ft wrote:
"For the record: for me it's the number of wms, that should be reduced,
because there's not much point for a *livecd* to provide such diversity
when the most frequent use is disaster recovery."

Fortunately the grml project _does_ provide structured diversity, for eg
grml-small & medium and the ability to install to disk. Therefore it is
insufficient to quote "the number of wms" per se as reason for their removal --
otherwise you might as well similarly argue to produce only one grml flavour and
not have the install to disk option, have just the one true editor etc.
  Instead you should try a cost-benefit analysis. For eg if the wms all took 1kb
of space you would benefit practically nothing by their removal -- saying the
"number of wms" is the issue without reference to space is illogical.

 Your quoted statement is in fact an argument for _not_ reducing the number of
wms: the person doing the disaster recovery doesn't have to mess around with an
unfamiliar wm or one that frustrates his typical workflow. 

  All the paragraphs in my original post are preceded with "if", please type
"man if" ;)

Regards, Greg