Re^5: Getting Fed Up with ActiveStateby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Dec 02, 2006 at 12:39 UTC||Need Help??|
If the corporate clients did not wish to use the gcc compiler that was being (hypothetically) shipped with ActivePerl, then they would simply ignore its presence and proceed with "business as normal".
Aaah but ..., would their security policies allow that? I know of (having worked for them) many corporates that simply wouldn't consider distributing a compiler--anyone's compiler--to their general purpose workstations. Full stop. It would not be allowed to happen.
So, unless AS produced two distributions, one with and one without, these corporates and government departments alike, would cease distributing Perl to workstations.
Likewise, even in their IT departments where the developers workstation image routinely incorporates development tools, distributing a second C compiler is likely to produce conflicts--libraries, header trees et al--and that could break their existing, carefully tested toolset. You doubt this? See Re: Re(2): Usage of tools for an example of the extremes many corporates go to ensure standardised toolsets. This is not uncommon.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.