* Ricardo Signes <perl...@rjbs.manxome.org> [2010-01-03 14:35]: > It would be a shocking display of benevolence on the part of > O'Reilly to "give up" the camel. And... "live dangerously?" > Do you mean: "piss off the publisher of many useful Perl books, > opening ourselves to lawsuits and ostracism?" > > That's not a good plan.
I cannot help noticing how this parallels the rationalisations of people in an abusive relationship… * Ricardo Signes <perl...@rjbs.manxome.org> [2010-01-03 14:35]: > The problems with pearls include: (a) promoting mispeling Perl > as Pearl and (b) a pearl reduces, in its simplest depiction, to > a circle. It's not very visually distinctive. > > An onion can be pretty pared down before you lose sight of what > it is. It’s unrecognisable at favicon size. The camel is distinctive down to a handful of pixels. And if you add a shell to it, so can a pearl be. In fact a pearl in a shell is what iX magazine in Germany has used as the masthead for their on-and-off Perl column for at least a decade. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
