Re: woody release task needs help: package priorities
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> >>>>> "Bastian" == Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> writes:
> > [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >> ae not used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
> > what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
> > boot-floopies?
> I am just experiencing zile and I find it quite good. And, btw, it is
> meant primarily for boot floppies.
> Another argument is that zile is "kind of" a stripped-down version of
> Emacs, and Emacs is the standard editor for the GNU system, which I am
> sure most of the people on this list are using.
That most Debian developers use Emacs is not a good argument for including an
Emacs-like editor in boot-floppies, because most people who will be using the
boot-floppies are /not/ Debian developers, and we should not expect them to
have the same background knowledge that we do. I've seen nano discussed as a
replacement for ae, which I think is a very good idea; nano is
*self-documenting*, which is the key feature for an editor we want to be
useful for all users.
I also don't think you'll get very far in trying to prove that most people on
d-d use emacs.
> > why a print daemon? most user doesn't need such service
> > if it is necesary, why not use cups as standard?
> LPRng is far more secure and robust than anything else. LPR is an
> insecure pseudo-standard, while LPRng is more configurable, better
> designed, more RFC-compliant. CUPS is nice too, but does lack a lot of
> "drivers" in its free version, is buggy and a lot of security problems
> are found too often.
Yes, I don't think CUPS is yet mature enough to be recommended for standard.
BSD lpr is mature, but it hasn't gotten any better with age. :) LPRng seems a
good choice to me.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: