<ben_tilly / operamail.com> wrote:
"There is persistent speculation in the Perl world that
ActiveState has done a lot to pollute the development process."

Speculation from whom? Larry Wall? Randall Schwartz?  ActiveState
has the support of the main people behind Perl.

".. it is unquestionable that their
desire is to make themselves the definitive source of all
things Perl/Python, ..."

I'm not looking for a flame war, but I think that *is* a questionable
statement.

"ActiveState in particular is a company that I distrust."
Can you explain why?  If my trust in ActiveState is misplaced,  would like
to know.  Basically, I see them as a company that has done a tremendous
job getting quality binary distributions of Perl and Python on Windows.

"The entire point of open source (and many of
the benefits) are lost when people are not encouraged to have
and use the source."

When I installed Ruby on my Linux boxes, I compiled from source.  It is not
so easy,
though, to do that on Windows, so I am grateful for the Ruby binary
distributions.
from David Thomas  and Andrew Hunt.  Likewise, I am grateful for the
ActiveState
Perl binaries.  However, ActiveState *does* offer source, if I were to
prefer that, and
I don't see that ActiveState encourages one installation method over the
other.


I would like to see Komodo support Ruby.  I would like to see Ruby.NET.

I do not see that that having more companies support Ruby can be a bad
thing.


James







-- 
Posted from phnxpop5.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.5] 
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG