Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Cheers, philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Probably after kermit and "hello world". :-) -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:27:51PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:19:27PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: [unzip] Which, according to its home page at http://www.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html , is "the third most portable program in the world". Probably after kermit and "hello world". :-) You read the web page, didn't you. Nope, just guessing, based upon years of spending too much time staring at source code. *sigh*. Must remember to get a life one of these days... -Dom
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Seems like we've made a reasonable start on this project. We already have a few scripts written - anyone want to report progress on any of the others? I have Guestbook, FFA and simple search all ready to for testing elsewhere - I'll package and upload them somewhere this evening. I looked at wwwboard as well and discovered that I had got as far as making it strict and use CGI.pm so whover is working on that can have my work in progress if they want :) What we need now is to start to impose some structure on the project. Here are a few ideas: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) * Testing both our versions and the originals on as many platforms as possible. Ensuring that our scripts do the same thing as Matt's. * Licensing. Matt has a huge great license on all of his scripts. We should replace it with the standard "under the same tersm as Perl itself" statement. * Copyright. All the scripts (and the HTML pages) have Matt's copyright. We should change that to ours. * HTML. Most of the scripts have associated HTML pages. I've not looked at them yet, but judging by the HTML I've seen in the scripts I've looked at, Matt's HTML isn't much better than his Perl. I'd recommend changing all the HTML to XHTML. I have run tidy over all of it and converted it to HTML 4 Transitional but XHTML would be just as easy. I can download the rest of the scripts and then fix the associated HTML too. * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. This should probably done on the CVS server. * Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be a subdirectory on london.pm.org. Unfortunately because I am without laptop at the moment things are a bit difficult - I have had to press my very old machine into service. Oh BTW are we allowing POSIX in ? I had used that in the Guestbook for strftime ... /J\ -- I'm obviously challenged at the moment give me a break.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Snip * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. This should probably done on the CVS server. Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Thanks Gareth Harper
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On the subject of having zip archives as well as tarballs on the server,
Gareth Harper said:
Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by
default so that may not be neccesary.
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social
point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going
on! What are all these weird charges from AOL? etc)
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stowe" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. Winzip (what most windows users these days use to unzip) handlers tar.gz by default so that may not be neccesary. If all the files are created in unix, they may well not have \n\r at the end of the lines, which make them a bugger to edit in notepad (wordpad and even edit handle them OK though.) So I think the archive should have windows versions of the text files that work in notepad. CVS (I use GNU winCVS in windows) handles all these conversions for you, but if someone wants to download a zip (whatever format) or a certain script (or doesn't care about CVS) then the zip will need to contain the \n\r.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. I don't have liability insurance, but don't look at me as a good example: I paid my tax a year late, and keep forgetting to send in my VAT returns! -- Marty
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. If the money was paid to you as a salary you'd be lucky to see 50% of it. It also reduces the NIC burden on the employer... by removing the 12.2% employers contribution, so they can afford to pay you even more :)) So Limited Company everytime if you can .. works best for both sides. The costs of setup are small, the costs (in terms of time to admin it) is small (1 hour a week max, plus a couple of days at some poin tduring hte year to get it all together and hassle the accountant) but the benfits, financially are significant. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) Thanks Gareth Harper
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 15:40 20/03/2001 +, Gareth Harper wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) IANAL but I think that clients become liable for paying certain dues, NI IIRC, if you, as a sole trader or casual worker, are based on a client site, directed by the client, for a long period of time (for some value, unknown to me, of "long"). By retaining a limited company, the client is absolved of this obligation. There could be other reasons or this reason could be completely false. It's been several years since I looked at this. Simon.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Marty Pauley writes: On Tue Mar 20 11:46:25 2001, Gareth Harper wrote: On a completely off topic note I'm appealing to the contractors among you here. Those of you who have yor own company. Did you set yourselves up as a Limited Company, or as a Sole Trader. If you set yourself up as a limited company did/do you have liability insurance etc. Limited Company. Clients and agents all seem happier when dealing with a Limtied Company. Many just assume you have one and you could have a few problems getting paid if you don't. I don't have liability insurance, but don't look at me as a good example: I paid my tax a year late, and keep forgetting to send in my VAT returns! That pretty much describes me too. Regarding insurance, the PCG (http://www.pcgroup.org.uk) have arranged deals on professional indemnity and medical insurance which may be worth a butchers. -- Brian Raven My arthritic pinkies are already starting to ache just thinking about =. -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Excewpt that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which means they should be happy. Oh no, wait a minute, I think it uncompresses the .gz bit then prompts for what to do with the .tar bit, which might scare them off. Just shut up, matt. -- matt "'scuse me trooper, will you be needing any packets today? hey, baby, don't be pulling on my socket, okay?" [0] Or whatever handles .tar.gz on their machine.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robin Szemeti" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: apart from that the benfits of running as a Limited Company are large (ish) assuming you can escape from the clutches of IR35. by careful handling of the way you do things your overall tax and NIC burden can be 'effectivley managed' and you should see 80~85% of what you earn actually ending up in your pocket. but iosn;t the same true when acting as a Sole Trader ? You still invoice people as you would as a Limited Company (I asked an accountant friend of mine for advice and he suggested I go with Sole Trader which is why I'm asking) nope nothing like. as sole trader all monies received (- expenses) are treated as income .. thus you pay NIC on the whole lot .. tax at 23% or whatever up to 30K and then tax at 40% above 30k(ish). as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year Rubbish ;) its NIC free, not tax free. .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) No, thats what the self-assessment form is for at the end of the year.
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 04:07 PM 20.3.2001 +, you wrote: Not neccesary from a techical point of view. Neccesary from a social point of view (What's this extension! I don't understand! What's going on! Except that windows machines tend not to even show the extension by default, and so the file will just have a little WinZip icon[0], which means they should be happy. ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing a web or ftp site that doesn't have any .zip files... Oh no, wait a minute, I think it uncompresses the .gz bit then prompts for what to do with the .tar bit, which might scare them off. That too -- that's a pain in the arse: it ends up adding a seemingly superfluous step to the process that could be off-putting to Win-natives. -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: All this is pre-ir35: as a employee of a limited company you would be paid national minimum wage (4 quid an hour) .. you pay NIC and tax on that ... (minimal) .. you claim expenses off the (ie your own) company for all the driving around you do and having to buy things and accomodation whilst away from home etc ... and whats left in the company coffers is profit. This has advance corporation tax paid at 20% and ends up in the pockets of the shareholders as tax free income upto 30K each a year Rubbish ;) its NIC free, not tax free. true, technically its not tax free .. as the company has paid 20% on it which is only 2% less (or is it 3%) less than basic rate. the big saving is if you are able to split it across 2 shareholders eg you and your wife, thus avoiding the 40% thing. for reasons less than clear to me this money is treated as being +10% gross (ie for every 1000 pounds you get it counts as 1100 pounds of tax-paid income .. but hey, thats what I pay the accountant for, to understand this sort of nonsense. .. and if the share holders happen to be say, you and your wife then thats a cute way of getting 70K from a contract into your pockets and only paying ~ 15% tax overall on it ... now do you see why they introduced IR35 as a way of trying to stop it .. ;))) No, thats what the self-assessment form is for at the end of the year. so long as you have paid your NIC and PAYE throughout the year and kept a careful eye on how much the divvies come to then there should be little else to pay ... 80~85% in your pocket is quite achievable... this is of course when you suddenly reallise that youve been giving out divvies far too frequently and you had an effective income of 60K each .. and that you;ve already spent it all and owe the taxman $LOTS. ;) the other big advantage of a limited company is that it allows you to decide when to release the money .. as a sole trader if you earn shed loads one year it all counts as income for that year .. with a limited company you might decide that the dividend would not be paid until say .. the end of April, thus it would count towards your income for next year and avoid the 40% thing .. which if you take a lot of holidays or find it difficult to get a contract could be advantageous to be able to do that sort of thing from time to time. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote: ...except that the Windows extension hiding feature only applies to files seen through the normal filesystem tools (Windows Explorer, various dialog boxes, etc), and not Internetty stuff. People might still be scared off by seeing a web or ftp site that doesn't have any .zip files... Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. /rant -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. I don't know - maybe in your inexperience you have a windowsy perl book (there are some out there) or a poor cgi book to work from that never mentions tgz or .tar.gz - its an additional obstacle - they'd only go an use MSA. A. -- A HREF = "http://termisoc.org/~betty" Betty @ termisoc.org /A "As a youngster Fred fought sea battles on the village pond using a complex system of signals he devised that was later adopted by the Royal Navy. " (this email has nothing to do with any organisation except me)
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. Seems to me you don't really understand windows very well :-) ws-ftp/ ftp explorer - drag and drop files onto your server chmod - who needs that, the directory is executable already, all files are too. tweak config files - notepad will allow the user to either add or remove a # from the appropriate lines in the file - these will be marked. .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someone is using windows/mac doesn't make them a moron. They may well be, but I know quite a few unix morons too. It is a different skillset. If a Mac user is trying to set up some perl scripts on a windows machine, he may well have had no exposure to .tar.gz files (hqx, sit, zip, pak, arc maybe). Files should be available in the format that is most commonly used for the OS. /rant /Robert BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
- Original Message - From: "Robert Shiels" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects .tar.gz - wtf is that, why isn't there a zip file. People keep misunderstanding this point: just because someone is using windows/mac doesn't make them a moron. They may well be, but I know quite a few unix morons too. It is a different skillset. True and also winzip makes the tar.gz file have a nice little zip icon, just like a .zip file, so they won't actually know the difference. Gareth
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, you wrote: BTW - I've just had some fun trying to uncompress a .zip file on Linux! tar gzip and gunzip don't seem to want to know. Guess that makes me a luser! you need the unzip(1) NAMEunzip - list, test and extract compressed files in a ZI archive DESCRIPTIONunzip will list, test, or extract files from a ZIP archive, commonly found on MS-DOS systems.The default behavior (with no options) is to extract into the current directory (and subdirectories below it) all files from the specified ZIP archive. A companion program, zip(1), creates ZIP archives; both programs are compatible with archives created by PKWARE's PKZIP and PKUNZIP for MS-DOS, but in many cases the program options or default behaviors differ. -- Robin Szemeti The box said "requires windows 95 or better" So I installed Linux!
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:48:25PM +, Michael Stevens wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:38:09PM +, David Cantrell wrote: Then they deserve to be hurt. Really. We can't possibly support dribbling idiots, and frankly, I have no wish to do so. If someone is scared by a .tar.gz extension then they have no business installing software. Even if just for their own use. I thought one of the goals of this project was to support "dribbling idiots"? Idiots maybe, but not those who are sooo lacking in necessary skills that they are scared by gzipped tarballs. Don't forget, these morons are going to have to know how to get the files to their server, do the appropriate chmodding, tweak config variables in the script - if you're clueless enough to be scared off by .tar.gz then you're guaranteed to fail anyway. So then they go and download the buggy, insecure, crap script from MSA and when they fail they decide that Perl is crap /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gellyfish.com
Matt's Scripts Projects
Seems like we've made a reasonable start on this project. We already have a few scripts written - anyone want to report progress on any of the others? What we need now is to start to impose some structure on the project. Here are a few ideas: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) * Testing both our versions and the originals on as many platforms as possible. Ensuring that our scripts do the same thing as Matt's. * Licensing. Matt has a huge great license on all of his scripts. We should replace it with the standard "under the same tersm as Perl itself" statement. * Copyright. All the scripts (and the HTML pages) have Matt's copyright. We should change that to ours. * HTML. Most of the scripts have associated HTML pages. I've not looked at them yet, but judging by the HTML I've seen in the scripts I've looked at, Matt's HTML isn't much better than his Perl. I'd recommend changing all the HTML to XHTML. * Bundling. Need to build gzipped tarballs of our new versions (I guess this should be built on top of the CVS stuff). Matt makes pkzipped versions avaiable as well - so should we. * Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be a subdirectory on london.pm.org. Anyone fancy taling any of that on? Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
* Web page. Need somewhere to point potential users at. Probably two
versions - one for the developers and one for the users. This can be
a subdirectory on london.pm.org.
I don't mind doing this bit of it. I would quite like the idea of
creating a few web pages for someone other than myself or for work for a
bit, unless anyone's got any objections...
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC
has concluded that:
a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title.
b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies.
c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1].
But apart from that we've been useless
Later.
Mark.
[1] Okay, so I added this one myself, but I think it's a good idea.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
Name = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer' ,
Firm = 'Profero Ltd',Web = 'http://www.profero.com/' ,
Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960' )
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 12:40 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: It has occured to us we need a decent name for this. Discussion on IRC has concluded that: a) It shouldn't mention Matt in the title. So "Not the Matt Wright Archive" is out then ;-) b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. Can we make use of the PerlMonger connection and/or use the Programming Republic logo ? Simon.
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:27:57 + (GMT), jo walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * CVS Repository (on Penderel?) i can sort this, perhaps with veeghelp. for leon and marcel's aspect oriented programming project we started a /home/projects directory, we could put the not-matt stuff in there and CVS all of it, and make a dev group as well as the www group we are using now would we want public access to part or all of the cvs repository? Sounds like a good plan to me. No strong opinions here about public access to CVS. Anyone else? Dave...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? c) It should sound at least semi-professional[1]. Can we make use of the PerlMonger connection and/or use the Programming Republic logo ? Yes, IMHO, though IANAL. http://www.pm.org/faq.shtml http://republic.perl.com/logo.html The perl mongers logo is a little on the big size (and we're not allowed to resize it.) Maybe a page that says "Who did this ?" "Why did we do it ?" and fit the logo in there ? Perhaps we should try and get the project endorsed in some way so that we can say "The Perl Mongers bring you Easy Perl Scripts" ? But now I'm descending into Marketing so I'll shut up ! S.
RE: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? My own two-penn'orth would be that it's better without the 'perl'. It's easier to say, easier to type, and to be honest, the target audience for Matt's archive don't give a monkeys what language the script is written in. They're told they want "a guestbook script", they go get "a guestbook script." Perl can be emphasised in the text of the page, and brought to the fore when you come to optimise the page to be found in search engines, etc etc. It's also more generic, which means you can legitimately 'funnel in' websurfers who are looking for PHP scripts, and then brainwash^Weducate them as to why they don't want that shit, they want *this* shit. -- Simon Batistoni userfrenzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7209 4117
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
From: "Simon Wilcox" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 March 2001 13:34 Subject: Re: Matt's Scripts Projects At 13:18 19/03/2001 +, Mark Fowler wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: b) That is should have a name that appeals to newbies. How about EasyScripts ? the domain name is available, anyway. Not very perl, but I like it. Something similar though. EasyPerlScripts or even EZPerlScripts (for the American audience :) ? EZPS, pronounced Easy Peas :-) /Robert
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ...
Re: Matt's Scripts Projects
At 14:59 19/03/2001 +, Simon Wistow wrote: Chris Devers wrote: Probably, as is "The Matt's Wrong Archive", which is probably far too negative obvious anyway... ;) But if Matt Sergeant put it up ... ... it would all be in XML ;-)
