From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 22 11:25:49 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 <nick@van-laarhoven.org>
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 <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=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!