Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

Quoting Skip Montanaro <skip pobox com>:

>     Dominic> I'm annoyed at RedHat that I can't install a working system
>     Dominic> without python.  The same goes for Debian and Perl.  
> I'm not sure how either of these organizations is supposed to support a rich
> set of system admin tools without requiring some scripting language.  I'm
> sure there are many people out there who can attest to the programmer
> productivity gains to be had using any of a number of scripting languages.
> Abandoning them for C or C++ would make it much more difficult for these
> companies to create the powerful tools one comes to expect in a professional
> distribution.

Microsoft have managed.

>     Dominic> I'm extremely annoyed that the default gnome workstation redhat
>     Dominic> install is >700Mb.  Why do I need 5 mail clients and 5 web
>     Dominic> browsers *by default*.  If I want them, I'll install them.
> The issue of how many of a particular class of applications to install is
> completely separate from the issue of requirements for this or the other
> scripting language.  I suspect it's quite possible that the systems can be
> improved to at least classify an installation more accurately (e.g. server
> vs. desktop vs. custom) and to allow you to pick and choose among variants
> within certain application classes (web browser, email, newsreader, etc).  

Right, pick and choose being the operative phrase.  They shouldn't be forced
upon me by either being dependencies for core packages or even in the default
install.  If anything, the distributers should choose *one* that they feel is
most suitable for general use.
> My biggest wish is that I could avoid installing much of the fruits of
> internationalization.  While I appreciate the effort that goes into such
> work, I don't really need Czech, Hungarian, French, Portuguese, and Polish
> versions of everything.

Another good point.

>     Dominic> Keep the core as lean as possible, then let users decide what
>     Dominic> programs they will want to use, then everyone will be happier.
> That, unfortunately, works against the notion of making Linux more widely
> accessible to the unwashed masses.  They will generally want one-click
> installations (oops, did I just violate some Amazon copyright?)...

What research have you done to be in a position to say that? You can't make
sweeping generalisations like that unless you can support it with some
evidence.  I for one would far prefer to spend an hour installing packages
that I want to stop my machine being filled with 600Mb of software I'm never
going to use.

> Finally, I just popped on over to  It's kinda tough to get
> terribly worried about Linux or Windows installation size when you can buy a
> Seagate Barracuda 20GB Ultra ATA hard drive for $114.95...  That 700Mb
> you're worried about only takes up 3% of such a disk.

That's not an excuse for rediculous default installs by any stretch of the
imagination.  Not everyone can justify $115.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]