| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > Jeremy:
> > But yes. Generally people use Perl for CGI programs. If you
> > get it right the first time, and don't need to use the
> > program again a few months later it is probably also ok for
> > the job.
>
> Perl also does well if you do need to use the program again later. Why would
> it be otherwise?
Ever try to read a script that you didn't write? Or one that you wrote
-quickly- a month or six ago? <grin>
>
> > > 1. Like me -- !@#$% MySQL is free on Linux but costs $$$ for Win32...
> > Makes it easy to choose your OS, doesn't it?
>
> Someone selling a program for one platform but giving it away for free for
> another platform is, in my opinion, rabid advocacy. It only hurts the seller.
Erm.... rather depends on what (1) the vendor is trying to accomplish (see
below) and (2) what the vednor sees as the target audience. In this case,
MySQL (by the way -- bleccccchhhhhh; I feel better, somehow) was intially
developed (or so memory suggests to work with Python. I also seems to recall
that this 'product' was developed to test some design theories. That it has
become a product speaks more about the perceived market than about the actual
characterisitcs of MySQL.
> They're trying to punish me for using a "bad" OS. What happens in practice,
> however, is that I deny them the sale by using someone else's software.
And paying how much more for it? <shrug> I need to admit that I'm certainly
no fan of Micro$lop in -any- form or OS or what-ever; I'm simply forced by my
clients to use their wretched garbage at times. If you want to argue the
prevelanace of the M$ products as a level of acceptance, I have no arguement.
Let's leave alone, however, the issue of their wretched quality and
instability.
So. What database are -you- using? Sybase? M$? And with what apps? How
does this relate to the folks at MySQL trying to bolster what -they- percieve
as the 'proprer' platform for -their- product? If they feel that *nix is the
right one, fine. If they felt that M$ was the right one, also fine. That they
charge for the M$ flavour is, IMO, their choice. As you point out quite
correctly, you aren't being held at gun-point to use it.
Unlike the M$ rubbish that I'm currently fighting on this engagement.
> I don't understand why they offer a GPL for all platforms but one. Are they
> trying to subsidise the cost of their Win32 compiler? Do they feel that they
> -- as an application developer -- can knock me off the OS I choose? It seems
> so...spiteful.
<blink> I'll note here that, given the above, I'm not sure why you feel that
the M$ flavour should be GPL'd when the platformn it is to run on/against most
certainly is not. Also adding to my confusion are the points above. No,
you're not forced to use it. Go lay out the bucks for SQL Server instead...and
realise that -all that money- could have been spent on Lego <grin>.
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
Be well... I'll pick up the cudgels after thge week-end <grin>.
Cheers,
Roger
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: web surveys
|
| (...) I understand your point to be that the GPL is invalid because my OS isn't free...? Simply because the OS isn't free (1) doesn't mean that the GPL forbids using GNU code on it... "The act of running the Program is not restricted...only if its (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
