Re: concensus on removing TeX and Emacs from standard
On 02-Jan-00, 12:17 (CST), Robert Woodcock <rcw@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:37:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 05:32:30PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Please explain how you are taking my paragraph above and spinning it into an
> argument for making emacs standard.
If people are using both vi and emacs, and new users are still making a
choice (rather than vi becoming dominant), then both vi and emacs should
be readily available (by default), therefore both vi and emacs should be
standard.
<rant> While I completely agree the package organization could use a
major rework, it's not going to happen any time soon (before potato
release). I, for one, am getting extremely tired about these arguments
over default configuration and package selection (bash vs. ash, /sbin
in PATH, emacs as standard). Face it: defaults are just that, defaults.
If you don't like the defaults, then you need to put in some work on
your system to tune it exactly how you want. (One of Debian's strengths
is that you *can* tune it so, and a lot of work has gone into making
sure that such adjustments need be done only once (well, except for
"recommends", which dpkg treats evilly)). But the defaults should
provide a good basic system so that new users have all the normal tools
at their disposal. No, it's not suitable for a router, or a 50Mhz 486.
Those are not the norm. If you have to work with those kinds of systems
a lot, then "dpkg --get-selection" is your friend. </rant>
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <vmole@swbell.net>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: