[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations

From: Rustom Mody
Subject: Re: RFC: Flavors - naming significant sets of customizations
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:52:30 -0800 (PST)
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Saturday, November 30, 2013 1:25:02 AM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Jambunathan K writes:
> > A good way to think would be to "segment" the users.
> >
> > If one just puts a starting init file for each of the
> > "segment" in GNU ELPA, then this file and library
> > itself will become a focal point for consensus
> > building.  In a word, the .el file becomes a
> > "clearing house" for common or recommended
> > configuration.
> ...although I understand it now, I still don't like
> it. It is something "Asperger
> syndrome"/schoolboyishness about that whole line of
> thinking.
> If we have a tool that can do a hundred things, why
> market it as "you should use this suite, if you want to
> do [a subset] 10 things?" Does that really make sense?

It makes sense because of a basic principle of psychology:
Tell people (about) what interests them and you attract them.
Tell people what interests you and you bore them.
[Remember your experience with writing letters to Linux Mag?]

Which is why (something like) Jambunathan's list is useful:
Tell someone "emacs is the most super-duper all-powerful editor" and they blink:
Why should I want a super-duper all-powerful editor?
Show them how to solve their current problem and they will be all ears.

[BTW Advertising is a trillion dollar business]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]