On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Dave Thomas wrote:

> > Is this deployment issue and nervousness related to the desire
> > for inscrutable, binary, executables?
> 
> The issues are partly related to obscuring the source, and partly just
> the concern about adding non-commercial software to the mix. It would

A lot depends, I would think, on the target end-user.  If you are developing
appications for system administration, etc., code obscurity is not really a
practical issue.  The buys folks don't have the time, and the ones with time on
their hands are probably bright enough to decompile it if they are _that_
interested.

My personal take on deployment issues is consumer end-users.  These people want
an easy install, which any application not distributed in compiled form does not
deliver. In some cases, code obfuscation also becomes practical, as a curious
en-user can do some real damage to the program, and expect _you_ to fix it! 
Mianly, tough, the easy install issue is why I would like to see a compiler for
Ruby. 

> be the same issue if we said "let's not use Oracle, let's go with
> PostgreSQL". 

Well, there is the licensing issue, as in are we using the open source code in
a fashion that might draw legal troubles. But, I think the _real_ issue is what
you said below:

>Client management wants someone to kick, and vendors with 
> contracts to call out when things go wrong on site. It's a perception
> thang ;-)
 
Ive been "guilty" of that.  Some things we outsource for that very reason.  The
fancy word is "accountability" which is sometimes easier to achieve from
outside sources than from your own people. :-)

Regards,

Kent Starr
elderburn / mindspring.com