Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:51:33 +0100 From: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> To: Peter McGarvey <fbsd-x@packet.org.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RMS says: "Use BSD, for goodness sake!" Message-ID: <20030626115133.GA57378@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030626113553.GA53078@packet.org.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030625214311.00e5e240@localhost> <20030626010357.J508@hub.org> <20030626110336.GW34365@iconoplex.co.uk> <20030626113553.GA53078@packet.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:35:53PM +0100, Peter McGarvey wrote:
> * Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> [2003-06-26 12:04:33 BST]:
> > awk - encourage people to port their code away from awk. Big.
>
> Does anyone actually USE awk?
Yes.
> Other than to filter columns that is.
That's exactly what it's used for. I haven't seen anybody use awk for more
than a command line `awk '{print $4, $6}'` in years. I know one guy who uses
it for other stuff, and he's moving it all to perl anyway. If we were to
write a 'colprint' command that would do the same thing, most people would
not notice the difference if it went.
> But as awk is usually available on other Unixes, I'm apt to rely on it's
> existance. So I'd hate to see it go.
There is nothing stopping it being a port/package.
> > rcs - remove and make an optional package?
>
> Get's my vote. I'm fedup accidentally typing 'ci', and getting prompted
> for stuff.... I'd much prefer a "command not found" message.
Indeed. For the vi fans out there who like to work when drunk, the removal
of ci will be a little godsend. We don't use it, it can be made an external
package, one less thing to worry about.
> Doesn't OpenBSD have a preferance for BSDL? I seem to remember the pf
> project kicked-off due to a problem with the IPFilter licence. Perhaps
> we should see what we can lift from them.
Good point, but if memory serves, the last time I looked at OpenBSD there
was still a chunk of GPL floating around.
The big one is gcc. Remove that, and we're really rolling. The alternatives
aren't very good though - TenDRA? I remember the troll a few weeks ago
suggesting this, and maybe it's a plan. The impact would be massive though.
All those makefiles with command line options to be passed to gcc...
The more I look at that list though, the more of them I think could be
pulled out as external packages/ports
--
Paul Robinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030626115133.GA57378>