Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 10:02:01 -0700 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: hoek@hwcn.org Cc: FreeBSD Chat List <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why Not Make tcsh the default shell? Message-ID: <33BA8989.233A@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970702081924.2652C-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If someone wants tcsh, someone else wants bash, so we should include both. Since everyone uses mail some of us prefer pine, others want elm, and others want mh. Of course some Linux distributions also include samba and tcpd. And noone should want to live without PERL5... Which shell you use is, in fact, almost irrelevant when compared to having other apps like a good editor. There should be an option on the package installation that automatically selects a basic set of utilities. And this could be done at various levels (packages for webmasters, "basic games" and so on). Perhaps an option that lets you select the whole branch of interest would be good. The problem here (IMO) is classification: how do you decide which ports are good or which are bad? Should we start rating them with *stars* like movies? Even if we recommend certain ports to new users, if they don't learn how to add packages they are losing the Big Picture (TM). Pedro. Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > Of course, correctly determining such context and writing all the > > "click the start menu at any time for new feature selection" user > > hand-holding code which enumerates the options properly is something > > which takes Real Work(tm), and it's rarely through lack of vision that > > these sorts of mechanisms don't exist, but rather lack of time. :-( > > No, it doesn't take any Real Work(c). Sysinstall already allows > the user to read docs before beginning the install. A short > blurb can be added to one of those docs. I don't think the > README would be unsuitable (although I can envision arguments > against it). > > A well-written explanation of the default installation is not > required, nor one of the proposed additional packages. I think a > simple "To make the most of your FreeBSD installation you may > also want to install some of the following packages <insert list > here>. You will have an opportunity to browse the complete list > of packages available after the installation is finished." > > May want to mention something about those packages which are only > available as ports. > > Hmm... Offhand, the first things I installed where bash, > jetpack, fvwm, lrzsz, zip/unzip, ircii, lynx, xboing, and xonix. > Making a list, I would remove jetpack and add a number of others. > > -- > Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! > tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33BA8989.233A>