> Something's gotta budge. I do not want to pay for the privilege of using a
> free
> language, and the "elite" need a damn good spaking to learn some manners to
> newbies (for at least the sake of advocacy) and people who don't use their
> own
> OS/Computer/Platform.

  Being a Perl community newbie myself, I'd like to comment that I
felt quite welcomed and encouraged.  I found my bad ideas politely put
down and my good ideas accepted and improved (or "embraced and
extended," if you prefer putting a negative anti-Microsoft slant on

> At what point in Perl5's history did it become politically (socially)
> incorrect
> to dislike Microsoft, and attempt to steer away from them and their allies,
> and
> other companies who use similar tactics to Microsoft's to take over?

  Boy, you got me.  I don't think it's happened, yet.  But it does
seem to be politically incorrect to like Microsoft.  At least, that's
the impression I'm getting.

> I
> think
> that the P6 version of the P5P should be matched with a body to govern the
> politics of the language, whose members are elected and whose members may
> not
> be employees of known or confessed monopolists (or, more realistically,
> have no
> profit motive).

  That's so subjective, though.  Nobody really has a software
monopoly, and everyone with a business certainly wants to be number
one.  How do you tell which companies are monoplists?  Or, to put it
another way, when you say "known or confessed monopolists," who is
doing the knowing?

  If you want to avoid profit motive entirely, you're out of luck.
It's just not going to happen.

  I keep hearing all this complaining about the "self-appointed"
leaders, but there aren't any.  The people I regard as leaders are
appointed by us, that is, I trust them enough to respect their
decisions because of their past record of achievement.


Reply via email to