On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, JRBTech blurted out, without the
customary courtesy of citation and context:
Bah.
Indeed. Posting, without further comment, to a newsgroup
(comp.lang.perl) which was officially phased-out years ago, does not
bode well for the accuracy of anything else you might have to say to
the hon Usenauts.
Go here,
To recommend Indigoperl, wouldn't it be better to refer to here?
- http://www.indigostar.com/indigoperl.htm
its free and works very well. I wrote a review on it for you today.
What's wrong with usenet? It looks as if you don't know how to use
it yet.
I think many people will ask the same question.....
What same question?
Active Perl isnt free.
- From the ActivePerl license:
| You may use this Package for commercial or non-commercial purposes
| without charge.
- From the Indigoperl license:
| You may use IndigoPerl for commercial or non-commercial purposes
| without charge.
Would you care to take us through the differences which you perceive
in their respective licenses?
... /index.php/codecenter/2005/01/22/indigoperl_run_perl_on_windows_for_free
Come off it. It looks as if you're trying to promote a specific
discussion forum, not really to help anyone with their choice of Perl
distributions. That cited URL can be summarised as "we installed it
on one laptop and it works". Well, so it does, but you could safely
have said that here too.
Both are respectable and useful distributions. Of course there's also
Cygwin Perl ;-)
The benefits of IndigoPerl, particularly for a beginner who has web
usage in mind, are in areas which you haven't even mentioned - being
bundled with Apache, mod_perl etc. But I don't see anything wrong
with the other options.
[ f'ups set ]
