On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 05:32:30PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > > Hello, I think TeX and Emacs should no longer be standard.
> > What would you say has changed since this was put in policy initially?
> Well, to be honest, I wasn't a developer when it was put into policy
> initially, but for the sake of conversation I'll assume before 1997-ish.
> Many people use TeX's typesetting as a stopgap word processor. Now that
> there are other very usable DFSG-free word processors around, the number
> of people using them is dwarfing the TeX userbase.
Then that would imply that TeX should probably be replaced with one of these
other very usable DFSG-free word processors.
I'm curious as to your `dwarfing' statistics, though. Especially if you
restrict it to only DFSG-free word processors. :-/
> The text editor scene really hasn't changed much since then. People who
> used emacs in 1997 are still using emacs, people who used vi in 1997 are
> still using vi, and new users are slowly aligning themselves one way or the
> other.
Which would be an argument to make emacs standard even if it weren't
already.
> My argument is that the number of emacs users who would be annoyed to
> specifically select an emacs to install are outnumbered by the number of
> non-emacs users who would be annoyed to specifically select emacs to
> remove. (whew!)
Why would *either* be annoyed?
It, like, involves two keypresses either way. Maybe a couple more if there
are some recommended packages as well. This isn't exactly hard labour.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpFq8_t6g3K5.pgp
Description: PGP signature