From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 04:51:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9072A37B401 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hannibal.servitor.co.uk (hannibal.servitor.co.uk [195.188.15.48]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E500944008 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:51:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@hannibal.servitor.co.uk) Received: from paul by hannibal.servitor.co.uk with local (Exim 4.14) id 19VVHp-000ExG-9o; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:51:33 +0100 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:51:33 +0100 From: Paul Robinson To: Peter McGarvey Message-ID: <20030626115133.GA57378@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030625214311.00e5e240@localhost> <20030626010357.J508@hub.org> <20030626110336.GW34365@iconoplex.co.uk> <20030626113553.GA53078@packet.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030626113553.GA53078@packet.org.uk> Sender: Paul Robinson cc: FreeBSD Chat Subject: Re: RMS says: "Use BSD, for goodness sake!" X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:51:21 -0000 On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:35:53PM +0100, Peter McGarvey wrote: > * Paul Robinson [2003-06-26 12:04:33 BST]: > > awk - encourage people to port their code away from awk. Big. > > Does anyone actually USE awk? Yes. > Other than to filter columns that is. That's exactly what it's used for. I haven't seen anybody use awk for more than a command line `awk '{print $4, $6}'` in years. I know one guy who uses it for other stuff, and he's moving it all to perl anyway. If we were to write a 'colprint' command that would do the same thing, most people would not notice the difference if it went. > But as awk is usually available on other Unixes, I'm apt to rely on it's > existance. So I'd hate to see it go. There is nothing stopping it being a port/package. > > rcs - remove and make an optional package? > > Get's my vote. I'm fedup accidentally typing 'ci', and getting prompted > for stuff.... I'd much prefer a "command not found" message. Indeed. For the vi fans out there who like to work when drunk, the removal of ci will be a little godsend. We don't use it, it can be made an external package, one less thing to worry about. > Doesn't OpenBSD have a preferance for BSDL? I seem to remember the pf > project kicked-off due to a problem with the IPFilter licence. Perhaps > we should see what we can lift from them. Good point, but if memory serves, the last time I looked at OpenBSD there was still a chunk of GPL floating around. The big one is gcc. Remove that, and we're really rolling. The alternatives aren't very good though - TenDRA? I remember the troll a few weeks ago suggesting this, and maybe it's a plan. The impact would be massive though. All those makefiles with command line options to be passed to gcc... The more I look at that list though, the more of them I think could be pulled out as external packages/ports -- Paul Robinson