Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins

> At Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:23:49 +0200,
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:59:58 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 11:34 -0400, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > > > It's pretty normal to see opponents of a decision like this complain
> > > > loudly when it lands on their system, whereas the silent majority in
> > > > favour will be happy to see the change finally implemented but reluctant
> > > > to stir up the discussion again.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think new arguments are brought to the discussion, just new
> > > > people, who are temporarily inconvened by a change towards sanity.
> > > 
> > > Nice emotive response, especially the subtle but unsubstantiated 'silent
> > > majority in favour' bit -- but you forgot the part where you were
> > > supposed to actually point out a tangible benefit which is achieved by
> > > breaking compatibility like this.
> > > 
> > > And no, reducing the size of /usr/bin by a tiny fraction isn't really a
> > > worthwhile benefit -- in reality, the 'silent majority' really couldn't
> > > give a monkey's left testicle about that, and breakage caused by the
> > > gratuitous change _far_ outweighs any minuscule improvement.
> > 
> > Reducing /usr/bin in size was totally worthwhile. Maybe not to you, but
> > to the silent majority I am a proud member of, it was. (I'm not saying
> > that the path that was taken to get there was optimal, just that the
> > goal was sound.)
> > 
> > I just can't think of any other tool which installs over 100 binaries
> > (or scripts, that's the same) in /usr/bin. Can you?
> 
> netpbm has almost 300 in /usr/bin.