Moving w3m out of standard

[Michael Hipp]

Soren Hansen wrote:
> If "don't be completely useless" is truly all we're aiming for, our
> ultimate goal, I'm in the wrong job. Seriously. This might sound
> pretentious, but I have higher ambitions than that.

Our "ultimate goal" IMHO ought to be to have a product that works well for the 
full spectrum of users. This includes those that want a "just enough" install 
as well as those that want a "gimme much" install and everyone in between.

I really don't see what's so controversial about having a standard installer 
that is fairly lean, with a "really bare" option  for those that want it as 
well as "more, more" option(s) for the others.

But if you're unwilling to provide all three of those capabilities (bare, lean 
standard, more-more), then you're saying there's one or more classes of users 
that you don't want to serve. I doubt that's the case. But why fight against 
any of the above three options when there are very valid use cases and lots of 
customers for each?

Michael