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>