/10 Dirk Koopman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jonathan Stowe wrote: Excised the URL to copyright violating material I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure wouldn't like you to be stealing from them and the majority of the other members of the list generally sympathise with that position. I had assumed that everyone on this list had reached a level of sophistication where they realized this was the prevailing viewpoint, I'm sorry to discover that I am wrong. This goes for everyone else on the list. Posting links to copyright infringing material like this is absolutely forbidden. Not only will anyone who contravenes this by removed from the list so will anyone who thinks they would like to argue with me about this. Hope this helps Not really, no. It appears that the author is directly responsible for publishing his work, on his website. In what way is that violating his copyright? I think you are confusing Nicholases announcement of MJDs Higher Order Perl to the post to which I was replying which contained a well know URL to a site on a Ukrainian domain that is serving infringing copies of O'Reilly books. or are you actually suggesting that Yuriy Mykhaylov is a secret author of the third edition of Programming Perl ? No, I wasn't. So I must be merely confused. I thought you were complaining about MJD's H.O.P site.
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Paul Makepeace [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 2008/12/10 Paul Orrock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all about leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you make such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft. He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or something else (and TBH you'd have to be to not realise it was obviously copyright infringement). The opening line was I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft.. suggesting pre-meditation and malicious intent (which actually logically contradicts the perceived motivation expressed immediately afterwards but never mind that...), neither of which strikes me as particularly likely, and thus I think Paul's read is pretty fair. So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding and that is CARRYING ADVERTS FOR PORN SITES could legitimately be mistaken for a pukka site? Yes I WAS implying that I believed he knew that it wasn't a pukka site, but that being familiar with the established culture of the community should have prevented him making the mistake of posting the link here. But I was prepared to put that down to extenuating circumstances. Let's just be nice, mm'kay? Nice doesn't cut it: politeness - that is to say adhering to a set of basic community norms and, if one doesn't understand those norms, not making up a standard for yourself that is at conflict with them and then getting the arse when called on it is the key. Most of the crap that we get in this list is completely down to people not being polite. And I said no arguing
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-12-2008 15:36]: [...] And I said no arguing http://www.xkcd.com/392/ -- Radosław Zieliński [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpOdWijgMUqN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright Theft
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:36 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding [...] The first image I can see on that page is the O'Reilly 'Programming Perl' image. The second link on the page goes to oreilly.com. Call me gullible, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to question it.
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 2008/12/10 Paul Makepeace [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/12/10 Paul Orrock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all about leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you make such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft. He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or something else (and TBH you'd have to be to not realise it was obviously copyright infringement). The opening line was I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft.. suggesting pre-meditation and malicious intent (which actually logically contradicts the perceived motivation expressed immediately afterwards but never mind that...), neither of which strikes me as particularly likely, and thus I think Paul's read is pretty fair. So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding and that is CARRYING ADVERTS FOR PORN SITES could legitimately be mistaken for a pukka site? Yes I WAS implying that I believed he knew that it wasn't a pukka site, but that being familiar with the established culture of the community should have prevented him making the mistake of posting the link here. But I was prepared to put that down to extenuating circumstances. Let's just be nice, mm'kay? Nice doesn't cut it: politeness - that is to say adhering to a set of basic community norms and, if one doesn't understand those norms, not making up a standard for yourself that is at conflict with them and then getting the arse when called on it is the key. Most of the crap that we get in this list is completely down to people not being polite. Ah come on, I looked at that site, and saw a couple of Russian ads with no images. Anyone with an adblocker could easily have seen no ads. Who hasn't done a quick search, skimmed the content for verification, and then pasted the link into an email? The point is there's a whole lot of blustery indignation in the original phrasing that just didn't really add to the message, possibly even detracted. ** On another maybe more interesting topic: so seriously, this site's been around for ages, why haven't O'R done something about it? Or have they, but just unsuccessfully? It's not like UA doesn't have copyright laws and police. (There's a subtle subtext to this question which is: if this site is at #3 SERP, ie. has been around so long it's accumulated inbound links, then maybe O'R don't care, so why should anyone else?) P And I said no arguing
Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:36 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: Most of the crap that we get in this list is completely down to people not being polite. Which takes us neatly back to where we were before this tangent... the suggestion that the Perl community could be considerably less hostile to newcomers, even if they are a bit clueless when they start out. It's not a problem that gets fixed by saying that we should fix it, but nor is it one that will ever get fixed if people don't repeatedly point out that it is a problem. Sniping at newcomers just because it's easy (they frequently set themselves up, and everybody knows the punchlines) doesn't make us a welcoming community. It makes us a clique, and an unpleasant one at that. I've noticed a couple of well-known people on this list making spectacular efforts to turn around this ingrained cultural attitude problem over the last year or two, but they do tend to stand out as exceptions to the rule. IMHO, YMMV, HAND. Denny
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am really sorry for starting this. I hereby publicly apologize to Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen, Randal L. Schwartz and the publisher. Don't be sorry. You haven't breached their copyright - it's perfectly acceptable fair use for you to take a small tract of text and use it with acknowledgement to the authors. But I think the response you received shows - unfairness, cluelessness and hypocrisy: * unfairness - I think Larry, Tom and Randal wanted that passage to mean something - isn't it sad and ironic that in 2008 it was used to whack some over the head? * cluelessness - some people have argued vociferously about IP yet they don't really understand it. * hypocrisy - why won't they stand up for the IP rights of The Perl Foundation? You have a right to be here and a right to respect and so do your ideas. This is a seriously sad day for Perl. You deserve an apology and I hope you get it. NIge
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 15:02 +, Paul Makepeace wrote: On another maybe more interesting topic: so seriously, this site's been around for ages, why haven't O'R done something about it? Or have they, but just unsuccessfully? It's not like UA doesn't have copyright laws and police. (There's a subtle subtext to this question which is: if this site is at #3 SERP, ie. has been around so long it's accumulated inbound links, then maybe O'R don't care, so why should anyone else?) From IRC: davorg http://toc.oreilly.com/2008/04/responsibly-assuaging-author-concerns-about-piracy.html # This might partly explain why ORA aren't doing anything about the .ua site
Re: london.pm.org web site
Léon Brocard wrote: http://london.pm.org/ is our web site. It's orange, which is nice. However, I can spot a few things that we can improve: 1) It still lists Greg as leader 2) It doesn't list how to check out the website as below 3) It doesn't have an onion tilted at a jaunty angle 4) It doesn't mention the secret Perl verbal handshake I can help there. brucey Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now! /brucey A
Re: Copyright Theft
2008/12/10 Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:36 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding [...] The first image I can see on that page is the O'Reilly 'Programming Perl' image. The second link on the page goes to oreilly.com. Call me gullible, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to question it. Doesn't the link improve it's google page rank? The whole geek community has a big problem with intellectual ambiguity in respect of the whole intellectual property thing anyway IMO, we all tend to agree that ripping off the books is a bad thing and everything and then half of you go off and advocate using dodgy russian MP3 sites and bit-torrents BECAUSE THE CONTENT MUST BE FREE MAN!
Re: Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
2008/12/10 Nigel Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am really sorry for starting this. I hereby publicly apologize to Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen, Randal L. Schwartz and the publisher. Don't be sorry. You haven't breached their copyright - it's perfectly acceptable fair use for you to take a small tract of text and use it with acknowledgement to the authors. But I think the response you received shows - unfairness, cluelessness and hypocrisy: * unfairness - I think Larry, Tom and Randal wanted that passage to mean something - isn't it sad and ironic that in 2008 it was used to whack some over the head? You accuse me of cluelessness and you make the above statement? I wasn't referring to the content of the quote or the preceding discussion at all. I was simply referring to the dissemination of the URL to some violating content. Nothing in what I said made any value judgement whatsoever about what was being said and I explicitly removed the quote itself because that had no bearing whatsoever on the point that I needed to make. * cluelessness - some people have argued vociferously about IP yet they don't really understand it. * hypocrisy - why won't they stand up for the IP rights of The Perl Foundation? So you appear to have some kind of bee in your bonnet about some right of TPF to the perl.com domain which it appears virtually no-one else either understands or agrees with and so you want to make every other issue somehow related to it. Some places they would describe that as troll like behaviour. You have a right to be here and a right to respect and so do your ideas. You are wrong, no-one has a right to be here by default. This is a seriously sad day for Perl. Oh get the man a violin and a tear jar. The sad day for Perl was when idiots started thinking that the open in open source implied something beyond the method of development and the licenses under which the software was distributed.
Re: Perl is Alive!
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 08:29:57AM +, Nigel Hamilton wrote: Well Tom knows the value of the domain name - he's been getting good rent for it for 8 years. But if I was him I would want to rid my hands of it. I think TPF could buy it for a few peppercorns - and a clause that says they won't sue. That would be a fantastic way for TPF to commit suicide. While they might win a stupid court thing, they'd lose a great deal of their support in the community. Perl is supposed to be about open source and openness but shine some light on the cracks and you soon get the 'cabal treatment'. It's really sad to see. We're open as long as you don't look too hard. We're open. Just don't expect other people to do stuff for you unless they want to do it anyway. Feel free to try to persuade them, but don't think that people are obliged to pay any attention to you. Come on! Let's do proper open source - where people show some fairness and respect for other's IP. It will be good for Perl(R) and good for the community. OK, let's be fair. Let's start by looking at the trademark. TPF's website says that it's the *logo* that is trademarked, not the word. And even if the word was trademarked, then was it trademarked before or after Tom registered perl.com? If after (and I'm fairly sure it was), don't you think it would be *unfair* and *disrespectful* to sue him? -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: brucey Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now! /brucey My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. That is all. A. -- http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: brucey Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now! /brucey My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. How did the swan get into the ice in the first place? /joel
Re: london.pm.org web site
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:46:34PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote: 2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. How did the swan get into the ice in the first place? Somebody overfed it and it got stuck?
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Joel Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: brucey Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now! /brucey My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. How did the swan get into the ice in the first place? It sat on a leaf and waited for winter? -- Jasper
Re: london.pm.org web site
Aaron Trevena wrote: My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. Did he do well? A
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Aaron Trevena wrote: My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. Did he do well? To my horror, the internet knows *all*! http://www.tv.com/the-generation-game/larry-graysons-generation-game/episode/1109840/trivia.html but, it doesn't tell me if he did well or not. Apparently he was a contestant, the swan ice carving was some other TV spot... I was wondering after I posted why I'd seen his Generation Game trophy if he was showing people how to do stuff. There may even be a repressed memory of a very badly styled parent with a beard and afro sticking his head out of one the doors, I should probably drink some absinthe now to be sure it doesn't bubble to surface!! A. -- http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting
Re: london.pm.org web site
2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: brucey Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now! /brucey My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a swan out of ice. that must have been 'ice to see
