Re: tmux(1) in base

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Doug Barton <dougb_at_freebsd.org> 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.
>
> Doug
>

+10 ... bge won't resresume from suspend, a simple kldload atapicam causes a
fatal trap12 and ACPI support is just a matter of luck ... and we are at
-RC1 ...


> [1] If we're going to go that route then I'm installing bash.
>

I'd get rid of Sendmail and replace it with something more sensible like DMA
(DragonFly Mail Agent) ... Even the Fedora guys are thinking about it ...

regards
Gonzalo Nemmi