В сообщении от 15 ноября 2005 00:57 Philip Dillon-Thiselton написал(a): > Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > >Perhaps now that Arch is really widespread, including info docs should > >be reconsidered. > > This is flawed logic - Your logic is the flawed one...
> the info docs were not excluded because we > weren't popular, they are excluded as part of a design choice. Seems that lot's of people think that this was a bad choice.... But it seems that philosophy is more important than real people with there desires here.... Same as in good old soviet union... I'm having some sort of nostalgy... :) > Therefore argueably, Arch is widespread because we DON'T have info files > and therefore should not include them. NO!! Things I like in Arch are ABS, pacman and initscripts. And from the very begining a hate an absence of docs.... There are different reasons why people chooze Arch. That's why your logic is the flawed one. hmm... I'm not completly right. I do appreciate small size of packages. Just because I'm a dial-up user and I don't have fast 24/7 connection. (The other things that "big archers" seems unable to understand...) But this is also the reason why I can't get access to docs when I need them. So the real thing I miss in Arch is ability to mantain docs in the same easy way I mantain packages. I do not want too force all other people to download docs, do not want too use rpm or brake other good things in Arch. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
