Subject: Re: categories again [was: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc]
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/05/1999 13:08:04
[ On Sunday, September 5, 1999 at 00:42:38 (-0400), Jim Wise wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: categories again [was: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc]
> The number of packages this removes from `misc' is in itself a good
> argument for the creation of this category, IMHO. The fact that we have
> spreadsheet software split accross `math' (which they aren't, IMHO) and
> misc, and graphing software split accross `graphics' and `misc' is
> another sign that a new category is a good idea...
Despite the fact that I've seen people use spreadsheets for almost
everything they weren't necessarily thought of as for (databases, word
processors, statistics packages, etc.) [and I even did write some code
with a couple of guys back in the 80's who were trying to build a tool
that was actually designed to be all those things! (one of the
"designers" was really a lawyer though)] through to things they were
(accounting, financial modeling, etc.), I do firmly believe they belong
in the math category. They primarily do "math" (though often just
simple algebra). There are already three spreadsheet programs in the
"math" category, BTW.
The problem I have with a generic "office" category is that it's way too
damn generic. Perhaps I might suggest "accounting" or "finance" and
"wordproc" and perhaps even "statistics" as better category names. I
certainly wouldn't look in "office" for a spreadsheet, though I would
look in "finance" or of course "math".
What about sub-categories too?
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>