[ruby-talk:20794] Re: OReilly Ruby book has snail on cover

> |I understand, but let's look at it the other way:
> |
> |look, camels walk strangley, and probably do not smell good; python snakes
> |are very unfriendly and dangerous. Animal is animal, and every animal has
> |it's own beauty, it's own advantage, that made it survive and thrive.
> |
> |Any interpreted language is slow, a snail is one of the few animals that can
> |really make the best out of being slow. Besides, snails are really beautiful
> |animals. So, why not think of the snail as a profound object-oriented
> |zen-kind-of snail. In order to think deep, you need to relax. For me Ruby is
> |a good tool, because it is deep, so a snail on the cover could be really
> |inspirational.
> |
> |:-)!
> |amike via Henning
> 
> I respect your positive way of thinking, and will try to follow.
> I like you.  Thanks.

	Another option would be to rally some community support.  I just
fired this email off to [e-mail] and think it would be
helpful to see more emails of a similar (non-flame) nature sent in their
direction expressing concern about the cover.  Industry support is an
amazing thing: hopefully we can do something about this.  -sc


From [e-mail] Mon Sep  3 10:21:50 2001
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:21:50 -0700
From: Sean Chittenden <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Community feedback and concern regarding the choice of covers for the upcoming Ruby book...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-PGP-Key: 0x1EDDFAAD
X-PGP-Fingerprint: C665 A17F 9A56 286C 5CFB 1DEA 9F4F 5CEF 1EDD FAAD
X-Web-Homepage: http://sean.chittenden.org/

	Morning.  I hope everyone had a pleasant labor day.  I'm writing 
in response to a thread on the ruby-talk mailing list:

http://www.ruby-talk.org/blade/20717

	If you'll read through the thread you'll see that there's a
great deal of disappointment regarding O'Reilly's choice of animals for
it's cover.  I can't speak for everyone on the list, but I'm sure that
others share my disappointment in the choice of animals for the cover.  
Ruby has many merits, of which, elegance of the language's design, time
to develop of applications, and speed of code execution (relative to
Perl and Python): none of these qualities are even close to being
exemplified by a snail.

	Given the large and heavy influence O'Reilly's has with many,
many readers, I think I am safe in saying that the repercussions and
image of the language could be seriously hampered.  That said, I would
like to see if it's possible to have at least one of two things happen:

1) have the cover changed to something more sexy, appealing, and suited
to the Ruby language (possibly even a Ruby, none of the security books
are animals); and

2) include the language's and book's author in the choice of a book that
will represent the language, I'm sure he would appreciate it.

http://www.ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/20723
http://www.ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/20751

	I would like to let you know that I am planning on soliciting
the support of the Ruby community to help see that this is changed.  The 
print date is still two months away and there is more than enough time 
to have this discussed, and changed.

	If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to write
back.  I am anxious to address this and will do all that I can to help
amend this farce of a cover choice.  Thanks for your time and review, I 
anxiously await your response.


	Sincerely and concerned,

	  Sean Chittenden


	PS Given the history of Perl and the importance that the Camel
book has had for that language (which, by the way, has been the bread
and butter of my professional career, thank you), I think you would
probably be one of the first to see scope of my concern.  That said,
could you talk with the editor and see what can be done regarding this?  
Thanks.