Sponsored Content
The Lounge What is on Your Mind? Please consider adding an Anti 996 License Post 303033989 by Neo on Tuesday 16th of April 2019 02:38:07 AM
Old 04-16-2019
As Jack Ma mentioned, everyone has a choice. Those who put in more hours will tend to make more money or "change the world" as Jack Ma said.

Creating 996 licenses in software is not going to change the culture of people working hard to get ahead in a very competitive world, I don't think. It's a very noble cause, but I don't think 996 will gain traction, sorry.

What I have always said is that if you are going to work long hours, then develop software for yourself and create your own company and do not work for others. You have a choice. If you don't have a choice, then find a way to put yourself in a position to choose, which normally means working hard making good investments in yourself so that someday you can make money from your knowledge in your own business.

Don't be like the many people I have seen and met over the years who are experts in cyber security or some technology, but never create any software or do hands on sys admin work.

Working for someone else is a choice. When people don't like it, then find a way out of the situation you do not like and become more independent. That is the freedom of today's world where everyone is connected to everyone else on the net. Go live in the mountains, next to a lake, or move close to the ocean and write software. Choose to be happy.

Generally speaking, people choose to work for a company owned by someone else. That is a choice, at least in most of the world and the people who often put in the most hours at work are in startups trying to change the world and get rich.

Many people believe that working for a big company provides them "financial security" so they choose to work for others. That is a choice.

Every moment of life is a choice.

If you don't want to work 996 for some big company, then stop and work 996 for yourself. If you don't have the financial means to work for yourself, then find a way to have the financial means to work for yourself.

That's my view, but of course YMMV and not everyone agrees.

At least we can be gentlemen and agreed to disagree politely and respectfully.
This User Gave Thanks to Neo For This Post:
 

6 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting

1. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Anti Virus sw

Can anyone recommend Anti Virus sw for a ten user small business environment running Unix... ver? Thanks for the help (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: rpm
1 Replies

2. Shell Programming and Scripting

anti virus caller

Hi all. Iam using AVG antivirus personel edition, and i can only set it to run at one time only. Iam running it on a Win98 machine. is it possilbe to write a Perl script or c++ script to set it up to run at 12pm and 3pm and 6pm ??? (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: perleo
1 Replies

3. Ubuntu

What anti-virus to use with Ubuntu

Greetings I just installed Ubuntu 9 on my computer and need to know what anti-virus software to use. I have been using Avast anti-virus on my other comps for years and really like it. I have not tried it with Ubuntu yet but it says for Windows based systems. Any ideas are appreciated Thanks... (5 Replies)
Discussion started by: N5TDA
5 Replies

4. Shell Programming and Scripting

Updating the license tag in XML file with new license

Hi All, I have a XML file : System.xml in which I want to update the license tag with the new data from file licence.xml. The content of files is in following format: System.xml: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE Configuration SYSTEM "SystemVariables.dtd"> <usageConfiguration... (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: Pramod_T
2 Replies

5. Linux

Linux Anti Virus

Can anyone tell the best free antivirus for Linux? I'm using RED HAT 9.0 & want to install antivirus for it. So if anyone has any suggestions of where to get that antivirus, that would be great! (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: billcrosby
2 Replies

6. What is on Your Mind?

Multics Systems Programmers Manual as of 1969-04-01, comprising 996 PDF Files

While working on my current "UNIX history project" I ran across this: Jerry Saltzer created an online scanned copy of the Multics Systems Programmers' Manual (MSPM) in this directory. Based on the 1969-04-01 MSPM, the repo comprising 996 PDF files. In order to help preserver the MSPM, ... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: Neo
1 Replies
Module::Install::FAQ(3pm)				User Contributed Perl Documentation				 Module::Install::FAQ(3pm)

NAME
Module::Install::FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions for Module::Install DESCRIPTION
Though Module::Install itself has a general FAQ section in the pod, it's more for advocacy. Here's an incomplete and growing list of the actual questions I have been frequently asked (or found on the net) about Module::Install. Do I also have to update my CPAN modules every time Module::Install is updated? The point of Module::Install is let module authors take care of everything related to updating toolchains for the sake of module users. So, if you choose to use Module::Install, it's you who should update toolchains, i.e. Module::Install and other bundled modules. You should check if there's any significant change/fix in your toolchains. You should check if your toolchains go along with other tools users use to install your distributions, or with the systems users are in, or whatever that matters. In the end, you are expected to have much more knowledge and willingness than average users. That being said, practically, you don't have to update your distributions if they are working well. But if you do find issues, please update your distributions, even when you have nothing to change in your own modules. Module::Install is not only a tool to write better, but also a tool to encourage you to help others. Do I really have to avoid auto_install()? Not at all, using "auto_install()" is just fine. While it indeed behaved erratically in older Module::Install versions, there have been no reported issues since mid-2009. As far as compatbility with various CPAN clients: several rather large projects on CPAN (including Catalyst and DBIx::Class), are using "auto_install" without any issues reported by their substantial userbases. That said, if all you want to do is make it easy for a contributor to checkout your code and quickly install necessary dependencies, there are alternatives to "auto_install". If your CPAN module is new enough, you can pass a dot to the cpan command it provides, and it will install all the required distributions from the CPAN: $ cpan . The same is true for the cpanm command from App::cpanminus, with which you even can write like "cpanm --installdeps ." Should I put an "inc" directory Module::Install automatically creates into a repository for my projects? Depends. If the repository is private and only for you, you usually don't want to put it in your repository to let you always use the latest Module::Install you have (the "inc" directory is recreated each time you run "perl Makefile.PL"). If not, but you alone are the release manager and know what you have to do when you release, putting the "inc" directory into your repository may help other casual contributors, especially if you use minor (or private) non-core extensions in your Makefile.PL. However, if you generously allow other people to release, or you're not so familiar with how Module::Install works and don't know what you have to do in the above situation, don't put it in the repository. It may be the cause of troubles including a wrong version in the "META.yml". If you feel sorry about the inconvenience for your fellow contributors, you may want to add explicitly "use Module::Install::<ExtensionYouWantToUse>;" after "use inc::Module::Install;" in your Makefile.PL. It doesn't do any harm, and it makes clear which extensions they need to install. What're there in the "inc" directory? Module::Install puts its components (sometimes with extra modules) under the "inc" directory to be released with a distribution. Those modules will not be installed into your system, unless explicitly copied into somewhere. They are only used to help configuration, tests, and/or installation. If there's no "inc" directory, Module::Install will automatically create it when you run "perl Makefile.PL". And if that happens, a directory (as of this writing, ".author") will also be created under the "inc" directory. If the ".author" directory exists, the "inc" directory will be recreated each time you run "perl Makefile.PL" to make sure everything you need is included and up-to-date. This ".author" directory will not be included in a distribution. "perl Makefile.PL" doesn't work or does a strange behavior for me. Why? Module::Install uses an Autoloader magic to delegate command handling to the extensions in the "inc" directory. This works while everything is in order, but when it finds something it can't understands, it dies with a compile error, or does what you don't expect. To prevent the latter strange behavior, Module::Install 0.96 and above dies when it tries to process unknown commands. In most cases (other than typos), these unknown commands are from non-core extensions on the CPAN, and they should hopefully have predictable names that you can easily tell from which extension they come, though some may be a bit hard to find. If you are trying to contribute to some project, and having a trouble to run "Makefile.PL", please contact the author of the project to learn what you have to install. If the distribution is already on the CPAN, you may also want to look into the MANIFEST file to see which extensions are included in the "inc" directory before you ask. This usually does not happen in the user land as distributions that use Module::Install should have all the necessary extensions under the "inc" directory. If this should happen, that's most probably because the release manager shipped the distribution under a non-author mode. Please contact the author to fix the issue. Why can't I do <anything> with Module::Install that I can do with ExtUtils::MakeMaker? Module::Install is just a wrapper of ExtUtils::MakeMaker. You can do almost everything you can do with ExtUtils::MakeMaker by passing arbitrary attributes to ExtUtils::MakeMaker in the backend via "makemaker_args" like this: use inc::Module::Install; all_from 'lib/Foo/Bar.pm'; makemaker_args( dist => { PREOP => '...' }, PL_FILES => {'bin/foobar.PL' => 'bin/foobar'}, ); WriteAll; However, by the singleton nature of Module::Install, it may fail to process Makefile.PLs in subdirectories correctly now, and you may need to override attributes explicitly in some cases where Module::Install provides other default values than ExtUtils::MakeMaker does. Please see also the ExtUtils::MakeMaker's pod for further instructions. I added MyMakefile.PL to my distribution, but it doesn't work as I expected. Why? ExtUtils::MakeMaker (and Module::Build also) treats "*.PL" files in the top level directory as something special to generate other files. So, if you add something that has ".PL" extension like "MyMakefile.PL" in the top level directory, it also runs automatically when you run Makefile.PL. If you don't like this behavior, use "makemaker_args" to pass an anonymous hash to "PL_FILES". makemaker_args(PL_FILES => {}); AUTHOR
Kenichi Ishigaki <ishigaki@cpan.org> COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2010 Kenichi Ishigaki. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. perl v5.14.2 2012-03-01 Module::Install::FAQ(3pm)
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:35 PM.
Unix & Linux Forums Content Copyright 1993-2022. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy