Do they -- knowingly -- (continue) to cede authority to Tye or did he inherit his "authority" purely as an accident of those above named (former?) Gods, by dint of longevity alone?
And if so, should we -- collectively, the constant, responsive, backbone of PerlMonks - continue to accept his caprice over how, and why, and what, and when, happens and is possible, and should be acceptable, here at the Monastery?
Copy, amend to taste and and paste: Yes: [ ]; No: [ ]; Don't know: [ ]; Don't care: [ ]?
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Often on PerlMonks I see posts, asking for some help, with a requirement for perl minimum version (i.e. "perl 5.8.8+" or "perl 5.10+", or "any perl above 5.8" etc).
What surprise me is that people still trying to advice to "upgrade perl" again and again. Why??
Advice to upgrade perl comes from wrong assumption that:
There is only one instance where this code supposed to work.
That's often not true.
Cases where there is only one instance where code should work:
1) You are the only user of your own code. You hack it for yourself.
2) It's a webdevelopment and there is just single instance of web application (I am not talking about single server vs cluster, I am talking about case when
you develop one site somesite.com, but not a web framework, not a software-as-service to be installed on your clients machines)
Cases when there are many instances of your code (i.e. when your code have users):
1) You are developing CPAN distribution
2) You are developing standalone application
And it's not an option to ask your users to upgrade perl.
Imaging that all the software that you use (say, under Linux) suddenly change install instruction and and ask you to install "rvm", "virtualenv", "perlbrew", upgrade
Glib and GCC, and install certain versions of Python, Ruby and Perl into virtual environments.
If no one would be allowed to run system, vendor, perl, perl would be already dead.
And yes, about "unsupported" perl versions. Most verndor perl versions are unsupported (well, they supposed to be supported by vendors)
Conclusion: Please, don't suggest to upgrade perl if you see that there are clear requirements about *range* of perl versions in the post.
tl;dr pmdev, where can one download Perlmonks, at least the content part of it? This is a prerequisite for volunteers to write the next generation Web interface.
Background: Corion told me in the chatterbox a while ago that the hurdle to publishing the source is that there are sec vulns lurking. He proposed that it needs some auditing first. I have the feeling that's never going to happen.
I realise that just forgoing goobs of code is extremely foolish, yet a clean slate is also a chance to execute on new features of which tye said earlier attempt did not follow through - no wonder, the hurdles to entry are just too high as is.
Even if my idea never bears fruits, a downloadable copy is still valuable for institutions like Archive Team or as a safe-guard against Pair, PM's generous host, turning neglectful or evil.
You have 10 votes left today.
You gained 1 experience point.
You have 983 points until level 14 - Priest.
You've been here 3 excruciating years.
Now blow out your candles before the wax gets on the frosting.
I don't mean to offend anyone here. And I know this is not a Perl question, but it is a question regarding PerlMonks.org.
I really wonder: why is the design of the site still so ugly and now so outdated? It's something that truly amazes me. I can just imagine how many people here has more than excelent qualifications (and perfectly good will) to rebuild the entire place into something really attractive, readable, mobile compatible and most of all, something that such an important place deserves.
I also tried looking for a similar question on Google but I found nothing. Maybe I didn't search for the right keywords.
This is one of the few places I currently don't like having to read, much less when it's about reading code. I find it exhausting even now that clear type is standar on web broswers. If I must read a large block of code here, I really need to put a zoom of 25% or 50% - or I just copy the entire thing and paste it on my editor so I can read it comfortably.
And then I really wonder, time after time: why is it so ugly and outdated still? Is it that no one wants to put work into it? That I could believe even less.
Before I posted this question, I thought: well, maybe it's just about making a great CSS over the existing HTML, which aparently has simple divs, headers and spans. So I looked at the source code... oh my God - the HTML is almost as old as this website. It's still using <font> tags, for crying out loud! The only thing that could make it look older is if it was all uppercase.
Again... I'm really not trying to make this offensive in anyway. It just amazes me and makes me wonder: Why?
when I post more than just a little snippet, but e.g. a full working function or module, how is the copyright of this material? Is it automatically a Perl like license? Or something different? Do I own the copyright?
I am a relative new-comer to perl and perlmonks. Having received valuable advice from monks on various perl issues, I try in turn to make an honest and genuine effort to help others, when I feel I can contribute to a question.
While contributing in this way, I have had useful feedback from several monks when my suggestions in reply to questions are in someway deficient, or better alternative approaches exist. This feedback is really valuable to me, because it helps me learn faster.
I understand in this respect why negative voting could be useful. For example, it would be useful for an original poster, or someone searching for threads on a previous topic, to be aware that a particular reply was felt to be good or bad by the general voting population.
I'm not so sure about the usefulness of anonymous negative voting without feedback. Particularly for someone like me starting out, knowing that an anonymous person doesn't like my reply isn't very helpful to me by itself. And I find that the negative votes I've had are generally without feedback. This also seems to me to be of little use to the general readership, who can't see that a post has been voted negatively (or positively), unless they have votes themselves, and want to vote on the post, just to see the score.
Would it be a better system if either the current vote tally on all posts was visible to all users? Or at least that if someone feels compelled to vote a post down, they should give some reason as to why? Surely, that would help people learn faster generally?
Recently I added a feature for our forum at http://www.perl-community.de.
The forum is threaded like perlmonks.
However, in long discussions, when there are a lot of new articles, you still can lose track.
You can click on an author, and it will automatically scroll to the selected article.
When a scroll event happens, the currently visible articles in the window are marked in the mini navigation with a grey bar.
I am writing this to suggest a comment on the Permission Denied page to state that "maybe you used some bad markup syntax. Check the Markup in the Monastery". Details follow.
Last night I struggled posting a response to SoPW. See here. I am learning to use this website and I tried to be helpful by providing a cross reference to another article on this web site. I read Markup in the monastery and discovered the request to use the [ ... ] notation. I have used foswiki for many years and thought I could put [ http://... | and so on. The text in chapter three makes it clear that that is not the case. But hey, it was late and I thought I knew what I was doing.
The result of what I did confused me no end. I got a Permission Denied message. First I thought I had exceeded some limit. The thread ended at 5 responses which I thought was quite long.So I thought that I should register to have such a long post. I did and I am happy to be registered. But I still did not have permission to post.
Then I tried to post a new request, because I did (sort of) diagnose the problem in the thread and had a workaround. I wanted to share the observation. But the new post did not work either.
Then I tried chatterbox and got a very prompt response telling me to persist, because smetimes the server does this kind of thing. As I was waiting I wrote the intro that you find in the referred post. And I had the aha! when I saw that I had incorrect syntax. I changed the syntax and hey! it worked.
So I added my Ooooh... comment at the top as an update (btw. not realising that I could have removed my confused comment instead. I have learned that too :-) )
I am writing this to suggest a comment on the Permission Denied page to state that "maybe you used some bad markup syntax. Check the Markup in the Monastery". Given my confused state, I might not have noticed that either. But smarter people than I may make this mistake and find the comment helpful
Thanks for the assistance provided. And thanks for listening.
It seems like we monks spend a significant amount of time admonishing Seekers of Perl Wisdom to use strict;, use warnings;, and the like. But when posting example code in response to someone's question, what do you include? I've recently begun to question my own habit of almost always including strict (or more recently, use VERSION), warnings, and even the oft-unnecessary shebang. I don't for one-liners or when interleaving multiple fragments among paragraph text.
If recent answers are any indication, equally experienced monks seem to favor both sides of the coin (including a few fans of Modern::Perl). I'm starting to think, however, that where these near-universal statements are concerned, less is more. Why?
First, there are already myriad places strongly urging strict and warnings, and people still submit questions with fundamental bugs which would have been caught had they heeded that advice. In those cases, I'm very likely to specifically mention strict/warnings and show the OP how those pragmas help solve their specific problem. However, in other cases, I doubt quietly including it at the top of my code that answers, say, how to refer the index of an array to another array of the same length is likely to cause an epiphany.
Second, two or three lines are sufficient to answer many questions. But those lines often get lost in the noise of the pragma parade, which significantly bloats the post. While conciseness isn't everything, see above paragraph, and ponder: do those extra lines help answer this poster's question? I believe most of the time, the answer is "no".
But then there is say. Without use 5.010; (or later), use feature 'say';, or perl -E, someone running my example code sees only a moderately unhelpful syntax error:
String found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "say "Just ano
+ther Perl hacker,""
(Do you need to predeclare say?)
syntax error at -e line 1, near "say "Just another Perl hacker,""
I use say() rather quite a lot, less so with some of the other new features. At what point do we assume (most) people get the picture and at least know how to turn the features on? A loaded question, I admit. Perhaps I'm jaded by the scores of "do my homework" posts, or perhaps posting answers without the necessary pragma is just begging additional confusion.
Finally, we're not a code writing service. I don't wish to make it overly difficult to run my examples, but my first responsibility is to improving the OP's understanding of Perl (and anyone else who's curious, I suppose). I'm not quite sure if that's an argument for or against.
All of this thinking has led me here: At the moment, I'm leaning toward dropping the boilerplate unless it seems directly relevant to the question, but updating my signature with a one-liner something like this:
What do the rest of you think? Perhaps I'm putting too much thought into this, but, then again, maybe putting this question to bed once and for all will silence that irritating voice in my head that starts muttering every time I wrap a two line example in four lines of boilerplate. :-)
The domain name expired and I haven't taken steps to renew it, as there doesn't seem to be much interest in it. If I'm wrong, and you still want to use perlmonk.org, please message me and let me know. You can still access it via ssh if you have an account there (the address as of 2013-12-12 is 184.108.40.206, but that's a dynamic address, so it may change in the future).
Just this past week I was given the honor of taking over the disk containing perlmonk.org.
To read the IDE drive I made use of a clever hardware hack by one of my smart colleagues -- a dead USB DVD with its drive removed became a general-purpose external USB IDE reader.
After connecting the drive to my home computer, I created a VM (virtual machine) with RedHat Fedora on it, and wrote several scripts to help add the users IDs, passwords, and files to the respective locations /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow and /home/<username>.
The former owner of the drive will be transferring the domain name "perlmonk.org" to me, after which I will make it available as a webpage and for ssh access for those people who have accounts on it.
As a webpage, it may only be available temporarily -- my ISP (Verizon.net) doesn't technically allow non-static IP addresses like mine to host servers (especially true for commercial websites, but they may complain anyway if there's a lot of traffic) -- and I'd like to avoid getting in trouble with them.
Plus, some of the pages may not show up without modifications, since the structure of /var/www/html is not identical. (Some of this may be correctable once I've had a chance to play with mod_rewrite rules).
But for ssh access, if you had an account on perlmonk.org previously, you should be able to ssh in and have access to your all your files. From a terminal window, the ssh syntax is: