From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 22 11:25:49 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D996D106566B; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:25:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nick@van-laarhoven.org) Received: from baranao.anywi.com (baranao.anywi.com [213.207.101.176]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FCA8FC14; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:25:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Hillary.van-laarhoven.org (ip51cfcfde.direct-adsl.nl [81.207.207.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by baranao.anywi.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C71373F41C; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:06:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <37B47737-E4A4-4CF3-9DAA-B0F0A4CC8901@van-laarhoven.org> From: Nick Hibma To: current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20090922082344.GA64877@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:06:42 +0200 References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <4AB7ED76.5010406@FreeBSD.org> <20090922082344.GA64877@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on baranao.anywi.com Cc: Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:25:49 -0000 >> Rather than going down the road of putting everything that some >> subset >> of our developer base thinks makes a system "usable" into the base I >> would like to suggest that the effort be spent on improving the >> installation tools such that making a system "usable" out of the box >> is a matter of ticking off a few boxes at install time. That change >> will benefit a whole lot more users than installing one more user >> land >> tool into the base. > > I completely agree While pondering a +1 for tmux in the base system, I realised that the first thing I install is bash and vim, but the existing tools are suitable for booting a system. Another argument against including it is compilation time: It takes more than 10 seconds to compile tmux (I expected it to be 1 source file to be compiled, silly me) on my Hamster-powered (tm) server, so it would add a significant of overhead to buildworld. Our package system is a tremendous asset, and wholeheartedly agree with Doug on this. So my vote is now a -1. Not that anyone cares. Nick P.S.: I've added 'tmux' to the default packages of our nanobsd image build system. Thanks for the suggestion!