Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations

[Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

> But there's a wider issue of "how do I structure my
> .emacs" that everyone seems to solve differently[1],
> and which I would argue is a form of customization.

From a technical standpoint, it makes sense to have
small bundles of configurations, all well defined. Then
they would have priority so that you could stack them
so there's no conflicts (or mutex "fields" where they
apply, perhaps).

But from a human standpoint, it sounds too much like
the total fragmentation of the Linux distributions,
that is counter-productive and downright bizarre.

In "Linux Magazine" there are seasoned old
professionals who reason like this:

newbie: what Linux distribution should I choose?
pro: there is no right or wrong. test a couple and
     determine what suits you the best.

This is *dead wrong*. The right answer is "it doesn't
matter. just pick *any* with a history, a reputation,
and an active user base. whatever you then stumble upon
that you don't like, you can change in 1 second,
because in 99% of the cases, such problems will not
relate to either the kernel or the distribution, but to
the *software*, which always is the same, and not only
across the Linux world but over the entire scope of
Unix, Solaris, BSD, you name it."

The same sort of fragmentation and rebranding of Emacs
is something I never want to see. The attitude that
should be encouraged is: "if you have a problem, you
can fix that problem, by fixing that problem, and that
problem alone. and you don't need to install or
download anything to do that."

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573