Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 02:42:56 +0900

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin J Tilly <ben_tilly@operamail.com> writes:

    Benjamin> Try Template::Toolkit, DBI, Inline, or Parse::RecDescent
    Benjamin> for a few examples.

No thanks.  :-)

    >> And that's the bottom line, isn't it?  You don't have to listen
    >> to me; you've been there, you know what can be done, you can
    >> make your own judgements.  But what you're talking about is
    >> convincing people who are far more likely to swear by
    >> McConnell's _Code Complete_ than by ESR's _Magic Cauldron_.  I
    >> don't think unsupported claims about "just going to CPAN" are
    >> very convincing.

    Benjamin> I think that people like yourself who dislike Perl or do
    Benjamin> not know it well tend to underestimate CPAN.

Whether _I_ do or don't underestimate CPAN is irrelevant here.[1]  The
question is, "how effective is the magic word `CPAN' as a reason for a
non-OSS hacker to turn to OSS?"  Especially if he's going to be
working in C or Java or Visual Basic.


Footnotes: 
[1]  But I think you'd be surprised.  Consider that the XEmacs package
system is basically the same kind of idea as CPAN, although most
existing packages tend to be apps rather than libraries.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.