Re: Leopard Perl version...

On Oct 14, 2007, at 7:28 AM, Daniel Staal wrote:

> --As of October 14, 2007 12:26:50 PM +0200, jeremiah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>  is alleged to have said:
>
>> Why is that? Does Apple not provide the resources to make this  
>> possible?
>> Personally I think they should because the Mac is a great development
>> platform. I think Apple would win more developers to the platform  
>> if it
>> were more open and a bit more up-to-date. Not ****pping Apache 2 seems
>> obstinate to me.
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> Stability within a release version is a good goal.  You never want  
> things to _stop_ working when you put out a patch.  If a developer  
> wants the latest version of something they can put it on  
> themselves.  (Especially if it is open source.)  If they are relying  
> on the version that is installed for some reason, you don't want to  
> surprise them by changing it unexpectedly.
>
> Daniel T. Staal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
> the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
> expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
> local copyright law.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I'm sure that is one of the main reasons.  Another more practical  
reason is that not everyone has high-speed internet, and having a GB- 
sized software update would not be a nice user experience for a modem  
user (though admittedly, some of the past software updates were pretty  
hefty).  So software updates are restricted to keep the size down.   
Because most users do not use the command-line or develop software,  
updates to command-line programs never make the cut (developer  
software has it own update channel).

Ed