On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Robin Houston wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:38:06PM +, Lucy McWilliam wrote:
> > I'm tempted to do a lightning talk (good practise for my viva) but I don't
> > actually do anything astonishing Perl-wise, it's just the biology/methods
> > that are quite fun.
>
> Oh
* robin szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Friday 25 January 2002 11:12, Alex Page wrote:
> >
> > We could call Perl 6 "Perl Plus" and employ more Mongers as they become
> > CFT-enabled due to their employers spending vast amounts of money on
> > our conslutancy fees...
>
> wow .. thats a go
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:06:51AM -0600, Richard Clyne wrote:
> Because some things work better on NT than on Unix. As long as
> decisions are made based on the suitability of the platform for the
> application, then I've got nothing against NT etc.
Yep. We're running MimeSweeper on NT, forwar
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Newton, Philip wrote:
> Chris Devers wrote:
> > That or one of the surreal new hyperoperators
>
> So
>
> perl^=~
>
> ? ;)
So...
...that would be pronounced...
..."perl smokes crack"?
...? ;)
--
Chris Devers
"People with machines that think, will in times of c
Chris Devers wrote:
> That or one of the surreal new hyperoperators
So
perl^=~
? ;)
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote:
> Unfortunately *all* the certifications are backed by vendors with vested
> interests. I know of no independent certifications that carry any weight
> at all.
Well that's the split, isn't it? If you want to get trained, you can
either go for a vendor-ba
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> Not always, but it depends how hard you try...
Yep... as anyone who's seen me on IRC over the last few days will
testify, I'm struggling to get Debian working on my laptop. Not
(just) out of some innate desire to rid myself of
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:25:21AM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
> >> And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity
> >> certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great
> >Perhaps a more important questio
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:17:33PM -0500, Mike Jarvis wrote:
> How does that beat mod_perl at anything? How do people get away with
> charging so much for it? Can we convince people that a perl based app
> server is a sexy? Can we sucker them out of hundreds of thousands of
> pounds in licenses
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:25:21AM +, Redvers Davies wrote:
>> And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity
>> certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great
>Perhaps a more important question is - do we really want Linux and UNIX
>admins to be c
> And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity
> certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great
Perhaps a more important question is - do we really want Linux and UNIX
admins to be commodity items? Think rates...
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:07:03AM +, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity
>certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great
>in-depth knowledge either, but good enough to use webmin or some
>other evilness to get Sa
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Um... no he hasn't. Linux isn't just the cost of the software you
> know, it's the cost of the knowledge required to use it effectively.
> After all, MSCEs are commodity parts in any organization. Linux
> administrators are not. That is a *big* differenc
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
>>I buy Heinz tomatoe ketchup because I know it and it's low risk - the
>>ketchup is *good* *enough* and I've only got one bottle of ketchup. I
>>don't want to be stuck at home with som
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:32:45PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> And I spent Monday setting up a Linux fileswerver which is now going to
>>> be abandoned. Why? Because the person running it decided th
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> > I really think you're wrong about that Merijn. Sure, MSDW are doing really
> > cool things with Perl, and we can all name other companies that we've worked
> > for where interesting Perl work is going on. But I
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling
> > them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going
> > to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane pers
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:55:11AM +, Simon Wilcox wrote:
>
> At one level I agree and look forward to the day when I can easily work in
> a language I feel most comfortable with. At another level it scares me to
> death.
Amen!
> In anything less than the largest software houses, a standar
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> serving platform*. And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability
> of Linux machines.
I think Penderel is suffering from a bad case of
old-shabby-hardwaritis.
Paul
David Cantrell wrote:
> > Does he have a friend
> > who had real trouble setting Samba up for some reason and now he's wary
> > of it?
>
> If he values the advice of a random friend over the advice of the person
> he pays good money to to know abo
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
>
> > Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that
> > will -
>
> Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of
> this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable fil
Original Message-
> From: Roger Burton West [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 24 January 2002 16:16
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
>
> >Ne
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
>Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of
>this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file
>serving platform*.
In my experience they both are (assuming you meant NT4SP3).
>And Pende
Chris Devers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote
> I think the worst case scenario is that Perl could end up being like Cobol
> is today -- old, ugly, and unloved, but a lot of working systems depend on
> it years after they were written, so the need to maintain it (and to have
> developers that un
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:41:03AM -0600, Chris Devers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> > I worry that if we take the first option then Perl will be dead in five
> > years.
>
> I worry that you keep saying that. Why? What is your concern, exactly?
>
> I
> Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that
> will -
Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of
this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file
serving platform*. And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability
of L
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:38:06PM +, Lucy McWilliam wrote:
> I'm tempted to do a lightning talk (good practise for my viva) but I don't
> actually do anything astonishing Perl-wise, it's just the biology/methods
> that are quite fun.
Oh yeah, do it! I know a lot about Perl but very little ab
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
>I buy Heinz tomatoe ketchup because I know it and it's low risk - the
>ketchup is *good* *enough* and I've only got one bottle of ketchup. I
>don't want to be stuck at home with some (possible nice, but unknown)
>ketchup to discover
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
> I worry that if we take the first option then Perl will be dead in five
> years.
I worry that you keep saying that. Why? What is your concern, exactly?
I think the worst case scenario is that Perl could end up being like Cobol
is today -- old, ugly, an
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Chris Devers wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote:
> >
> > In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language
> > will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs.
>
> I'm not
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Lucy McWilliam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Meanwhile, Perl is earning a good name for itself in the scientific
> > community. Then again, this might just be saying summat about scientists
> > ;-)
>
> And remember this years YAPC::Europe is "Perl
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Roger Burton West wrote:
> Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that
> will - when the one that will has already been paid for, and the one
> that won't will cost the company about L2,000 extra - simply because the
> unreliable one has a pretty l
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:06:28PM +, Roger Burton West ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:26:11AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> >But I really don't think it's
> >everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl
> >there?
>
> Look at the compute
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
> I really think you're wrong about that Merijn. Sure, MSDW are doing really
> cool things with Perl, and we can all name other companies that we've worked
> for where interesting Perl work is going on. But I really don't think it's
> everywhere. Look at th
* Lucy McWilliam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> > The vast majority of companies don't use Perl at all. And until we do
> > something about advocacy for Perl 6, that situation won't change.
>
> Meanwhile, Perl is earning a good name for itself in the s
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:26:11AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
>But I really don't think it's
>everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl
>there?
Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about stuff they
haven't been paid to talk about there? Even in m
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote:
>
> In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language
> will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs.
I'm not sure if this is universally true or not.
In the job I
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:32:45PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And I spent Monday setting up a Linux fileswerver which is now going to
>> be abandoned. Why? Because the person running it decided that something
>> that didn't say "Microsoft" on it wa
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:08:45AM +, the hatter wrote:
> > will point to perl6, and perl5 will have to be called as perl5. And I
> > pick redhat merely because it's a hugely popular distrib, and they do tend
> > to want to get the new/cool/geeky
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
> The vast majority of companies don't use Perl at all. And until we do
> something about advocacy for Perl 6, that situation won't change.
Meanwhile, Perl is earning a good name for itself in the scientific
community. Then again, this might just be sayin
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> so for humour sake, what would we call it?
>
>perl+++
No no, this is the language of the future, and a simple [or not so simple]
increment operator won't do. We need exponentiation.
perl**
> the number of pluses choosen just for humour sa
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling
> them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going
> to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane person should
> go near.
I'm *proud* to be a scary pers
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:08:45AM +, the hatter wrote:
> will point to perl6, and perl5 will have to be called as perl5. And I
> pick redhat merely because it's a hugely popular distrib, and they do tend
> to want to get the new/cool/geeky options in there quickly, so the other
> distribs wi
* at 23/01 19:25 + Mark Fowler said:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Struan Donald wrote:
>
> > * at 23/01 17:44 + Mark Fowler said:
> > >
> > > This name has to go. Perl 6 makes it sound like it's just another update
> > > to perl. It's not. It's a new beginning.
> >
> > won't that just con
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Struan Donald wrote:
> * at 23/01 17:44 + Mark Fowler said:
> >
> > This name has to go. Perl 6 makes it sound like it's just another update
> > to perl. It's not. It's a new beginning.
>
> won't that just confuse people? alternately it's the sort of thing
> people see
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > that; it's the idiots we have to worry about.
>
> Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling
No, it will be the clever people that chose perl 6.
Alex Gough
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 January 2002 20:12
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: bad nasty evil thread
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 08:11:38PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> >So why do NT servers (or their win 2000 equivalents) exist at all?
>
> Because purchasing
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:04:15PM +, Chris Carline wrote:
> The key here is that Microsoft are trying to create a language-independent
> platform; whereas the alternative (Java) ties you to the one approach.
That's not strictly true. Microsoft are try to create a language
independant *Micr
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote:
> In fact, perl 6 may be a far more attractive proposition as a CLR language due
> to its fresh implementation.
>
> If successful (and I wouldn't underestimate the chances of Microsoft here), it
> would mean that programmer productivity would actually sta
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 08:17:10PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> so for humour sake, what would we call it?
P#
or
PP (You said "pee-pee", snicker :-)
A
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:33:44AM +, Rob Partington wrote:
> The main
> problem I have with Ruby for easynet[1] is that most of the things I do
> need web frontends and I really need Template Toolkit for that. Hopefully
> someone[2] will take pity on me and port it to Ruby RSN.
Hi Rob, I'
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling
> them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going
> to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane person should
> go near.
So you're trying to tell us t
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:12:41PM +0100, Merijn Broeren ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Quoting Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Perl has a huge image problem. It's seen as the language that script kiddies
> > use to write insecure CGI scripts. And it's difficult to argue with that
> > perceptio
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because purchasing decisions are made by people who don't have to work
> with the systems;
Not always the case, though. At easynet, the final monetary say might be
in the hands of the higher Gods, but purchasing deci
In message ,
Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Struan Donald wrote:
>
> > Regardless of what you might think of Java, C#, Ruby et al they are
> > fairly new and hence in some people's eyes[1] better not to mention more
> > buzzword friendly.
>
> Aren't Perl & Java
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Scottow Adrian - adscot wrote:
> What is rather more likely to happen is people start to use Perl 6 and find
> out how cool it is and use this for new development instead of Perl 5.
> Leading to a two perl platform situation. Hmmm I wonder how many people out
> there still h
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 07:02:50PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
>>Because, as Roger put it, they have highly-paid liars telling the
>>decision-making credulous fools how wonderful it is.
>
> And I spent Monday setting up a Linux fileswerver which is
57 matches
Mail list logo
