🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  Dominic Dunlop <domo@tsa.co.uk>

[Note Followup-To above.  Specify wider distribution if you feel it
appropriate.]

In article <4b8c2cb1.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> carlton@apollo.hp.com
(Carlton B. Hommel) writes:
>I've spent several hours over the past few weeks, trying to get perl included as
>part of the next base software release.  It won't happen, for the following
>reasons...
>
>1.  The GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
>...
>
>2.  No Support
>...

[Cogent, if besuited, explanations omited -- dig up original posting QUICK if
interested.]
>
>In short, while R&D might think that perl is the best thing since V7, those dreaded
>"business considerations" currently prevent our shipping this truely outstanding
>utility.

Thanks for trying, Carl.

>So, how can perl get into Domain/OS, the Apollo software release?  Well,
>since we, like most other big companies, follow the policy of jumping on whatever
>standards bandwagons come down the pike, if perl makes it into Posix, 1003.?, OSF,
>the next Berkeley distribution, or whatever, then we will pick it up.  However, I'm
>afraid that perl might be just a little too late for any of these efforts.  
>
>I've taken a shot at it here at HP/Apollo.  What about other companies?  If I can
>say that our competition is shipping perl, that might swing some weight.  Is anyone
>spearheading an effort to get perl included in the "Real Unix" standards?  
>
Not to my knowledge.  Standardizing the shell and tools is quite enough
work for now and the next year or two.  (That's what 1003.2 is doing.)
1003.7, on system administration, might be interested, but they're
currently developing a framework for administration -- trying to work out
what the problem is before they propose a solution -- whereas the philosophy
of perl, as applied to administration, is to make it easier to hack up
ad-hoc solutions (and none the worse for that).
-- 
Dominic Dunlop



Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 133