[snip]
> My question is: Why should I bother to take the time to use Camelbox
> instead of ActivePerl? Don't they essentially have the same
> purpose?
Yes and no. They're both copies of Perl for Windows, but Camebox
includes a lot of the GTK C libraries and Perl modules; it's the 'box'
in Camelbox. ActiveState does have some ASAPI stuff for IIS that's
not open source, so Camelbox doesn't have those libraries.
To make things even more complicated, you do know about Strawberry
Perl, correct? It has a lot of support from the core Perl
developers.
> I like the fact that CB is (evidently) completely open source, other
> than that, I don't feel particularly compelled to spend the hour or so
> to get it installed, running, packages installed, etc. Your thoughts
> are appreciated.
If you're not familiar with compiling code on Windows, I'd say stick
to ActiveState, as the POGL people are providing the necessary PPM's
for you.
That being said, if you want any other Perl modules installed that
have XS code that ActiveState doesn't have a PPM for, you'll be
needing a compiler, as well as the knowledge on how to compile
software using your compiler, and then you *will* be installing lots
of things from source to satisfy dependency requirements.
A lot of these things (example: a compiler for XS modules, and MySQL
and PostgreSQL database C libraries, which means DBI/DBD support) come
with Camelbox out of the box so to speak. Compiling C libraries under
Camelbox is not very straighforward like it is on *NIX, but once you
get used to the process it gets easier.
As far as support goes, I guess you can ask questions on the
ActiveState mailing list, or pay for support, for Camelbox questions,
you ask them here on this list.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks,
Brian