On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 02:09, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms 1407 org> writes:
> > So how do I decide which preferences to have?
> > You keep the preferences as they show up, and only prune those that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > can become unnecessary if you can fix the problem they're there for.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Other than that, you should still set a resonable (this is very
> > subjective) set of good (this is also very subjective) defaults, so you
> > reduce the need of tuning for joe user, but still keep the advanced
> > settings in an area you're only going to if you want to
> So here you argue that all prefs anyone submits or suggests should exist...
I can't read where you drew that conclusion from.
> > > Each preference has a number of costs, as I outlined in my article.
> > > Do you disagree with those costs? Question Two: If you disagree, why?
> > > Give rationale addressing each specific cost. If you don't disagree,
> > > how do you suggest we have "all" preferences without incurring massive
> > > costs?
> > The world is not black and white.
> > man gcc, count the options.
> But here you don't actually answer Question Two.
> If prefs have a cost, that seems to imply that you're wrong about your
> answer to Question One.
I really think I actually answered it. It may not be the answer you
quite expected, though.
Cheers
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi
+ So let's do it...?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part