Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • won't be from ORA (Score:3, Informative)

    by hfb (74) on 2002.06.14 16:32 (#9585) Homepage Journal

    the RT book proposal was turned down due to a lack of forseeable financial viability.

    • In order to have a book about a useful tool (it looks very useful) it needs to be viable? Wouldn't it help the viability of RT to have a good manual/book for it?

      Just some late night/early morning crankiness I guess.
      • Well, considering that O'Reilly, like many publishers, are in the business of _making money, yes they do whatever they can to make sure their investment is a sound one. If it's any comfort, AW gave it a pass too. The book market is utterly awful right now and pubs can't afford to publish on a whim like they did in the boom time.

        • Why not create an Open Source manual, using a wiki (a la wikipedia)? Not a discussion, but an O'Reillyesque user guide. Now the only question remaining is, what 19th century animal woodcut should we use?

          "Open Source steps in where for-profit companies refuse to tread! - J. Shupienis"