![]() Yes most of these standards are proprietary. Sorry the examples i used misspoke my point. Can anyone honestly say that, if there ever became an MS Perl, you'd ever be able to stay with one version? Perl, at the moment works fine for most people. I think that i read a quote by Linus that he would be happy with an OS that you never had to buy an upgrade for! Change for the bettter, not change to sell product. Why, therefore, has M$ with all the R&D and marketing $$ to spend been unable to produce an OS that is as stable as Linux is? An OS put together by a band of programmers committed to supporting proposed standards? It seems that the Linux contributors are trying to make better sw that works WITH the standards. That said, then let me ask this, why does it seem that M$ is always trying to subvert a standard? I may be wrong, and ALL companies do this! Ok. (This is not to say the other companies, as someone pointed out Netscape HTML, have not done this as well.) But i think we all have seen M$ attack various markets, seemingly because they are not currently in them, and then, via agressive marketing alone, create some bloated, over-hyped, PRODUCT. ![]() My point was that I have never seen a standard that M$ whole heartedly embraced WITHOUT some tweaking on their part. In the heat of my rant, i used "open standard' interchangeably with "standard.'Īllow me, to quote some you and some of the others, to try and make my argument more intelligently. And of course, Perl is just about the best thing since sliced bread. Even if you don't actually run a particular app on more than one platform, you need learn only one toolkit for both - MS must hate that. ![]() Having a portable windowing toolkit is a good thing. Other than this, there were some minor font sizing descrepancies, and the usual expected differences stemming from the basic nature of the underlying OS - file names, etc. The tear-off menu items are nonfunctional in Windows, but can't be removed.I eventually ended up wrapping it to hide the differences. The response to various configuration paramaters varied greatly - '-initialdir' and '-defaultextension' is ignored and '-initialfile' was buggy on the NT Windows platform on the other hand, the '-filetypes' command was supported on Windows and not in the X version. Tk::FileSelect (or it's front-end top methods getOpenFile() and getSaveFile()).I recently did a perl/Tk script where I was moving the current version daily between my Windows NT 4.0 workstation at work and my Linux box at home (I work at home several days a week). ![]() There is no logical reason Perl should not expose Win32 APIs (via modular modules) other than the MS-is-shit-Down-with-MS-I-am-a-sheep attitude. We can all argue that adding Win32 features is poluting Perl, but I can't really agree. Now, they could fork Perl and produce an MS-only version, but would that be *so* bad? *If* this happened, then ActiveState would certainly continue to graft in any enhancements to the Perl core and hence users wouldn't lose anything much, except for perhaps a time delay, much like the one that we have now waiting for AS to give us a new build. It certainly can't affect Perl on other platforms since they can't directly affect the real Perl distribution, so all us Unix people are quite safe. Perl itself is not controlled by MS or ActiveState, so there's no way they can get total crap into *true* Perl.ĪctiveState always has, and will continue to, distribute a version of Perl that it has compiled, no doubt together with some new modules etc., but I don't really think this will change things too much. Of *course* they want to make Perl MS-proprietary if they can. Now they're just doing exactly the same thing. Since then, things have been cleaned up a lot and Win32 is a well supported Perl platform, largely due to MS's original investement. In doing so, a somewhat roughshod port & a set of new packages were created. The entire reason that Perl on Win32 exists in as good a form as it does is because Microsoft wanted to ship Perl in the NT Resource Kit a few years back, having recognized its importance, and hence paid for the port.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |