>>>"sb" == SL Baur schrieb am 06 Apr 1999 03:59:30
-0700:
> IMHO, this would be another case that shows that XEmacs is
> starting to forget its multi-user roots [1].
sb> Is this such a problem?
It may become a problem if/when there were decisions made that make it
difficult to easily support multi-user systems (in terms of
administration).
sb> The XEmacs user base has changed dramatically over the last three
sb> years in favor of systems that are typically single-user.
How do you know ? Over the last seven years I have been using XEmacs
mainly in multi-user environments (apart from my home-based
linux-box). On each of these there was a single maintainer handling
the Emacs installation, with a _lot_ of users you never even noticed,
until you heard somebody calling for a third hand and foot-pedals ;-)
Typically you will never ever hear from a lot of Emacs users in the
newsgroups.
[packages should be installed by sysadmins]
sb> Users have always been encouraged to install their own lisp.
That is something that gives any sysadmin the headaches. I have been
bitten much to often by having old packages lying around, breaking new
clean installs (mailcrypt, VM and bbdb, anybody ?).
What you say is certainly true for private additions and
configurations - but it is a very different story, if all users keep
their own "newest version of package xy, since that bloddy sysad never
installs it" - and the sysadmin in fact is only one day late or has
good reason not to install a package.
Note that I'm not asking to disable the package-system or to
discourage its use. I'm just pointing out that seen from a Unix
point-of-view packages may pose a problem (let the user use, let the
admin administrate).
sb> Anyway, granting that "XEmacs is forgotting its multi-user roots"
sb> whether or not this is in fact the case, my question is "What
sb> difference does it make?" This is not a flame.
Well, from what I've heard over the years, there always have been the
kind of administrators that said "XEmacs, oh no, that's just to big, I
won't install it". Maybe "forgetting its multi-user roots" can give
those folks a whole new bunch of arguments (again: I'm not saying that
it currently does, I'm just pointing out that we should try to avoid
those arguments in the first place).
Holger
--
---
http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ ---
"While it may look like it at a casual glance, XEmacs does not link
against every library in Known Space."
-- SL Baur on xemacs-beta