Re: alternatives and priorities
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:42:26PM -0300, Maximiliano Curia wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 16:31, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > You would end up with nvi or nano as editors, since they are installed by
> > > default. Probably more as viewer and so on.
> > Which is bad why?
> What I meant was that you would have a high number of installations for the
> packages that are installed by default in a normal installation, and that is
> not an objective way of getting information.
Again, this is why I didn't suggest to use the by_inst numbers, but
rather the by_vote numbers. The former count the number of
installations; the latter count the actual _use_ of a binary.
If you have nano installed on your system but never actually use it,
that won't move it up in the vote.
If you have a look at the order of the by_vote numbers for editors,
you'll see that vim, not nvi or nano, is at the top.
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4