Re: An 'ae' testimony
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 11:20:12PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 10:51:03PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Then we should ditch the vi idea altogether. Why? Sure, *some*
> > experienced people will expect it. Here's one experienced person who
> > doesn't, however. What I *do* expect is an *easy* editor, not one that
> > conforms to how I work.
>
> A simple script that tells them to use ee would be fine I think. They'd
> live. Gods, it's just a flippin' boot disk for crying out loud!
no, it's more than just a boot disk.
it's a rescue disk.
some version of vi is essential on a rescue disk, regardless of what some
windows using loudmouth happens to think (and no, i'm not referring to
you here joseph).
> They WILL SURVIVE. I'd say just leave ae, except that given my
> problems with it, I would never want to be stuck needing an editor I
> can't promise will even work in 5 minutes.
ae is fine except for the vi emulation mode. it does the job, a simple
no-frills no-features text editor.
the only problem with it is that it's vi emulation sucks, which isn't
ae's fault...it's our fault for trying to make it do more than it can.
> ee is the right choice.
ee is better than ae, no doubt about it. however if there's 50+K
available on the rescue disk for ee it would be better to use that space
for a decent minimal vi clone (elvis-tiny needs ~67K).
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: