tmux(1) in base
mexas at bristol.ac.uk
Tue Sep 22 08:42:14 UTC 2009
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. 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
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
More information about the freebsd-current