This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by jonadab (Parson) on Feb 02, 2004 at 17:00 UTC
|
What is "open source" to one person is a black box to
someone else. I'm thinking here in particular of XS
modules. You have to think in C to even begin to have
a prayer of altering them in any meaningful way. As
far as I'm concerned, a BSD-licensed XS module may
just as well be binary-only and free for non-commercial
use. I'll use it if there's nothing better, but given
the choice I'm going for the pure perl solution every
time, even if it's less efficient, less actively
maintained, and less popular.
I guess that means I'm not an orthodox Stallmanite,
because practical matters concern me more than
idealistic licensing issues. But then, we already
knew I'm not an orthodox Stallmanite (off-topic details in comment).
As far as proprietary stuff, the number one reason I
tend to avoid it (when I don't need the source code)
is because of portability concerns. Portability is
a big deal in the Perl community, which is a
significant part of what attracted me to Perl. I
can write code and use modules and expect it to all
run totally unmodified on another system, another
OS, another hardware architecture, et cetera, as long
as I don't do anything unportable myself (such as
hardcode paths, backtick out to system commands,
assume that filehandles can handle binary without
binmode, or cetera). This is *valuable* to me; I
can implement stuff *once* and then *have* it,
without the need for worrying about whether some
future development (such as platform obsolescence)
is going to take it away from me. (Sure, when we
get Perl6 then Perl5 code will be obsolete, but it
will not magically stop working. If necessary, we
can keep Ponie around for virtually ever.)
Heck, people will even mod your post down for
discussions about Proprietary Systems?
There's no telling what some people will downvote you
for. If the thing you're talking about is on-topic,
don't worry about it. Now, if you're inserting plugs
for proprietary Windows-only stuff in response to a
question about some issue on a *nix system, then of
course you're going to get downvoted into non-existence
for being off-topic. But if someone asks about text
editors that run on Windows and can syntax-highlight
Perl code but don't have any learning curve and can
function as a drop-in replacement for Notepad for a
total newbie, I would expect some proprietary solutions
to be suggested, and I don't think they would get
downvoted much.
In other words, it is (or should be) all about whether
what you're saying fits the discussion it's part of.
If we're talking about mod_perl and you start
blathering about ASP, then you're going to get a
visit from NodeReaper and will get no pity from me.
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}}
split//,".rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ";$\=$ ;->();print$/
| [reply] [d/l] |
|
Now, if you're inserting plugs for proprietary Windows-only stuff in response to a question about some issue on a *nix system, then of course you're going to get downvoted into non-existence for being off-topic.
Since people (especialy the unixers) usually do not bother specifying their OS it's a bit hard to know what's on and off topic. And it's true that you are more likely to be downvoted for assuming Windows when the person needed a Unix answer than the other way around. At least it seems like that to me.
Jenda
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code
will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
-- Rick Osborne
Edit by castaway: Closed small tag in signature
| [reply] |
|
Since people (especialy the unixers) usually do not bother specifying their OS
When *nix people don't specify their OS, I would like
to think that it's usually because you can tell well
enough what it is from the content of the post, or
else it's not relevant to the question.
When the question revolves around e.g. the
/proc filesystem, is there any real
need to specify that it's a Unix system? Even when
it's something like a mod_perl question, it's a
pretty good bet that it's some kind of *nix if the
user doesn't say otherwise.
If OTOH the question is about something that's
commonly done on other platforms (e.g., encoding
audio files, doing stuff with Tk, or whatever),
then *nix people ought to specify their OS if
it's in any way relevant. I certainly would, though
being a multibooter perhaps I'm slightly atypical.
I'm sure there are those who neglect this, but
there are Windows users who neglect to mention
what OS they use as well -- the operating system
is such a fundamental underlying thing that people
have a tendency to take it for granted. This is
true for most operating systems, especially the
common ones. (Unix and Windows are by far the
two most common. Windows is more common overall,
but I suspect that among Perl users *nix is more
common, because of Perl being included OOTB on
almost all of those platforms.)
Of course, if the question is about some deeply-Perl
thing like the efficiency of repeatedly unshifting
an array, then the OS doesn't matter and will often
not be specified, but in that case nobody's going to
be tempted to post a non-Perl solution, are they?
I will also note that it's a mistake to universally
identify Unix geeks with the open-source movement.
My cousin's husband works quite a lot with HPUX;
that doesn't have any bearing on his view of open
source development. There are several other
proprietary unices as well. AIX and Solaris are
no more open-source than OS/2 or VMS, unless you
count the fact that they ship with tools like
Perl included out of the box. But if using Perl
makes you a member of the open-source community,
then that would include also the people who use
Perl on Windows, wouldn't it?
There is a bias toward *nix systems within
the Perl community's collective question-answering,
but I suspect this results not so much from a big
Zealotry Conspiracy as from the use
of *nix examples in certain major Perl books, most
notably the Camel, which probably results from Perl
having been originally developed under Unix and
ported to other systems later. Larry Wall uses
some kind of Unix or another, I think, and so when
questions are answered straight from his documentation,
they tend to be Unix-oriented answers, unless they're
pure Perl. It could also be partly because Unix
systems all come with Perl included out of the box;
on Windows you have to download and install it
separately, so most Windows systems don't actually
have Perl. (Microsoft would do themselves and
their customers a big favour if they included
ActiveState Perl with future versions of their
OSes, but that's another thread.)
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}}
split//,".rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ";$\=$ ;->();print$/
| [reply] [d/l] |
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by hardburn (Abbot) on Feb 02, 2004 at 18:22 UTC
|
I've found the Monestastery remarkably free of Zealotry. There are Monks here who are actively part of the effort to improve the Win32 port of perl. Personally, I use proprietary stuff because I have to, and will junk them at the first chance I get. I just saved my company about $2000 in the last week by suggesting the use of Open Source alternatives that do the job just fine.
If you're mentioning proprietary systems in your posts and getting modded down, I don't think its because you're mentioning proprietary systems. More likely it's because you have the English skills of an American 3rd-grader (and no, I don't care if I'm downvoted for saying so in such a tone).
---- I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer
: () { :|:& };:
Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated
| [reply] [d/l] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by perrin (Chancellor) on Feb 02, 2004 at 18:10 UTC
|
I see people talking about Java, Solaris, Oracle, Sybase, Exchange, Windows, Mac OS, and lots of other proprietary things here without being trashed for it. | [reply] |
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by Gyro (Monk) on Feb 02, 2004 at 21:15 UTC
|
Don't dispense with the Zealots too quickly. We need them, every community has them. They, in many ways, are like cheerleaders for the OSS community, just like the ones for the proprietary community. They are usually the first ones to rise to the occasion when the big boys fire a shot across our bow. If we didn't have them our place in the world would not be the same. If you are concerned about the response you are going to get don't write about it. Like I tell my kids it's not what you said it's how you said it. And don't mistake a rant for zeal, it's usually misguided anger. Ignore the ones that irritate you, they aren't worth it.
cheers Gyro | [reply] |
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by cchampion (Curate) on Feb 02, 2004 at 17:04 UTC
|
Personally, I downvoted your node because I couldn't
make head or tail from it.
Perhaps, if you could express yourself in more decent
English, you could be more appreciated.
Notice that English is a foreign language for
me.
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by blue_cowdawg (Monsignor) on Feb 02, 2004 at 21:33 UTC
|
Personally, I happily use Windows and Linux.
Personally I am glad you are. I have long been a very
vocal proponent of using the right tool for the job.
Often times in my line of work proprietary is the only
way to go and when the opportunity presents itself and I
can make a good business case for it I will recommend
Open Source alternatives over proprietary ones. Please
note the verbage "business case" because that
is important.
I think this is the general attitude of the majority of
monks here. We ain't interested in religous wars here.
Personally, I find it irritating every time a subject involves non Open Source Perl programming, you gotta wade through all this irrelevant to subject at hand stuff about Open Source.
I personally find rants to be offensive from any extreme.
When I read your post the first question that popped into
my mind was "is the OP talking about PM?"
because it has only very recently on PM that I have seen
anything resembling zealotry. Usually the PM powers that be
will take care of those who get out of line.
My second thought when reading your post and your own
two follow ups to your own post I thought to myself
"this monk wants to be a martyr" but wasn't sure
what the cause is.
Gentle monk: I personally think you are talking about
some other site and not
The Monastery myself.
Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional Peter at Berghold dot Net |
|
Dog trainer, dog agility exhibitor, brewer of
fine Belgian style ales. Happiness is a warm, tired, contented dog curled up at your side and
a good Belgian ale in your chalice. |
| [reply] |
|
Zealotry was perhaps too strong a word. As too martyrdom, I pass, :). Gardeners make poor martyrs.
Perl Monks is most useful and educational. Seems like Perl on Windows related subjects do often result in a bunch of off subject posts about Open Source matters that will steer an inexperienced Perl person in the wrong direction. Certainly you get downvoted quickly for bringing up the Windows subject. I reckon I just don't get the whole Holy War, and get irritated (and shouldn't).
| [reply] |
|
To complete the "Go Ahead, Be A Heretic thread...
I am kinda surprised few people see a very noticable anti Windows bias in the site. Oh well, opinions are always cheap and plentiful.
| [reply] |
Re: Open Source Zealotry???
by flyingmoose (Priest) on Feb 02, 2004 at 18:41 UTC
|
Posting three rants gives me more than one rant to downvote. Joy!
FWIW, I agree with hardburn, this monastery is about the best user community I've ever seen -- on any subject. If you want ranting, post a Windows article on Slashdot. We all have to deal with proprietary software in our jobs, we're used to it, but we love what loves us -- that is, OSS. | [reply] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. | A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
|
|