begin Santiago Vila quotation: > m@moshez.org: > > * Not free -200 [changed from -50] XXX > > Oh, while we are at it, why not -1000000000 or just forbid non-free > editors to use the "editor" alternatives? :-) > > Not that I use pico very much (my usual editor is emacs, in fact, I > have not used pico for a looooong time), but this is not a technical > feature and should only serve to favour a free editor over a non-free > one, provided they have the same features, so -1 would be appropriate. > > Users of non-free packages already pay the price of having to retrieve > them from ftp. If you install a non-free editor, presumably it is > because you want to use it. > > As I said, I don't care for myself, but I believe the list should > be based on technical merits only. I had missed that one in the feature list. Thanks for pointing it out. I agree with you completely. I don't mind a -1 score to prefer a free over a non-free editor that otherwise are of equal preference (say, nano over pico), but -200, or even the original -50, is ridiculous. Craig
Attachment:
pgpG6eC1sGc6_.pgp
Description: PGP signature