Hah!! And the current situation Apple and Mac users currently find themselves in is so much better? This thread shoots your comment out of the water!! :-)
Sysadmins should know how to keep track of the two. Developers likely not, but then the sysadmins should be helping them out by setting appropriate PATH related environment variables, etc. And really talented developers will pick up the necessary sysadmin skills. So really all you have done is point out that you can't fix stupid.
That still doesn't change that there should be a clean Perl installation that the OS, third party vendors, etc. can use safely and another installation that the developers can have some fun with (i.e. if they break t it doesn't break the Perl used by OS scripts, vendor scripts, etc.).
I mean, if you replace the Bourne Shell binary with the Bash binary on a Solaris system wouldn't you expect to break some things? Then why do you think it's okay to make changes to the OS's Perl installation?
There are conflicting goals at play: a stable, clean Perl installation that the OS, vendors, etc. can rely on and the need for a Perl installation that can be enhanced and upgraded. If you have two (or more) Perl installations then you can have your cake and eat it to. Otherwise, you have to pick.
[ Of course that's ignoring that the cake is a lie! ;-) ]
Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
|