Xref: utzoo comp.lang.perl:1856 comp.sys.apollo:5867
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!tsa!domo
From: domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl,comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Why perl can't ship as HP/Apollo base software
Message-ID: <1990Jul18.153158.23634@tsa.co.uk>
Date: 18 Jul 90 15:31:58 GMT
References: <4b8c2cb1.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <WEINER.90Jul17023001@novavax.UUCP>
Reply-To: domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop)
Followup-To: comp.std.unix
Organization: The Standard Answer Ltd.
Lines: 52

[Note Followup-To above.  Specify wider distribution if you feel it
appropriate.  This article has been separately possted to comp.std.unix as
Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 133, message id <10178@cs.utexas.edu>]

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 a
s
>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 dre
aded
>"business considerations" currently prevent our shipping this truely outstandin
g
>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 whatev
er
>standards bandwagons come down the pike, if perl makes it into Posix, 1003.?, O
SF,
>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 c
an
>say that our competition is shipping perl, that might swing some weight.  Is an
yone
>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