Re: concensus on removing TeX and Emacs from standard
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 12:03:02AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > Hello, I think TeX and Emacs should no longer be standard.
>
> Emacs is a pretty important part of the GNU system (as far as the FSF
> goes), and TeX is a fairly useful thing to have around too. People who
> don't want it are, of course, free to not have them.
Important, but certainly not standard. If I were to known 20 people who
use and *know* Linux or some BSD flavour, only 3 out of them would
install Emacs and TeX (unless perhaps the others would need TeX to be
used eg. by some print-filter). Also, a few weeks I installed emacs
myself on one of my machines which didn't have it (and hadn't needed it
until then), output from 'apt-get install emacs20' was something like:
<whatever>
Installing 3 new packages
Need to get 0/8xxx kb of packages. After installation 2xxxx kb will be
used
<whatever>
I don't recall the exact numbers, but what's shown here are the
important figures and they are certainly correct. Seen the fact that I
have systems on 486 which use only 70 MB of hdspace and are pretty
functional, I wouldn't call whatever packages which would make the used
space grow with over 25% standard. (I never understood why Debian made
these two sets of packages standard)
>
> Personally, I'd be inclined to upgrade X11 to Standard. What's changed
> since it was put in policy originally? Computers have become a lot faster
> and larger, and a lot more GNU/Linux users expect to have a GUI available.
Wrong. Windows users will expect to have a gui available. I spent about
95 % of my time in the VC. And of those same 20 people, at least 15 will
also do so.
Filip
--
Get a life. Get Windows(tm). It makes you wanna spend a lot less time
with your pc.
<------------------------ Filip Van Raemdonck ----------------------->
filipvr@xs4all.be Helpdesk Tel: +32/(0)9/265.02.05
http://www.xs4all.be Webengineering Fax: +32/(0)9/265.02.50
<-------------------- XS4ALL Internet Belgium ---------------------->
Reply to: