Re: What editors are in base?

[Greg Vence <gvence@ix.netcom.com>]

Martin Schulze wrote:
> 
> Greg Vence writes:
> 
> > > ae is on board.
> > >
> > > > I am surprised nobody mentioned vi -- what, no purists out there
> > > > anymore? :-)
> > >
> > > We already faught the fight before - and lost.  ae won. :-(
> > > There's a set of macros which can turn ae in a vi-mode.  This
> > > might be included in further releases.
> > >
> > I've never seen a base-line Unix box w/o vi that was what prompted the
> > initial mail.
> 
> Me too.  Apart from the fact that i cannot understand the decision
> I don't want to perform this fight a second time.  This was the decision
> and now we should al live with it until we find a better solution
> (which could mean finding a very small vi or reducing elvis to only
> support basic functions that makes it very small; or the above mentioned
> vi-macros)
> 
Agreed, I didn't realize that vi was a pig.  It might be nice to have
some notice on the install disks ie a script called vi that directs you
to ae.  This could be removed by the package containing vi.  Maybe I've
missed that _war_ too.

However, since I believe we should keep the 5.25" disks ae seems a
better choice.  Thanx to the previous decision makers.

> Apart from the fact that I need a vi, many new users won't ever use
> vi if they find it.  vi is a tool for freaks, hackers and gurus (therefore
> it's a very good editor for us...).  Beginners are very happy with ae
> because they can see which commands they can type.  It is really an
> easy editor.  Therefore it should be included in the base set. :-)
> 
Agreed, however Unix pro's tend to expect it as a minimal fall back. 
That's why I'd suggest that script for vi.

Less Suprising == Better User Acceptance

Thanx -- Greg.