Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

KM (4)

  (email not shown publicly)
AOL IM: perlguy13 (Add Buddy, Send Message)

I wrote a book, maybe you will buy it. Writing CGI Applications with Perl []

Journal of KM (4)

Monday July 29, 2002
08:04 AM

Perl an ORA product?

[ #6720 ]
Many of you know I am trying to sell my home. On Saturday I had an open house. During the open house I was wearing an O'Reilly (ORA) shirt. One of the guys who came to see the house asks:

"Do you use O'Reilly software?"

I said "No, I read some of their books."

After a while he asked what I do for a living, I replied:

"I write Perl for a living."

He responded, "Oh, well Perl is O'Reilly software."

I then went on to explain that he is WRONG! That started me thinking (uh oh)... is Perl an ORA product? This guy thinks so, and I bet he isn't unique. I went over to and looked as someone who doesn't know much about Perl.

If you think about it, it does look (based on the site) that Perl is an ORA product. The graphic at the top "O'REILLY PERL.COM THE SOURCE FOR PERL" Ok, so is the "source for Perl" and is apparntly owned, operated and maintained by ORA. So far, looks like it could be an ORA product.

Basically, look at the whole page. The 'source for Perl' is a big ORA advertisement. Look then at and Both sites look like grass-roots sites with no corporate backing or ownership.

So, I guess it could look like Perl is ORA software to some folks. Is it a bad thing? A good thing? Does it matter?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Look then at and
    And thus look at [] as well.

    While I see how one could get a biased view from a dot-com site, checking out the dot-org site clearly shows a lot more neutrality.

    • Randal L. Schwartz
    • Stonehenge
    • While I see how one could get a biased view from a dot-com site, checking out the dot-org site clearly shows a lot more neutrality.

      Of course, the distinctions between .com and .org are not well-known among most programmers today, and for that matter, may be just a historical footnote, in practical terms.



    • But, plainly states on it that it is the "Source for Perl". Why would anyone go anywhere else but the "source"? I would wager 95% of people looking for something look at .com before .org or .net (let alone .tv, .info, etc...) So, if I see this place is the "source for Perl", why would I go looking at the .org? After finding this "source for Perl" I could see how people could assume Perl is an ORA product of some sort.
  • IMHO there is a tight bond between ORA and Larry Wall, afaik they pay him and he gets to work on Perl. So the lines kind of overlap a bit.

    Perhaps this kind of association between Perl and a corporation have made it more attractive to conservative companies (unlike Python and others)...

    But the facts have to be made more visible at the site: Perl is Artistic and GPLed. It does not belong to O'reilly.

    -- Roberto Machorro