From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 22 08:42:14 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDBF106566B; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:42:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mexas@bristol.ac.uk) Received: from dirg.bris.ac.uk (dirg.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290D38FC13; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.10.63]) by dirg.bris.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mq0ff-00023P-HQ; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:24:28 +0100 Received: from mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.187.241]) by isis.bris.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Mq0f3-0006TS-8G; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:24:22 +0100 Received: from mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8M8Njwe064901; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:23:45 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mexas@bristol.ac.uk) Received: (from mexas@localhost) by mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n8M8NiWN064900; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:23:45 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mexas@bristol.ac.uk) X-Authentication-Warning: mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk: mexas set sender to mexas@bristol.ac.uk using -f Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:23:44 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20090922082344.GA64877@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <4AB7ED76.5010406@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AB7ED76.5010406@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: ---- Cc: Ed Schouten , current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:42:14 -0000 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:17:42PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > I hate to sound negative, but I really don't find arguments of the > sort, "the first thing I install on a new system is 'foo', so 'foo' > should be part of the base" compelling.[1] I, like a lot of other > FreeBSD users have never used screen or tmux, and probably never will. > For my money nohup works just fine for long-lived processes that need > a log. But even the "I don't use it so it shouldn't be there" argument > is not particularly persuasive. > > We need to take a hard look at what kind of system we want to have. > It's a lot easier to keep userland utilities like tmux up to date from > the ports tree than it is in the base. That alone should be the > deciding factor, but if you want to hear a chorus of the "bloat" > argument then fill it in here. > > 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 userland > tool into the base. I completely agree -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423