On Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 02:53:26PM -0500, john@dhh.gt.org wrote: > Rob Browning writes: > > If you have a better solution that still keeps all the advantages we have > > now, I'm all ears... > > The problem would be at least partially solved by making emacs optional. > Same goes for tex. Why are they standard? If we downgraded emacs's priority, a powerful ZOT would issue forth from rms's fingers and utterly destroy all Debian systems in the world. It's thanks to rms that Debian got off the ground in the first place and to relegate the GNU flagship program to "optional" status would curse us with loads of bad karma. Mind you, I'm *not* an emacs user myself. And I'm fully aware that the above is not a technical argument for keeping emacs standard. As for TeX, well, I like to think we're doing Donald Knuth a similar honor, though he has nothing to do with us. Donald Knuth is probably one of the few computer scientists in the world whose genius I think even GNU freaks would consider -- if only for a moment -- as exceeding that of rms's. :) *sigh* Now I'm going to get flamed by the aforementioned GNU freaks. In my defense, let me say that I *like* RMS, honest, and I'm not one of those folks on slashdot who thinks we (the Linux community) ought to sweep him under the rug because he makes us look bad in front of the suits. I just think there some Religious Issues at work w.r.t. the priority of some packages. :) That and the fact that you really can expect to find GNU emacs and TeX on just about any Unix system in the world, regardless of vendor, which is part of the definition of the standard priority. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you wish to strive for peace of soul, Purdue University | then believe; if you wish to be a branden@purdue.edu | devotee of truth, then inquire. http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Attachment:
pgpPYEt_WBWS2.pgp
Description: PGP signature