Re: An 'ae' testimony
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:20:11PM +0200, Guenther Thomsen wrote:
> > > you are also making the mistake of assuming that joe is in any way a
> > > standard tool. it is not. the only two text editors which can lay claim
> > > to being a standard part of any unix are ed and vi.
> >
> > On a rescue disk you don't need standard tools. You need any kind of
> > tools that do their job. If there would be standard tools on it, then
> > we would have to include X and at least two emacs variants on it ;)
> Yes, but we need minimalistic tools, which behave in a standard (i.e. well
> known) way.
It's better to have an unknown set of keybindings, because if there was
a standard one (emacs, vi, wordstar, MS Word^H^H^H^H^H^H^H), we'd have
another flamewar....
> > However, the situation is a bit more complicated than what it may seem
> > to an innocent bystander - we have the boot disk, and the rescue disk
> > in the same image, i.e. on the same 1.44MB - and that is a really practical
> > reason why we needed to put a very very small (yet functional) editor on it.
> > Debian should not be criticized because of that decision, it was completely
> > logical in these circumstances.
> Well, than should Debian be criticizied for the decision, to use just one
> disk? I would prefer to swap disks (a _few_ times) instead of using a
> crippled editor. I can cope with ae (and measured by its size, it is an
> awesome tool), but more than once, I wished to have something closer to vi.
> Vi might scare newbies to death, but at least, it's documented in most Unix
> beginner's books.
Complain to debian-boot@lists.debian.org, or file a bug against
boot-floppies.
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
Reply to: