Re: Gratuitous promotion of random binaries to standard
Quoting Dale Scheetz (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> My concern is not so much with MC being rejected as a "standard" package,
> but more with the entrenched conservatism that says, only those packages
> that have historically been considered "part of a standard Unix system"
> are ever to be considered as "standard" Debian packages. This strict
> interpretation is the definition of a "dead language", an unchanging
> static object that can never be adapted to a new environment and will
> therefore become extinct.
I don't think it's so much rigid conservatism as it is a different
philosophy than other OS's. 'Standard' on unix involves a lot of little
programs like grep, sed, awk, etc. 'Standard' on Win/DOS involves shells
that insulate the user from the command line. I'm not saying that one is
inherently better than the other, but I do think there is a difference.
mc is, IMHO, more oriented toward the DOS philosophy than the unix
philosophy. Some people might find it useful, but it just doesn't feel
like a 'standard' unix package. And the odds are that if you sit down in
front of a unix machine from another vendor, you won't find mc
installed--it's just not standard. Someone already addressed the fact
that new packages can become standard--like perl--but that's a program
with a unix feel to it, that fits into the unix philosophy much better
than mc. FWIW...
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .