On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Matt Wilson wrote:
>*sigh*.
>
>Who's read the description? Really?
The description of Elm? I read it, I don't know about others. I
agree with general housecleaning of the distribution, for the
good of all, but I can understand why someone would be hell bent
if something they like was removed. Personally, I would not
really get too bothered. Even if PINE were removed, I'd grumble
for a few minutes, but then I'd pop in my 6.1 CD, and install
what I needed. No biggie. I make my own custom CD's for my own
installing anyways. Thank god to the configureability of RedHat.
I'm pretty happy with each release, usually with only a minor nit
or two, which are fixed easily enough. So, don't take any
comments to heart!
Take care,
TTYL
>On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 08:18:42PM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
>>
>> >> > In the same way I doubt RedHAt should keep shipping half a dozen mail
>> >> > user agents.
>> >>
>> >> Which ones do you think should be removed?
>> >>
>> >
>> >The description of the ELM package states that few people use it.
>>
>> Out of 2500 emails I have in the linux-kernel folder, 175 of them
>> were posted using Elm. Personally I use PINE, but 175/2500
>> random emails is 7%. That is hardly "few people". Granted other
>> mailing lists likely have a different MUA spread, but linux still
>> has mostly a technical user base, and I know if someone suggested
>> that PINE be removed, I'd have napalm on their ass pretty quick.
>>
>> The way I see things going, is moving lesser used stuff to a
>> second CDROM like powertools. Keep the main dist "general" and
>> put extras on a separate CD or two.
--
Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
Suspicious Anagram #4:
Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA
Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
