Easy text editor.
Steven R. Robertson
The tkdesk file browser/appbar comes with a small built in editor.
If you've been working in the MS environment it seems intuitive
because Cntl-X is cut Cntl-C is copy, etc.
Bob Nelson
forgeltd <forgeltd@forge> wrote:
> "Intuitive software = Anything you already know how to use"
> A small scale project, that apparently nobody has thought of.
> Give "Linux converts" a text editor they already know.
> ie.. Everyone who has used DOS, Windows, OS/2 or a MAC
> already knows how to use the 'EDIT.COM' that ships in
> Windows 95. I can't think of any reason why this interface
> can't be implemented on a Linux console.
> Yes It's limited, weak and is only good for editing small
> scripts, but that is what new users need to do.
>
> vim ( vi/2 ? )= 294812
> joe = 173,636
> jed = 133,660
> EDIT.COM = 69,886
> Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
> version
There's already one smaller (and much better than that lame
EDIT.COM junk). This is *not* a troll nor is it an attempt to
rekindle the infamous ``man ed'' thread.
I think the newbies coming over to our side need to get an
immediate understanding (and appreciation) of the Unix philosophy.
Getting familiar with ``ed'' (which embodies virtually all tenets
of that philosophy) is a wonderful indoctrination our way of
thinking.
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 42920 Jan 25 16:37 /bin/ed*
--
========================================================================
Bob Nelson -- Dallas, Texas, USA (bne...@iname.com)
Well...Unix, of course. Because windoze is a pathethic toy...
Yes, Texas, of course. Because anywhere else is just a place...
forgeltd
"Intuitive software = Anything you already know how to use"
A small scale project, that apparently nobody has thought of.
Give "Linux converts" a text editor they already know.
ie.. Everyone who has used DOS, Windows, OS/2 or a MAC
already knows how to use the 'EDIT.COM' that ships in
Windows 95. I can't think of any reason why this interface
can't be implemented on a Linux console.
Yes It's limited, weak and is only good for editing small
scripts, but that is what new users need to do.
vim ( vi/2 ? )= 294812
joe = 173,636
jed = 133,660
EDIT.COM = 69,886
Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
version
PS : I am not a programer
Chuck Bermingham
Bob Nelson <bne...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<6ajobp$ksb$1...@renpen.nelson.org>...
> forgeltd <forgeltd@forge> wrote:
>
> There's already one smaller (and much better than that lame
> EDIT.COM junk). This is *not* a troll nor is it an attempt to
> rekindle the infamous ``man ed'' thread.
>
Bob--are we talking about the same thing? The "edit.com" program this guy
seems to talk about was actually introduced in DOS 5.0, and is a front-end
to the "qbasic" editor, which is pretty damn good. There is (as I
remember) an older "edit.com" that was typewriter-terminal oriented and
shipped with DOS 2.0. I used to use it, and I hated the bloody thing
almost as much as I hate "ed" as an interactive tool.
Windows 95 has essentially the same editor in a 32-bit version, but I think
it's no longer tied to Qbasic directly; in fact, I'm pretty upset that
Microsoft didn't make a 32-bit version of qbasic for Windows 95. The
32-bit "edit" program seems to be able to handle huge files, which is
really nice.
There is a "wpe" editor for Linux. I don't think it's supported anymore,
and the source is in German. It has a version also called "xwpe." Both of
these would make a DOS 5+ "edit" user happy. I've seen it around on places
like Sunsite, and I believe Red Hat's "contrib" directory has an RPM for
it.
Bob Nelson
Chuck Bermingham <berm...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Bob Nelson <bne...@netcom.com> wrote in article
> <6ajobp$ksb$1...@renpen.nelson.org>...
> > forgeltd <forgeltd@forge> wrote:
> >
> > There's already one smaller (and much better than that lame
> > EDIT.COM junk). This is *not* a troll nor is it an attempt to
> > rekindle the infamous ``man ed'' thread.
> >
> Bob--are we talking about the same thing? The "edit.com" program this guy
> seems to talk about was actually introduced in DOS 5.0, and is a front-end
> to the "qbasic" editor, which is pretty damn good. There is (as I
> remember) an older "edit.com" that was typewriter-terminal oriented and
> shipped with DOS 2.0. I used to use it, and I hated the bloody thing
> almost as much as I hate "ed" as an interactive tool.
EDIT.COM good? I know which one you're talking about.
1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
3). There are no named registers.
4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
prefixes to access the menu.
....and on and on...
Please, don't defend that poorly written editor -- especially when the
Unix world has offered vastly superior solutions for over a quarter
century.
Chris
> EDIT.COM good? I know which one you're talking about.
>
> 1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
> 2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
> forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
> 3). There are no named registers.
> 4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
> 5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
> prefixes to access the menu.
Well, the original poster was specifically talking about an inuititive editor,
and even defined intuiutive, as 'software you already know how to use (a great
definition, by the way). So let's look at these points one by one in this
context . . .
1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
That might be nice, but the average user has no use for regular expressions, so
this doesn't really matter.
2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
That almost sounds like a joke. If you can actually argue that to the casual
user, 'hjkl' are more intuitive than the arrow keys for moving the cursor, go
for it.
3). There are no named registers.
Like regular expressions, this is a who cares.
4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
I can see where this would be useful - you could open all .pl files at once, for
example. Here's where having the source code would be nice - this would have
been fixed almost immediately.
5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
prefixes to access the menu.
Non-standard? Only if you've never used Windows before. And what would you use
if not Alt-keys or the mouse? All the other keys are for typing.
Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
non-techies.
When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???
Lord 4mat
>Bob--are we talking about the same thing? The "edit.com" program this guy
>seems to talk about was actually introduced in DOS 5.0, and is a front-end
>to the "qbasic" editor, which is pretty damn good. There is (as I
>remember) an older "edit.com" that was typewriter-terminal oriented and
>shipped with DOS 2.0. I used to use it, and I hated the bloody thing
>almost as much as I hate "ed" as an interactive tool.
>
>
Are you reffering to edlin?
>Windows 95 has essentially the same editor in a 32-bit version, but I think
>it's no longer tied to Qbasic directly; in fact, I'm pretty upset that
>Microsoft didn't make a 32-bit version of qbasic for Windows 95.
Why would the do that? They want you to buy Visual Basic, of course.
>The
>32-bit "edit" program seems to be able to handle huge files, which is
>really nice.
I believe it can also handle multiple files, which is something Dos edit could
not do..
>There is a "wpe" editor for Linux. I don't think it's supported anymore,
>and the source is in German. It has a version also called "xwpe." Both of
>these would make a DOS 5+ "edit" user happy. I've seen it around on places
>like Sunsite, and I believe Red Hat's "contrib" directory has an RPM for
>it.
If you REALLY REALLY must use Dos edit, then you could run it under DOSemu, of
course. Besides, EMACS isn't extremely hard to use...
-------------------
Welcome to where time stands still, where no one leaves and no one will...
Lord 4mat
>1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
>2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
> forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
>3). There are no named registers.
>4). It has no support for wildcards on the command line.
>5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
> prefixes to access the menu.
Hmm... At least there is a menu.. console based editors like vi and emacs don't
even have that much.
>....and on and on...
>
>Please, don't defend that poorly written editor -- especially when the
>Unix world has offered vastly superior solutions for over a quarter
>century.
>
This wasn't a matter of DOS edit being superior or not. The original poster
wanted to know if there was an "edit-like" editor out there for unix for
newbies and such.
>--
>========================================================================
> Bob Nelson -- Dallas, Texas, USA (bne...@iname.com)
> Well...Unix, of course. Because windoze is a pathethic toy...
> Yes, Texas, of course. Because anywhere else is just a place...
>
-------------------
Arthur Corliss
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:27:07 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>
>Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
>sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
>Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
>from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
>non-techies.
>
>When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???
<G> As an avid vi(m) fan, I have to defend it. Where else can you do so much
with such efficiency? Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards are
more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast. The day
edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement. And how about multiple
buffers? Edit isn't it.
--Arthur Corliss
Corliss Consultancy
Anchorage, Alaska
David M. Cook
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Easy text editor.
References: <34cd4...@mento.n5.com.jm>
Organization: http://www.kernel-panic.com/
Followup-To:
x-no-archive:
What's wrong with we? It has an interface familiar to DOS users, runs under
X as xwe, has a fairly powerful feature set and doesn't use any unusual
toolkits. It has a full programming environment when invoked as xwpe.
I haven't used joe, but it seems to be well liked by some of beginners I've
talked to. And there's also pico.
Under X there is Nedit, TkDesk edit and GRASP.
On Tue, 27 Jan 98 02:45:20 GMT, forgeltd <forgeltd@forge> wrote:
>Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
>version
Does this really matter that much anymore?
Dave Cook
Mike Whiten
Chris wrote:
>
>5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
> prefixes to access the menu.
>
>if not Alt-keys or the mouse? All the other keys are for typing.
I'm trying to find the ALT keys and mouse on my wy99gt terminal....
>Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
>sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
>Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
>from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
>non-techies.
The EDIT.COM editor is *so* simple that it can't even handle
the filenames from the underlying OS.
>When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???
95% of it makes perfect sense if you take a moment to just *think*
about it. Pick any aspect of Unix that you find "weird" and I'll
be glad to explain why it actually makes sense.
Mike Whiten
Lord 4mat wrote:
>
>Hmm... At least there is a menu.. console based editors like vi and emacs don't
>even have that much.
So you'd propose an editor for you users that isn't guaranteed to
work from all you terminals? Where's the ALT-key on a classic
Mac or a wy99gt terminal?
The idea of a menu-driven editor has been tried many times under
Unix. But how do you write an editor with ALT-key, menu & mouse
support when most terminals lack an ALT-key and a mouse? Almost
every vendor I've worked with had some console-specific editor
that the users in favour of the tried and true editors of Unix.
BTW, both 'vim' (do people still use 'vi'?) and 'emacs' have
menus. And as is to be expected, most people ignore them.
For newbies who have no requirement to learn lots of Unix tools,
I give them vuepad (hp), notepad (cde), or pico (everything).
They aren't "EDIT.COM" but that's not a *bad* thing...
Chris
> <G> As an avid vi(m) fan, I have to defend it. Where else can you do so much
> with such efficiency? Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards are
> more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast. The day
> edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
> compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement. And how about multiple
> buffers? Edit isn't it.
>
> --Arthur Corliss
> Corliss Consultancy
> Anchorage, Alaska
Since this this thread (way back when it was started, about 30 hours ago) was a cry
for a user-friendly, intuitive editor, I thought I'd better fire a preemptive strike
against vi. My motivation, I'll confess, might not be entirely Socratic; I hate vi.
From the moment I first had to use it in school. I thought it was the stupidest, most
perverse and irritating thing imaginable. I couldn't believe that people sat down to
write a text editor and came up with this.
That being said, I'll acknowledge that vi means an awful lot to an awful lot of
people. And that can't be ignored. It obviously speaks to the programmer mini-brain
inside computer peoples' heads, in a way Notepad never will. So I can repsect you
sticking up for vi; after all, it's personal.
Shawn
> >Your post made me really made, because you're forcing
> >sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away
> >Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors
> >from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious
> >non-techies.
this is neat! I used to think the same thing. My first real job was
managing tech support for unix software company...nevermind the fact I
didn't know anything about unix :)). But I hated vi! hated, hated, hated
until I saw the head guru programmer do stuff that was so unbelievable, ,
writing to files, inserting from files,drawing diagrams of complete tty
susbsytems with - & + & = & how they work, running stuff through
compilers, switching ttys on the console between stuff...anyways...it
would take me 2 days & a flowchart program. But that was when I said he
must be doing this for a reason...& yes, it's much faster & cooler when
you know some of it. (though I suck but use it all the time now) I hate
edit.com I vote for vi.
SO anyways it reminded me of a court reporter ( those people that type
down the stuff for those that are asleep )I met, she had a 386 b/w laptop
with wordperfect for dos. I asked why not upgrade? She said it is much
faster with dos wp & that's what they used. SHe was right, when you know
it those with wp dos are TONS faster than gui word95,97,98 etc..the more
things change, the more they stay the same.
Have a great day!
Shawn
Ralph Blach
Hey,
Try nedit, Its great.
Chip
Chris
Shawn wrote:
> > >Your post made me really made, because you're forcing
> > >sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away
> > >Unix (vi? Please). Arguing that Unix has better text editors
> > >from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious
> > >non-techies.
>
> this is neat! I used to think the same thing. My first real job was
> managing tech support for unix software company...nevermind the fact I
> didn't know anything about unix :)). But I hated vi! hated, hated, hated
> until I saw the head guru programmer do stuff that was so unbelievable, ,
> writing to files, inserting from files,drawing diagrams of complete tty
> susbsytems with - & + & = & how they work, running stuff through
> compilers, switching ttys on the console between stuff...anyways...it
> would take me 2 days & a flowchart program. But that was when I said he
> must be doing this for a reason...& yes, it's much faster & cooler when
> you know some of it. (though I suck but use it all the time now) I hate
> edit.com I vote for vi.
One thing I was going to talk about is that the thing about vi is that it
sucks until you've used it a lot. Then, all the weirdness (insert mode?
C'mon!) becomes second nature, and you've gotten familiar with all the weird
and powerful stuff you can do with it that no way can you do with anything
else. At that point, vi is god. A lot of Unix stuff is like that, I think:
perl, emacs, even gcc (I understand there's unbelievable stuff you can do
with make files if you're insane enough).
In a weird way, Unix is kind of like the Mac. People used Macs, and they
loved them. Beyond getting the job done, the way Macs worked somehow spoke a
secret language to people that created a unique experience. Windows copied
the look, but didn't duplicate the vibe at all. Unix has the same secret
language thing going for it, except in a different way. DOS copied a lot of
Unix, but lost that vibe also. If there was a desert island with a Unix
machine, a Windows machine, and a Mac, then about 85% of the people would use
Mac, and 14% would use Unix. There's always 1% you can't explain.
Chris
> I'm trying to find the ALT keys and mouse on my wy99gt terminal....
Screw your wy99gt terminal. Seriously, the guy who started this thread was proposing
a simple, DOS or Windows-like text editor, presumably to ease the pain for
DOS/Windows people to switch to Linux. I think that for such a product, it's not a
big minus to exclude wy99gt terminals.
> 95% of it makes perfect sense if you take a moment to just *think*
> about it. Pick any aspect of Unix that you find "weird" and I'll
> be glad to explain why it actually makes sense.
Weirdness doesn't mean that something's inexplicable. Weirdness means that
something's weird. It means a person will sample Unix, find none of it makes sense,
has a very very unpleasant experience, gets frustrated, and runs back to Windows. You
can explain Unix all you want to such a person, but the explanation doesn't change
the weirdness.
A girl who runs into walls to give herself bloody noses on purpose because she love
the taste of black boogers has an explanation too.
Lord 4mat
>>Hmm... At least there is a menu.. console based editors like vi and emacs
>don't
>>even have that much.
>
>
> So you'd propose an editor for you users that isn't guaranteed to
> work from all you terminals? Where's the ALT-key on a classic
> Mac or a wy99gt terminal?
The idea was to provide a simple text editor for beginners. I doubt anyone
using a Mac or wy99gt terminal is a beginner.... Besides, they can still use
something else....
> The idea of a menu-driven editor has been tried many times under
> Unix.
Ha. The greatest OS in the world.. and developers can't even get together a
menu based editor?
>But how do you write an editor with ALT-key, menu & mouse
> support when most terminals lack an ALT-key and a mouse?
You could add support for such terminals... users can configure their terminal
type in say ".doseditrc" So instead of hitting "ALT+F" to access the file menu,
you could hit "ESC-F". They did it with minicom....
> BTW, both 'vim' (do people still use 'vi'?) and 'emacs' have
> menus. And as is to be expected, most people ignore them.
>
>
Are we talking about Xemacs here? BTW, I don't use vim, but I do use vi :-). Vi
and emacs are both powerful, and great tools if you want to sit and learn them.
The point of this "EDIT.COM" clone would be to make it easier for beginners..
so they can be productive from the start.
> For newbies who have no requirement to learn lots of Unix tools,
> I give them vuepad (hp), notepad (cde), or pico (everything).
> They aren't "EDIT.COM" but that's not a *bad* thing...
>
>
These tools are all easy to use.. but people like to use things that they
already know.... see what I'm saying?
-------------------
Bryan Woody
Welcome to where time stands still. Where no one leaves, and no one will.
Chuck Adams
>A small scale project, that apparently nobody has thought of.
>Give "Linux converts" a text editor they already know.
>ie.. Everyone who has used DOS, Windows, OS/2 or a MAC
>already knows how to use the 'EDIT.COM' that ships in
>Windows 95. I can't think of any reason why this interface
>can't be implemented on a Linux console.
Windows users familiar with notepad and derivatives will feel right at home
with nedit. Yes, it's an X app. There's not many Windows 95 end-users who
are comfortable in a console anyway.
Lord 4mat
>Windows users familiar with notepad and derivatives will feel right at home
>with nedit. Yes, it's an X app. There's not many Windows 95 end-users who
>are comfortable in a console anyway.
>
>
>
Want to venture a guess as to why? Perhaps because the apps are all (more)
difficult to use? If we make the apps easier, then I believe that more and more
windows folk will feel more at home in a console environment.
Josh Fishman
On 27 Jan 1998 20:15:36 GMT, Lord 4mat <lord...@aol.com> wrote:
> someone unattributed wrote:
[ why DOS EDIT sucks ]
>>1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
This is something I miss in many editors. Even those
which support regular expressions in searches do not
make their searches anywhere as convenient as vi's /
key. Even the microsecond delay while a dialogue box
comes up is frustrating when you're used to vi.
>>5). It depends upon either ``mousing'' or non-standard Alt-key
>> prefixes to access the menu.
>
>Hmm... At least there is a menu.. console based editors like vi and emacs don't
>even have that much.
Try (from a console):
$ emacs-nox
... and then ...
M-x menu-bar-mode
for menus in a text terminal, unless your menu's already
on by default. Getting the menus to respond to the mouse
is left as an exercise for the reader.
But I'm not a fan of text mode menus.
>>Please, don't defend that poorly written editor -- especially when the
>>Unix world has offered vastly superior solutions for over a quarter
>>century.
>
>This wasn't a matter of DOS edit being superior or not. The original poster
>wanted to know if there was an "edit-like" editor out there for unix for
>newbies and such.
I had the pleasure of teaching someone basic text editing
using vi recently. This person had only used DOS EDIT and
the like (well, graphcal editors too), and the `teaching'
took place entirely over the phone. Zero to basic editing
ability took less than 1 hour (and that's while using the
editor to do actual work) (granted, the student was smart
and technical to begin with). I've never really used EDIT
(or EDLIN or E or whatever other DOS editors you have) so
I can't compare them, but the transition can't be so bad.
>-------------------
>Welcome to where time stands still, where no one leaves and no one will...
<SHOT TYPE="cheap">
I can't help but think this is a much better logo for Our
Favorite 600-lb. Gorilla than their current one. :-)
</SHOT>
--
O< ( ( [ Bitter ]
_NH >=O ) ) [ Living ]
<_>-<_ + :::::-. [ Through ]
HCl<O> :::`-' [ Chemistry ]
Kurt Wall
Chris wrote:
>
> Shawn wrote:
>
>
[snippage about Chris's conversion to UN*X}
> sucks until you've used it a lot. Then, all the weirdness (insert mode?
> C'mon!) becomes second nature, and you've gotten familiar with all the weird
> and powerful stuff you can do with it that no way can you do with anything
> else. At that point, vi is god. A lot of Unix stuff is like that, I think:
> perl, emacs, even gcc (I understand there's unbelievable stuff you can do
> with make files if you're insane enough).
I've been using vi for about four years now, and I still learn something
new about at least once each week :)
>
> In a weird way, Unix is kind of like the Mac. People used Macs, and they
> loved them. Beyond getting the job done, the way Macs worked somehow spoke a
> secret language to people that created a unique experience. Windows copied
I don't think it is "magic" so much as raw yet understated power. UN*X
is a huge collection of single purpose tools that can be strung together
to perform complex tasks (programs such as emacs notwithstanding, of
course) as well as larger, much more complex tools or programs that are
multipurpose. IMHO, UNI*X has never claimed to be user-friendly; it
demands learning and eschews "wizards." Perhaps this is so because the
original designers and users of it were highly educated, extraordinarily
people.
Personally, I appreciate some of the "wizard" technology - the pain of
working with sendmail comes to mind - but I largely prefer to work at a
lower level, build my own little tools and scripts, and personalize my
computer system in a way that MS-DOS, OS/2, Windows, Macintsoh, BeOS and
such can only dream of. Yes, the user interface is important, and the
previously named operating systems offer a wide range of tools to
customize the interface (some more than others, obviously). But, in my
experience, no other operating system than UNIX allows one to
manipulate, at the core/kernel level, how it works. This is a level of
customization that I and thousands of others appreciate.
> the look, but didn't duplicate the vibe at all. Unix has the same secret
> language thing going for it, except in a different way. DOS copied a lot of
> Unix, but lost that vibe also. If there was a desert island with a Unix
> machine, a Windows machine, and a Mac, then about 85% of the people would use
> Mac, and 14% would use Unix. There's always 1% you can't explain.
Windows and the various DOSes are the computing equivalent of
McDonald's: they appeal to the lowest common denominator without giving
anyone a real choice.
Kurt
forg...@usa.net
>>Windows users familiar with notepad and derivatives will feel right at home
>>with nedit. Yes, it's an X app. There's not many Windows 95 end-users who
>>are comfortable in a console anyway.
>>
>Want to venture a guess as to why? Perhaps because the apps are all (more)
>difficult to use? If we make the apps easier, then I believe that more and more
>windows folk will feel more at home in a console environment.
>
Nobody has difficulty with ANY of the X based text editors.
unfortunately One of the first things unlucky Linux users will need to
edit is /etc/X11/XF86Config This in order to get X Windows working. I
for instance had a hell of a Time doing this. as VI is DIFFICULT.
Difficult means it takes a long time to learn. Only Programers need the
"Awesome Power" of a 294,812 byte CL Text editor, with a 8,321 byte
gziped Man page. There should be the option of an "underpowerd", easy to
use editor for simple tasks. i.e... Linux generally compiles tighter
code than DOS, yet edit.com is 69,886 bytes and edit.hlp is 10,790
bytes. This means that Unix command line editors ( especially vi/vim )
editors have a lot of code I don't use. edit.com dose all the text
editing jobs I have quite well, but alas it doesn't run on Linux.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David M. Cook
On 28 Jan 1998 20:32:09 GMT, Lord 4mat <lord...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ha. The greatest OS in the world.. and developers can't even get together a
>menu based editor?
Don't be a doofus; there are at least a dozen menu based editors for unix.
>You could add support for such terminals... users can configure their terminal
>type in say ".doseditrc" So instead of hitting "ALT+F" to access the file menu,
>you could hit "ESC-F". They did it with minicom....
JED supports both Alt and Esc as "Meta" keys. 'Esc ??' to get a menu.
>The point of this "EDIT.COM" clone would be to make it easier for beginners..
>so they can be productive from the start.
Try we.
Actually, I suspect many (most?) windows users have never seen DOS edit.
They'd be more comfortable with nedit.
And I've never known anyone who had problems grokking pico.
Dave Cook
Chuck Bermingham
Are the keyboard shortcuts in "nedit" the same as those in Notepad, etc?
forg...@usa.net wrote in article <886055844....@dejanews.com>...
Chuck Bermingham
Bob Nelson <bne...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<6al4tr$did$1...@renpen.nelson.org>...
[EDIT bashing and good points about vi/emacs snipped for brevity]
All good points for vi/emacs. The problem is, many of us (including
myself) spend all day at our jobs using Microsoft tools.
Personally, I'd like to see someone do a set of profiles (or help *us* do
some,) that make one (or both) of these great editors operate in a CUA
mode. Slackware's setup for vi is already right with the "home/end" keys,
and I can't see why Emacs couldn't be made to do the same.
I sincerely believe that if Linux had an editor that operated just like the
CUA editors do, right out of the box, a lot more poeple would be a lot more
willing to edit /etc/whatever. The mere fact that Pat Volkerding made "vi"
a little easier to use was the single most effective thing as far as
getting me to switch from Coherrent to Linux.
I'd like to do this myself, and if I get a chance, I will, but here's a
suggestion to all the Linux developers out there:
Study edit.com and learn the way the keyboard works. Make a "vi" that
operates the same way. I think you'll find you get a zillion more Linux
users.
Chuck Bermingham
Arthur Corliss <cor...@odin.org> wrote in article
<slrn6ct64l....@odin.org>...
>
> <G> As an avid vi(m) fan, I have to defend it. Where else can you do so
much
> with such efficiency? Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards
are
> more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast. The day
> edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
> compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement. And how about
multiple
> buffers? Edit isn't it.
>
> --Arthur Corliss
> Corliss Consultancy
> Anchorage, Alaska
>
>
the first place. That's why it needs a CUA mode. I really believe that
would get us the effect we want!
Chuck Adams
>>Windows users familiar with notepad and derivatives will feel right at home
>>with nedit. Yes, it's an X app. There's not many Windows 95 end-users who
>>are comfortable in a console anyway.
>
>Want to venture a guess as to why? Perhaps because the apps are all (more)
>difficult to use? If we make the apps easier, then I believe that more and more
>windows folk will feel more at home in a console environment.
No, it's simply that they don't have the same interface. It's unfamiliar.
Hell, Mac end users _never_ have a console and are used to a _very_ consistent
look and feel.
jason
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:01:32 -0600, forg...@usa.net <forg...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>Nobody has difficulty with ANY of the X based text editors.
>unfortunately One of the first things unlucky Linux users will need to
>edit is /etc/X11/XF86Config This in order to get X Windows working. I
>for instance had a hell of a Time doing this. as VI is DIFFICULT.
>Difficult means it takes a long time to learn. Only Programers need the
>"Awesome Power" of a 294,812 byte CL Text editor, with a 8,321 byte
>gziped Man page. There should be the option of an "underpowerd", easy to
>use editor for simple tasks. i.e... Linux generally compiles tighter
>code than DOS, yet edit.com is 69,886 bytes and edit.hlp is 10,790
>bytes. This means that Unix command line editors ( especially vi/vim )
>editors have a lot of code I don't use. edit.com dose all the text
>editing jobs I have quite well, but alas it doesn't run on Linux.
Ok, I love VI(M) but for every one who need
an easy editor try PICO. It's quite easy and
comes ready to run with Redhat and probable
others that have Pine.
remember pico it's small and easy.
jason
o r c e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s
In article <6ajobp$ksb$1...@renpen.nelson.org>,
Bob Nelson <bne...@iname.com> wrote:
>I think the newbies coming over to our side need to get an
>immediate understanding (and appreciation) of the Unix philosophy.
>Getting familiar with ``ed'' (which embodies virtually all tenets
>of that philosophy) is a wonderful indoctrination our way of
>thinking.
>
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 42920 Jan 25 16:37 /bin/ed*
42k? God, that's bloated. I can fit a vi clone into less
core than that:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37892 Sep 21 1993 /usr/bin/lv
____
david parsons \bi/ I should really put G and V in, though that would
\/ probably bloat it to over 40k.
o r c e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s
In article <34CE350B...@surewould.com>,
>this doesn't really matter.
Who is this mythical `average user', anyways? From my experience,
average users leap immediately at the chance of using regular
expressions, particularly if they're doing something more complicated
than writing one-line memos.
>2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
> forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
>
>That almost sounds like a joke. If you can actually argue that to the casual
>user, 'hjkl' are more intuitive than the arrow keys for moving the cursor, go
>for it.
The nice thing about hjkl are not that they are more intuitive than
the arrow keys (they are not, and some versions of vi have supported
arrow keys on terminals since the early 1980s) but that they're
conveniently on the main keyboard, where you don't need to lunge out
of the way to get to them when you're doing a lot of editing.
I've been building a set of web pages for my model railroad, and
I've ended up using both dos EDIT and vi to do the work. It's
harder to edit with EDIT, because I spend a lot of the time either
reaching for arrow keys or popping up menus (is it just me or has MS
Windows become very slow? On the AMD K6/233 I've set up as a
Windows box, it takes about a second for EDIT to respond to M-F S on
a 2000 byte html document.) -- some of this can be attributed to not
knowing the commands for EDIT as well as I know the commands for vi,
but it seems I'm constantly dragging my hands off the home row to
move around.
>3). There are no named registers.
>
>Like regular expressions, this is a who cares.
It's better than tempfiles, which is something I see a lot of dos
people using when they're doing massive cut and paste jobs.
>Your post made me really made, because you're forcing me to defend MS. I'm
>sorry, but as a simple text editor EDIT.COM blows away anything I've used for
>Unix (vi? Please).
It's a matter of personal preference. Some people like editing with EDIT
(I have html documents with
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\EDIT.EXE"> and, for
small edits and revisions, it works just fine.) while other people like
editing with joe (which looks a lot like EDIT to me, but since I've got
vi on my Unix machines, why should I bother?), others like EMACS, and
others like the One True Editor.
Heavens, why shouldn't anyone use something like vi for lightweight
editing? A modal editor is a user preference, and if the user
prefers to use a modal editor, it's MUCH better than using some
modeless piece-o-junk (not, of course, that I'm biased against
modeless editors. Oh no, I love them dearly, as long as they
stay the fuck off my network) for anything.
>Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
>from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
>non-techies.
It does, and it also has worse editors. It's one of the nice side-effects
of having a multiuser system that's heavily infiltrated into the academic
world. It's been a while, but it seemed to me that Unix got a visual
editor (vi) included as a standard part of a distribution long before
Microsoft DOS supplemented (replaced?) edlin with EDIT.
>When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???
It isn't weird. It's not like Microsoft Windows, but that doesn't
make it weird.
____
david parsons \bi/ EDIT is a perfectly nice mini-editor, but I'd certainly
\/ not want to write a large document with it.
Lord 4mat
>>Ha. The greatest OS in the world.. and developers can't even get together a
>>menu based editor?
>
>Don't be a doofus; there are at least a dozen menu based editors for unix.
The poster I was responding to made it sound as though there were not.
>>You could add support for such terminals... users can configure their
>terminal
>>type in say ".doseditrc" So instead of hitting "ALT+F" to access the file
>menu,
>>you could hit "ESC-F". They did it with minicom....
>
>JED supports both Alt and Esc as "Meta" keys. 'Esc ??' to get a menu.
Terrific! But the point is to have a program that dos users can relate to, so
they can be productive right off the bat.
>>The point of this "EDIT.COM" clone would be to make it easier for
>beginners..
>>so they can be productive from the start.
>
>Try we.
Blah. I'm not a beginner, thank you very much. I've used Linux for 8 months
now, and am very comfortable using it. However, I haven't made it a point to
run every single editor out there... I can use vi, emacs, etc. quite well. But
I know I sure would have liked an EDIT.COM-like editor when I was starting
out... it would have made configuring my system a lot easier...
>Actually, I suspect many (most?) windows users have never seen DOS edit.
>They'd be more comfortable with nedit.
Most Windows users have never seen Linux. Anyhow... please focus on the issue
of a dos-like editor...
>Dave Cook
Roy Stogner
On 29 Jan 1998 12:01:16 -0800, david parsons <o...@pell.portland.or.us> wrote:
>In article <34CE350B...@surewould.com>,
>Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>>1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
>>
>>That might be nice, but the average user has no use for regular expressions,
>>so this doesn't really matter.
>
> Who is this mythical `average user', anyways? From my experience,
> average users leap immediately at the chance of using regular
> expressions, particularly if they're doing something more complicated
> than writing one-line memos.
This "average user" is a friend I gave Linux to, who recalled hearing me say
"I like editing with vi," on several occasions, and who therefore thought
"What the hell, I'll run 'vi configfile' and see what it's like."
Said "average user" was expecting a DOS/Windows type learning environment,
where each command has a menu function, each menu function gives a little
tooltip when you hold the mouse over it, and you can always rely on F1 in
a pinch.
To David Parsons:
Linux needs to become like this! It's happening slowly, but
thankfully. There are so many features of Linux, and so many man pages,
that it is impossible to learn it all in any finite period of time. Instead,
Linux help and configuration should be as interactive in helping the user
as Windows. This doesn't mean that the help should be the watered down
"make sure the power switch is on" type comments you find in some Windows
help - but there should be useful, easily navigatable help. Typing
"man commandname" should bring up hypertext with lynx style controls in
a terminal and mouse-enabled hyperlinks in X. vi should come with mouseable
menus in X to speed learning by default. "Control-panel" type tools should
contain no field without a popup information window, and no button without
"What's This" on a context-sensitive menu. We have right click and middle
click buttons... so every program should use them! FvwmWharf should have
as many menu options as TkDesk's toolbar. pine should be distributed with
all the useful "mouse-in-xterm", "enable-suspend", etc. config options
enabled by default. There are a lot of things that you need the man pages
to learn in detail, and I wouldn't change that, but it should be just as
possible to learn most operations in Linux programs by doing as it is to
learn them by reading.
Oh, and "edit /etc/XF86Config" should bring up a clone of the DOS editor,
which although not full-featured or ergonomic was simple enough that a
child could pick it up with no trouble. That goes for "write NewDocument"
too.
Wow. An anti-Linux rant. This should be copied to that "anti-Advocacy"
thread. See, I can be fair too. ;-)
To Chris:
Yes, the average user has many uses for regular expressions. He
(or you) may be intimidated by the complexity, the hundreds of keyboard
shortcuts, or the configurability of something like vi or emacs, but that
does not mean that they should not exist and it certainly does not mean
that "edit" is superior. It's like the difference between hunt-and-peck
typing and touch-typing. The former can be accomplished by anybody with
two fingers, while the latter might take weeks or months to get right.
It's even possible to become a pretty quick hunt-and-pecker... However,
nobody in their right mind would consider going back to two finger typing
after learning to do it right, and this is true of vi/emacs vs. edit,
bash/tcsh vs. command.com, or even (dare I say it) Unix vs. Windows in
general. Simple, dumb interfaces should be available to those who need
them, but both choices should exist. I do not want to have to wrench my
hand around arrow keys, tab through menus for brain-dead search & replace,
give up in-editor piping, or lose a single vi feature because it is
considered too complicated for the lowest common denominator.
---
Roy Stogner
Craig Kelley
In article <19980129204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Lord 4mat <lord...@aol.com> wrote:
->Blah. I'm not a beginner, thank you very much. I've used Linux for 8 months
->now, and am very comfortable using it. However, I haven't made it a point to
->run every single editor out there... I can use vi, emacs, etc. quite well. But
->I know I sure would have liked an EDIT.COM-like editor when I was starting
->out... it would have made configuring my system a lot easier...
I always tell the new users to use pico -- it's easy and quick-loading.
--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Chris
> >When will you people stop pretending that Unix isn't weird???
>
> It isn't weird. It's not like Microsoft Windows, but that doesn't
> make it weird.
>
Arrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! That's what I'm talking about!!!
Manuel A. McLure
In article <19980129204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, lord...@aol.com (Lord 4mat) wrote:
>>Actually, I suspect many (most?) windows users have never seen DOS edit.
>>They'd be more comfortable with nedit.
>
>Most Windows users have never seen Linux. Anyhow... please focus on the issue
>of a dos-like editor...
Why in Ghod's name would you limit yourself to an EDIT.COM lookalike?
Why don't you focus on the REAL point -- lack of reasonable
introductory documentation that would allow a total rookie to use
what's available.
It's not like EDIT.COM breaks any usability barriers, after all.
Manuel
Arthur Corliss
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:36:26 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>> <G> As an avid vi(m) fan, I have to defend it. Where else can you do so much
>> with such efficiency? Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards are
>> more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast. The day
>> edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
>> compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement. And how about multiple
>> buffers? Edit isn't it.
>>
>> --Arthur Corliss
>> Corliss Consultancy
>> Anchorage, Alaska
>
>for a user-friendly, intuitive editor, I thought I'd better fire a preemptive strike
>against vi. My motivation, I'll confess, might not be entirely Socratic; I hate vi.
>From the moment I first had to use it in school. I thought it was the stupidest, most
>perverse and irritating thing imaginable. I couldn't believe that people sat down to
>write a text editor and came up with this.
>
>That being said, I'll acknowledge that vi means an awful lot to an awful lot of
>people. And that can't be ignored. It obviously speaks to the programmer mini-brain
>inside computer peoples' heads, in a way Notepad never will. So I can repsect you
>sticking up for vi; after all, it's personal.
>
<Grin> Preemptive strike accepted. Actually, I missed the first part of this
thread, so I'll accede the intuitive point. But you have to love its simplicity
in command structure. Blunt, to the point, and oh so effective. Can't deny
the power of this little beast. :-)
Bob Nelson
david parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s> wrote:
> In article <6ajobp$ksb$1...@renpen.nelson.org>,
> Bob Nelson <bne...@iname.com> wrote:
> >I think the newbies coming over to our side need to get an
> >immediate understanding (and appreciation) of the Unix philosophy.
> >Getting familiar with ``ed'' (which embodies virtually all tenets
> >of that philosophy) is a wonderful indoctrination our way of
> >thinking.
> >
> >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 42920 Jan 25 16:37 /bin/ed*
> 42k? God, that's bloated. I can fit a vi clone into less
> core than that:
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37892 Sep 21 1993 /usr/bin/lv
My instance of ed (GNU v0.2, *not* statically linked) was actually a
bit more than that when I did the straight out-of-the-box ./configure
and make. Getting rid of the getopt object files and linking the regex
library against the shared GNU rx-1.5 trimmed it down. (This is
using gcc 2.8 against libc-5.4.37).
Over on my FreeBSD machine (2.2.5 RELEASE), ed weighs in at 110592
bytes but it's static.
A year-old (May 1996) Slackware manifest I happen to have shows a
63616 byte ed. (I'd guess that's static, too).
What's the lightest _real_ ed out there (not the 23 byte one in the
endless "man ed" thread)?
ed may neither rule nor rock but it has a well-designed elegance
making it suitable for a lot of stuff. Plus, it's handy for those
tasks when you don't want context to get in the way. Really.
--
========================================================================
Bob Nelson -- Dallas, Texas, USA (bne...@iname.com)
Well...Unix, of course. Because windoze is a pathethic toy...
Yes, Texas, of course. Because anywhere else is just a place...
Chuck Adams
>And I've never known anyone who had problems grokking pico.
Plenty who have problems tolerating it though. pico likes to take the -w
(no wrap) flag as a _suggestion_.
Chuck Adams
>IMHO, UNI*X has never claimed to be user-friendly; it
>demands learning and eschews "wizards." Perhaps this is so because the
>original designers and users of it were highly educated, extraordinarily
>people.
Unix doesn't entirely eschew wizards. The kernel make script is
essentially just that. It's just a bit more, ah, verbose when it
processes.
forgeltd
>much
>> with such efficiency? Not intuitive, not user friendly, but the rewards
>are
>> more than adequate for the effort of learning the little beast. The day
>> edit can outperform in both simplicity and economy of keystrokes vi for a
>> compound search & replace, you'll have my agreement. And how about
>multiple
>> buffers? Edit isn't it.
>>
However, for editing a Small and simple file like /etc/X11/XF86Config
all that power just gets in my way. When I learned wp51 I did not know
that 'F1' brought up help, I did not know anything about it or the computer,
It was the first Editor I had ever used, and I was able to get a small letter
typed immediately. I was able to get all my work done while gradually learning
the intricacy of Word Perfect ( I found out about Spell check and Founts )
EDIT.COM looks a lot like WP51 and the commands that are in it are just
like those in WP51.
There is no reason to remove vi. That power should be there for those who
need it. But there should also be a simple editor for those people who have
not yet learned how to use these things.
After I installed Linux for the first time, ( SlackWare 95 or 96 ... I forget )
I spent a weak on #Linux in Windows 3.11 asking for directions to a simple
text editor. Eventually someone mentioned 'joe' and I was able to fiddle with
it and get some work done. Now I can use it by reflex and I still prefer
edit.com I have been able to learn a little of vim/vi ( It's a simlink ) and
realize that the Power of this program is needed ONLY by programers
I.E... The fancy search and replace features are beautiful if you need to compile
a program on an "almost compatible" compiler and need to change formatting
or syntax in an 80 K text file. I however am not a programer. Any document
I am creating with that much text in it, Will be much larger as it would be done
on a Word processor, with varied founts, inserted graphics, etc...
There are some things that DOS is nicer about.
1 : 'dir' by default is equivalent to 3 linux commands ( 'ls -l', 'du', 'df' )
2 : a text editor that can get useful work done in minutes after first seeing it.
There is no reason to not add another text editor ... Most distributions already
come with 3 or more text editors. So what's the problem with adding a simple
one that's smaller than all those that exist ?
--
: "Through the firewall, out the router, down the T1, across the
: backbone, bounced from satellite, Nothing but net."
: remove BAD.SPAM or your replies will go astray.
: "OpenScape 5.0 ; The Browser of the future" : http://www.openscape.com
forgeltd
>Most Windows users have never seen Linux. Anyhow... please focus on the issue
>of a dos-like editor...
>
identical to most Windows editors ( Including MSWord and WP )
forgeltd
Typical situation. Windows user is tiered of all the GPFs and grabs a
Linux distribution and installs it. Then it doesn't quite work right and he
needs to edit a simple text file ( /etc/fstab, /etc/lilo.conf, or
/etc/X11/XF86Config )
to get it booting or to look at the 'X' thingy. he is right then and there
STUCK. He can't get on the net to ask for more help than he already
got ( basic info says what these files should look like in relation to his setup )
and chances are the 'man' command doesn't work ( /usr not mounted maybe ? )
-
Meanwhile, I provide help for windows users with damaged systems
( I have to eat, ok ). I have had cases ( 3 in fact ) where the user installs
Macafee Antyvirus for Win95, and his system can't boot. The reason is
that Macafee puts something in the C:\aoutoexec.bat that doesn't always work
for every system. The only way to get it working is to edit c:\aoutoexec.bat
I can give instructions on doing this over the phone and have the file fixed
and rebooted by a person who has NEVER sean a command line. VI is nowhere
near that obvious and nether is joe, jed, ed, vim, emacs, or any other unix
based editor I have ever sean
This newfound power often gets them interested in the computers' guts.
>.
>In article <34CE350B...@surewould.com>,
>Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>>1). Where's the support for regular expressions?
>>
>>That might be nice, but the average user has no use for regular expressions, so
>>this doesn't really matter.
>
> Who is this mythical `average user', anyways? From my experience,
> average users leap immediately at the chance of using regular
> expressions, particularly if they're doing something more complicated
> than writing one-line memos.
>
All I want is a simple editor. NOT a vi, TeX or XEmacs replacement.
>
>>2). Why don't ``hjkl'' work to navigate within the buffer? (One is
>> forced to use those crude arrow keys for positioning).
>>
>>That almost sounds like a joke. If you can actually argue that to the casual
>>user, 'hjkl' are more intuitive than the arrow keys for moving the cursor, go
>>for it.
>
> The nice thing about hjkl are not that they are more intuitive than
> the arrow keys (they are not, and some versions of vi have supported
>
why ? Because it's absolutely obvious. if you don't read it in the docs that
hjkl moves the curser in vi you will NEVER know.
>
> arrow keys on terminals since the early 1980s) but that they're
> conveniently on the main keyboard, where you don't need to lunge out
> of the way to get to them when you're doing a lot of editing.
>
For reasons like this I want it used for SMALL editing jobs like modifying
RC files. I never even mentioned that edit lets you load up to 9 files
from the command line and cycle through them with [alt 1] to [alt 9].
I only want it for small jobs.
EDIT.COM is so simple that a static ELF version should fit into 40 K or less
or so. Small enough for inclusion on a rescue disk etc..
Forgive my ignorance. but what is a mode ? and why dose a simple
text editor without modes worry a Sysadmin ? Dose it let the users
bruise system files or something ?
>
>>Arguing that Unix has better text editors than EDIT.COM comes
>>from the same kind of thinking that's let NT be the serious OS of choice for
>>non-techies.
>
> It does, and it also has worse editors. It's one of the nice side-effects
> of having a multiuser system that's heavily infiltrated into the academic
> world. It's been a while, but it seemed to me that Unix got a visual
> editor (vi) included as a standard part of a distribution long before
> Microsoft DOS supplemented (replaced?) edlin with EDIT.
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ EDIT is a perfectly nice mini-editor, but I'd certainly
> \/ not want to write a large document with it.
>
Who said anything about long documents ?
John Pearson
In article <886055844....@dejanews.com>, forg...@usa.net wrote:
>
>>>Windows users familiar with notepad and derivatives will feel right at home
>>>with nedit. Yes, it's an X app. There's not many Windows 95 end-users who
>>>are comfortable in a console anyway.
>>>
>>Want to venture a guess as to why? Perhaps because the apps are all (more)
>>difficult to use? If we make the apps easier, then I believe that more and more
>>windows folk will feel more at home in a console environment.
>>
>
Oh, I'm sure you just haven't looked hard enough. I've found
several that gave me the willies (no names, no packdrill).
>unfortunately One of the first things unlucky Linux users will need to
>edit is /etc/X11/XF86Config This in order to get X Windows working. I
>for instance had a hell of a Time doing this. as VI is DIFFICULT.
vi doesn't seem to be hard for really simple stuff; I think it's a
misperception of the model which vi uses. Think of it as a
command-oriented, modeless editor (like edlin only much, much better).
The commands you need to know:
:wq save & quit
:q! quit, no save
i insert what I type at the cursor position, until I hit ESC
a append what I type after the cursor position, until I hit ESC
x delete a character
dd delete a line
hjkl move the cursor around
If you lose track of what you're doing, hit ESC to finish any command
you're in the middle of and take stock.
The Debian nvi even uses cursor keys to move around if you run it at
the console and allows you to move around with them during an "i" or "a";
as I'm not a regular user I don't know if this is a special feature.
>Difficult means it takes a long time to learn. Only Programers need the
>"Awesome Power" of a 294,812 byte CL Text editor, with a 8,321 byte
>gziped Man page. There should be the option of an "underpowerd", easy to
>use editor for simple tasks. i.e... Linux generally compiles tighter
>code than DOS, yet edit.com is 69,886 bytes and edit.hlp is 10,790
>bytes. This means that Unix command line editors ( especially vi/vim )
>editors have a lot of code I don't use. edit.com dose all the text
>editing jobs I have quite well, but alas it doesn't run on Linux.
At least one version of edit.com was actually a special loader for
qbasic.com, which turned off the basic features leaving just the
editor. This had the bizarre result of having a relatively modest
edit.com which required something like 400K of memory to load.
As for CL text editors, you have a few options.
Debian ships with ae on the install disk set; the dynamically-linked
executable on my system requires ncurses and libc5, but is only
23968 bytes. It writes the command keys at the top of the screen and
uses arrow keys and function keys as well as control codes. It even
has block cut-and-paste. Basically it sucks, but it's tiny and anyone
who's used an editor before can use it without tuition after a few
seconds experimentation, which is why it's there.
pico is a stand-alone version of the message editor from pine, and has
the commands at the bottom of the screen. In many ways it's at least as
limited as ae and it weighs in at 126808 bytes, but somehow it's a little
less threatening, maybe because the editing area is bigger.
I use joe mostly; by default it uses a close cousin of the Wordstar
command set, very similar to the Borland text-mode IDE editors. It's
very customisable, can edit multiple files, has on-screen pop-up
customisable keyboard help, allows you to run commands in a window and
edit a transcript of the session, and so on. It is 171916 bytes, and
requires only libc5. I use it for almost everything except when I use
XEmacs (9441150 bytes, requires 17 separate libraries, and when I'm using
it I wouldn't use anything else).
John P.
--
jo...@huiac.apana.org.au
Chris
> <Grin> Preemptive strike accepted. Actually, I missed the first part of this
> thread, so I'll accede the intuitive point. But you have to love its simplicity
> in command structure. Blunt, to the point, and oh so effective. Can't deny
> the power of this little beast. :-)
>
> --Arthur Corliss
> Corliss Consultancy
> Anchorage, Alaska
Oh, it's powerful all right. When it comes to a lot of power concentrated in a little
code / a few commands / whatever, Unix is light years ahead of Microsoft and MS products
(and non-MS Windows products, in fairness to MS). The whole concept of getting an enormous
amount of work done with a handful of keystrokes is so foreign to Planet MS that I can't
even explain it. I used to think that MS had accomplished something pretty big with VB, in
that all their Office apps speak it, allowing you to write VB code that easily accesses
Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, etc. And it is a nice feature. But the whole idea of
opening up a whole program, looking in the help file for all this WordBasic syntax (who in
their right mind would memorize it?), then coding a function or two just to do a fancy
find replace - I mean, who needs it? That's where vi (& emacs, perl, and anything else
done in the Unix spirit) really does blow away the MS way of getting things done. Just one
line. Why some of that 'Power at your Fingertips' thinking hasn't creeped into Windows
software is inexplicable.
Well I'd better go - I don't want you to miss your 5 minutes of sun!
- Chris
Tim Smith
Bob Nelson <bne...@iname.com> wrote:
>Over on my FreeBSD machine (2.2.5 RELEASE), ed weighs in at 110592
>bytes but it's static.
>
>A year-old (May 1996) Slackware manifest I happen to have shows a
>63616 byte ed. (I'd guess that's static, too).
>
>What's the lightest _real_ ed out there (not the 23 byte one in the
>endless "man ed" thread)?
On my simulated PDP-11 running V5, ed is 4292 bytes. The ed with V6 is
6308 bytes. The ed with V7 is 11074 bytes. Are these real enough?
Those who want to play with ancient Unix can find the simulator and the
V5, V6, and V7 disk images somewhere at digital.com.
The ed on my A/UX system is 34704 bytes.
--Tim Smith
Arthur Corliss
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:53:53 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>> <Grin> Preemptive strike accepted. Actually, I missed the first part of this
>> thread, so I'll accede the intuitive point. But you have to love its simplicity
>> in command structure. Blunt, to the point, and oh so effective. Can't deny
>> the power of this little beast. :-)
>>
>code / a few commands / whatever, Unix is light years ahead of Microsoft and MS products
>(and non-MS Windows products, in fairness to MS). The whole concept of getting an enormous
>amount of work done with a handful of keystrokes is so foreign to Planet MS that I can't
>even explain it. I used to think that MS had accomplished something pretty big with VB, in
>that all their Office apps speak it, allowing you to write VB code that easily accesses
>Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, etc. And it is a nice feature. But the whole idea of
>opening up a whole program, looking in the help file for all this WordBasic syntax (who in
>their right mind would memorize it?), then coding a function or two just to do a fancy
>find replace - I mean, who needs it? That's where vi (& emacs, perl, and anything else
>done in the Unix spirit) really does blow away the MS way of getting things done. Just one
>line. Why some of that 'Power at your Fingertips' thinking hasn't creeped into Windows
>software is inexplicable.
>
>Well I'd better go - I don't want you to miss your 5 minutes of sun!
>
> - Chris
>
I'm ashamed to admit that that's where I make most of my living, designing
integrated office solutions using MS Office. They did get rid of that
abortion of a language WordBasic. Everything uses VBA in 97, which is nice.
I will also have to admit that Access 97 has come a long way for a file server
RDB. The IDE is nice, and its functionality has continued to expand. Yep,
flame-meisters, I actually like that one MS creation. If only I could get them
to port it to Unix, eh? :-)
As to my 5 minutes of sun, <G> this is a *huge* state, and in Anchorage, it
never gets worse than a few hours of daylight, depending on the cloud cover.
So, we're not *all* manic depressants looking for sun lamps up here. ;-)
Josh Fishman
On Fri, 30 Jan 98 16:27:06 GMT, forgeltd <forgeltd@forge> wrote:
[ s n i p ]
>Meanwhile, I provide help for windows users with damaged systems
>( I have to eat, ok ). I have had cases ( 3 in fact ) where the user installs
>Macafee Antyvirus for Win95, and his system can't boot. The reason is
>that Macafee puts something in the C:\aoutoexec.bat that doesn't always work
>for every system. The only way to get it working is to edit c:\aoutoexec.bat
>I can give instructions on doing this over the phone and have the file fixed
>and rebooted by a person who has NEVER sean a command line. VI is nowhere
>near that obvious and nether is joe, jed, ed, vim, emacs, or any other unix
>based editor I have ever sean
>This newfound power often gets them interested in the computers' guts.
Actually, I recently got to talk someone through a Linux
install, including text editing with vi. Because I never
said that ``everyone is scared of vi'' or ``vi is nasty,
brutish and short'', the whole deal took under two hours
_including_ basic vi training and a short intro to ``the
files that live in /etc, /bin, /var/log and /dev.'' So I
don't buy your claim that vi in particular, and any UNIX
editor in general, is unobvious or unusable by a novice.
Did I mention that this install was on a Packard-Bell? I
wouldn't even have had to get on the phone if she'd been
using non-evil hardware.
[ v i s c i o u s s n i p ]
>Who said anything about long documents ?
You can start with as small a one as you want, but watch:
it'll just keep getting bigger. (Particularly unimportant
things like system logs, web logs, ftp server logs, etc.)
- Josh
--
O< ( ( [ Josh Fishman likes Linux ]
_NH >=O ) ) [ ]
<_>-<_ + :::::-. [ Error: parents not ready ]
HCl<O> :::`-' [ A)bort, R)etry, I)gnore? ]
Frank Ranner
forgeltd wrote:
pico is probably the simplest editor available under Linux. It is not keystroke
compatible with dos edit but the commands are listed on the bottom lines.
Regards, Frank Ranner
Kenneth R. Kinder
In comp.os.linux.advocacy , article <34cd4...@mento.n5.com.jm> , forgeltd <forgeltd@forge> wrote:
> "Intuitive software = Anything you already know how to use"
I'm starting to really see the wisdom in saying intuitive software doesn't
exist. People just think something intuitive because it uses a user
interface we all know and love.
> A small scale project, that apparently nobody has thought of.
> Give "Linux converts" a text editor they already know.
> ie.. Everyone who has used DOS, Windows, OS/2 or a MAC
> already knows how to use the 'EDIT.COM' that ships in
> Windows 95. I can't think of any reason why this interface
> can't be implemented on a Linux console.
Have you tried fte/Xfte? Next to Emacs and Jed, it's the most powerful I've
ever used. It has emacs/jed-like "modes" for various file types, syntax
highlighting, and does multiple files with split or hidden windows.
But here's the kicker: even in character mode, it has pull down menus and a
fast, responsive, GUI.
Here's the bummer: Using it over a telnet session, especially a non-Unix
telnet session is rather challenging.
You can get fte from http://ixtas.fer.uni-lj.si/~markom/fte
Edit.com would have no hope of working over a telnet session. Take away
mouse, alt keys, ect - it's stranded.
> Yes It's limited, weak and is only good for editing small
> scripts, but that is what new users need to do.
> vim ( vi/2 ? )= 294812
> joe = 173,636
> jed = 133,660
> EDIT.COM = 69,886
This would partly be due to the linking and compiled-in libraries.
> Whoever dose this baby ... try to make it as small as the DOS
> version
You fail to mention how bloated emacs is too.
> PS : I am not a programer
PS: I am.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Kinder
K...@KenAndTed.com - http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/
"Software development is caffeine, pizza, and gcc."
PGP FingerPrints: AC 63 8E FC 56 OC 6E F2 55 68 16 E4 07 62 12 32
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Adams
>To David Parsons:
> Linux needs to become like this! It's happening slowly, but
>thankfully. There are so many features of Linux, and so many man pages,
>that it is impossible to learn it all in any finite period of time. Instead,
>Linux help and configuration should be as interactive in helping the user
>as Windows. This doesn't mean that the help should be the watered down
>"make sure the power switch is on" type comments you find in some Windows
>help - but there should be useful, easily navigatable help. Typing
>"man commandname" should bring up hypertext with lynx style controls in
>a terminal and mouse-enabled hyperlinks in X. vi should come with mouseable
man commandname should most certainly NOT do this, but unix has
helpfully not defined any standard behavior for a "help" command. I've
only seen it used by SCCS and bash -- I think they can move over. Of
course if it's all gui, even windows help isn't named help, it's named
winhlp32
You are more than welcome to write this and distribute it. Make it an
RPM and see it appear on the redhat powertools disk, and if it gets
popular enough, on the redhat install disk.
Oh and KDE is already doing this, so you can either race them or you can
work with them.
Chuck Adams
>As to my 5 minutes of sun, <G> this is a *huge* state, and in Anchorage, it
>never gets worse than a few hours of daylight, depending on the cloud cover.
>So, we're not *all* manic depressants looking for sun lamps up here. ;-)
Just manic depressives looking for women. :)
Maybe I should move there -- I'd have an excuse.
Chris
> As to my 5 minutes of sun, <G> this is a *huge* state, and in Anchorage, it
> never gets worse than a few hours of daylight, depending on the cloud cover.
> So, we're not *all* manic depressants looking for sun lamps up here. ;-)
Aagghhh!!! Ya got me! I am dead-to-rights guilty of treating Alaska, by far the largest of our
large states, like it's a point on the map. Your postings have been too lucid for someone
undergoing that sort of deprivation. I imagine your attachment to vi would have grown into
something rather disturbing if you hung out your shingle in, say, BARROW . . . .
(Barrow, Alaska is plays a small but key role in 'World's End', by T. Corghessan Boyle. I
really really really really great book, who's account of Barrow should discourage a lot of the
current buzz about Alaska.)
Arthur Corliss
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 15:34:17 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
>> As to my 5 minutes of sun, <G> this is a *huge* state, and in Anchorage, it
>> never gets worse than a few hours of daylight, depending on the cloud cover.
>> So, we're not *all* manic depressants looking for sun lamps up here. ;-)
>
>Aagghhh!!! Ya got me! I am dead-to-rights guilty of treating Alaska, by far
the largest of our
>large states, like it's a point on the map. Your postings have been too lucid
for someone
>undergoing that sort of deprivation. I imagine your attachment to vi would
have grown into
>something rather disturbing if you hung out your shingle in, say, BARROW . . .
Reminds me of the story told by old timers up here, about how some Texan
tourists were pissed off about Alaska becoming not only a state, but the
*biggest* state. After hearing them whine about Texas losing it's claim to
being the biggest *everything*, they were told to shut up with:
"You boys better quit whining about being the second biggest state, 'cause if
you don't, we might just split this state in two, and then you'll be the *Third*
biggest state!"
:-) Gotta love it. (Disclaimer: I'm actually from New Hampshire, a place
that's close to being the other extreme. But, since I live here now, I'm
a-joinin' the bandwagon! ;-)
>(Barrow, Alaska is plays a small but key role in 'World's End', by T.
Corghessan Boyle. I
>really really really really great book, who's account of Barrow should
discourage a lot of the
>current buzz about Alaska.)
>
Haven't made it up there yet, but every time I mention visiting the place,
everyone in Anchorage looks at me as if I was batty. Not much to see, or so
I'm told. <G>
Anyway, what *is* the current buzz about Alaska? And why don't I know about
it? :-)
Aaron R Kulkis
Arthur Corliss wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 15:34:17 -0500, Chris <ch...@surewould.com> wrote:
> >> As to my 5 minutes of sun, <G> this is a *huge* state, and in Anchorage, it
> >> never gets worse than a few hours of daylight, depending on the cloud cover.
> >> So, we're not *all* manic depressants looking for sun lamps up here. ;-)
> >
> >Aagghhh!!! Ya got me! I am dead-to-rights guilty of treating Alaska, by far
> the largest of our
> >large states, like it's a point on the map. Your postings have been too lucid
> for someone
> >undergoing that sort of deprivation. I imagine your attachment to vi would
> have grown into
> >something rather disturbing if you hung out your shingle in, say, BARROW . . .
>
> Reminds me of the story told by old timers up here, about how some Texan
> tourists were pissed off about Alaska becoming not only a state, but the
> *biggest* state. After hearing them whine about Texas losing it's claim to
> being the biggest *everything*, they were told to shut up with:
>
> "You boys better quit whining about being the second biggest state, 'cause if
> you don't, we might just split this state in two, and then you'll be the *Third*
> biggest state!"
But, an even better ending is "..split this state into 5...."
Actually got use it on a guy from Dallas when I was in college :-)
Aaron
Arthur Corliss
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:28:35 -0500, Aaron R Kulkis
<aku...@be1151.pd3.ford.com> wrote:
>Arthur Corliss wrote:
>> Reminds me of the story told by old timers up here, about how some Texan
>> tourists were pissed off about Alaska becoming not only a state, but the
>> *biggest* state. After hearing them whine about Texas losing it's claim to
>> being the biggest *everything*, they were told to shut up with:
>>
>> "You boys better quit whining about being the second biggest state, 'cause if
>> you don't, we might just split this state in two, and then you'll be the *Third*
>> biggest state!"
>
>But, an even better ending is "..split this state into 5...."
>
>Actually got use it on a guy from Dallas when I was in college :-)
>
>
>Aaron
<Anxiously measuring the shapes on the map. . . Why don't they ever print the
damned things in the same scale?!> Come on, no Texan gonna believe that! Just
leave it at two, and the egos won't try to deny reality so fervently. :-)
Andrew L. Short
> ->I know I sure would have liked an EDIT.COM-like editor when I was starting
> ->out... it would have made configuring my system a lot easier...
>
> I always tell the new users to use pico -- it's easy and quick-loading.
I am a real basket case when it comes to Linux...guess I am a real
victim of the MS mindset...I can make vi work and create or alter text
files using it...although I am not even to the point of using it with
the functionality I get from dos edit. Please note that FULLY
acknowledge that this is a deficiency in MY skills rather than with vi.
Anyway...to my point...if _I_ can figure out pico and make it work (I
understand that it is a lot like wordstar)...then anyone who can't has
no business trying to figure out the REST of Linux...ESPECIALLY those
who are making the transition from MS product. I like pico alot and it
is a more than adequate "beginner's editor".
If you want to help your users out, alias pico to edit and let them fly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Short "Life is Hard, PRAY Short!"
Network Engineer
Systems and Computer Technologies, Inc. Indianapolis, IN
Andrew L. Short
> >Most Windows users have never seen Linux. Anyhow... please focus on the issue
> >of a dos-like editor...
> >
> It's nice of you to mention this. The menu structure and [alt] drop down are
> identical to most Windows editors ( Including MSWord and WP )
I support a very large user base and very FEW of them know or understand
that the drop down Windows menus even HAVE alt keys (they know it after
_I_ visit them and see them wasting their time with the mouse), and
edit.com would be totally unusable to them without mouse functionality
as well.
--
Kenneth R. Kinder
In comp.os.linux.advocacy , article <34DC83C9...@ameritech.net> , Andrew L. Short <ash...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> ->I know I sure would have liked an EDIT.COM-like editor when I was starting
>> ->out... it would have made configuring my system a lot easier...
>> I always tell the new users to use pico -- it's easy and quick-loading.
> I am a real basket case when it comes to Linux...guess I am a real
> victim of the MS mindset...I can make vi work and create or alter text
> files using it...although I am not even to the point of using it with
> the functionality I get from dos edit. Please note that FULLY
> acknowledge that this is a deficiency in MY skills rather than with vi.
Try out jed or emacs... Jed especially makes you learn hot keys, as you use
its menus. Emacs does, but in different way too.
> Anyway...to my point...if _I_ can figure out pico and make it work (I
> understand that it is a lot like wordstar)...then anyone who can't has
> no business trying to figure out the REST of Linux...ESPECIALLY those
> who are making the transition from MS product. I like pico alot and it
> is a more than adequate "beginner's editor".
Pico is under powered. Wordstar lets you do novel things like cut, copy,
paste. If there's a way to do that in Pico, I don't know it.
Have you tried fte? It's not part of the standard distributions, but it's
very easily learned, and it's fairly powerful.
Marco Anglesio
On 8 Feb 1998 23:24:54 GMT, Kenneth R. Kinder <Ken@_$spamless$_KenAndTed.com> wrote:
>Pico is under powered. Wordstar lets you do novel things like cut, copy,
>paste. If there's a way to do that in Pico, I don't know it.
cut and paste in pico - control-k, control-u.
cut and paste in pico - control-k, control-u.
cut and paste in pico - control-k, control-u.
cut and paste in pico - control-k, control-u.
(as you can see, cut and paste in pico works fine).
Now, I use vi for most of my editing, but for mail and news composing pico
is just great.
marco
marco anglesio mpa at squawk dot ml dot org | Life would be tolerable
visit squawk: http://squawk.ml.org | but for its amusements.
read SURFACE: http://asus.queensu.ca/~surface | -- G. B. Shaw
Jason Earl
On 8 Feb 1998 23:24:54 GMT, Kenneth R. Kinder
<Ken@_$spamless$_KenAndTed.com> wrote:
:>> ->I know I sure would have liked an EDIT.COM-like editor when I was starting
:>> ->out... it would have made configuring my system a lot easier...
:
:>> I always tell the new users to use pico -- it's easy and quick-loading.
:
:> I am a real basket case when it comes to Linux...guess I am a real
:> victim of the MS mindset...I can make vi work and create or alter text
:> files using it...although I am not even to the point of using it with
:> the functionality I get from dos edit. Please note that FULLY
:> acknowledge that this is a deficiency in MY skills rather than with vi.
:
:Try out jed or emacs... Jed especially makes you learn hot keys, as you use
:its menus. Emacs does, but in different way too.
:
:> Anyway...to my point...if _I_ can figure out pico and make it work (I
:> understand that it is a lot like wordstar)...then anyone who can't has
:> no business trying to figure out the REST of Linux...ESPECIALLY those
:> who are making the transition from MS product. I like pico alot and it
:> is a more than adequate "beginner's editor".
:Pico is under powered. Wordstar lets you do novel things like cut, copy,
:paste. If there's a way to do that in Pico, I don't know it.
Agreed, pico is underpowered, but it is not retarded. You can toggle
marking an area using ctrl-6, and then use ctrl-k to cut and ctrl-u to
uncut. Heck, it's in the little menu at the bottom.
I personally use pico for all of my human readable text (like news and
email). It does everything I need, and I have gotten used to it. I would
certainly argue that emacs or vi is the way to for most anything else (I
like emacs personally).
:Have you tried fte? It's not part of the standard distributions, but it's
:very easily learned, and it's fairly powerful.
Nope, what's it like?
:--
The Moshing Dragon
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:09:08 -0700, Jason Earl <je...@freelance.baf.com>
was heard calling into the blackness:
<SNIP>
>:Pico is under powered. Wordstar lets you do novel things like cut, copy,
>:paste. If there's a way to do that in Pico, I don't know it.
>
>Agreed, pico is underpowered, but it is not retarded. You can toggle
>marking an area using ctrl-6, and then use ctrl-k to cut and ctrl-u to
>uncut. Heck, it's in the little menu at the bottom.
Yup. And the rest of us will use GPM on the console to cut (Outline text
with mouse, LMB) and paste (RMB), or the standard X11 Cut/Paste facilities. :)
--
John Dobak | The Mighty Moshing Miscontented Malcontent of Discontention
JDo...@ptd.net | Lord of All Small, Blue, and Smurf-Like
Moshing Dragon | Keeper of the Sacred Coal Bucket
--==(UDIC)==-- | Master of the Dreaded Pez Legions of Rectalia -><-
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6806/
Alan
Just curious, there's a free software editor for Windows that I kinda
grew to love, it's called PFE or Programmer's File Editor. Anyone know
if it's available for XWindows?
whats...@rot13.nowhere.org
The Moshing Dragon (jdo...@ptd.net) wrote:
: On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:09:08 -0700, Jason Earl <je...@freelance.baf.com>
: was heard calling into the blackness:
: <SNIP>
: >:Pico is under powered. Wordstar lets you do novel things like cut, copy,
: >:paste. If there's a way to do that in Pico, I don't know it.
: >
: >Agreed, pico is underpowered, but it is not retarded. You can toggle
: >marking an area using ctrl-6, and then use ctrl-k to cut and ctrl-u to
: >uncut. Heck, it's in the little menu at the bottom.
: Yup. And the rest of us will use GPM on the console to cut (Outline text
: with mouse, LMB) and paste (RMB), or the standard X11 Cut/Paste facilities. :)
Is it just me? I can't think of any worse way to edit text
than with a mouse. It's a nice dumb interface, which at
times is good, but it's just way too slow for serious work.
Every time a hand leaves the keyboard, it's a big time
waster. It's not a snob thing, it's just that if I have a
lot of text to move around, I can get it done twice as fast
with a keyboard as with a mouse. (Arrow keys are pretty
slow, too. I don't like 'em much.)
I wonder if I'm retro. People hint.
: John Dobak | The Mighty Moshing Miscontented Malcontent of Discontention
: JDo...@ptd.net | Lord of All Small, Blue, and Smurf-Like
: Moshing Dragon | Keeper of the Sacred Coal Bucket
: --==(UDIC)==-- | Master of the Dreaded Pez Legions of Rectalia -><-
: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6806/
--
Kenneth R. Kinder
In comp.os.linux.advocacy , article <slrn6e9o54...@freelance.baf.com> , Jason Earl <je...@freelance.baf.com> wrote:
>>>> I always tell the new users to use pico -- it's easy and quick-loading.
>>> I am a real basket case when it comes to Linux...guess I am a real
>>> victim of the MS mindset...I can make vi work and create or alter text
>>> files using it...although I am not even to the point of using it with
>>> the functionality I get from dos edit. Please note that FULLY
>>> acknowledge that this is a deficiency in MY skills rather than with vi.
>> Try out jed or emacs... Jed especially makes you learn hot keys, as you use
>> its menus. Emacs does, but in different way too.
>>> Anyway...to my point...if _I_ can figure out pico and make it work (I
>>> understand that it is a lot like wordstar)...then anyone who can't has
>>> no business trying to figure out the REST of Linux...ESPECIALLY those
>>> who are making the transition from MS product. I like pico alot and it
>>> is a more than adequate "beginner's editor".
>> Pico is under powered. Wordstar lets you do novel things like cut, copy,
>> paste. If there's a way to do that in Pico, I don't know it.
> Agreed, pico is underpowered, but it is not retarded. You can toggle
> marking an area using ctrl-6, and then use ctrl-k to cut and ctrl-u to
> uncut. Heck, it's in the little menu at the bottom.
Well, as I said, I don't know it... :)
> I personally use pico for all of my human readable text (like news and
> email). It does everything I need, and I have gotten used to it. I would
> certainly argue that emacs or vi is the way to for most anything else (I
> like emacs personally).
I use emacs when I'm programming and don't minding the wait..
> :Have you tried fte? It's not part of the standard distributions, but it's
> :very easily learned, and it's fairly powerful.
> Nope, what's it like?
Good. It has "real" pull down menus, supports lots of great features, and
has its own "modes" for file types.
--
CH3 | Kenneth R. Kinder, aka Bouncing
O / | "code = caffeine * hours"
H3C || N |
\ /~~~\ / \ | K...@KenAndTed.com
N || // | http://www.KenAndTed.com/KensBookmark/
| ||---N |
//\_ _/ | Ken & Ted's Software
O N | http://www.KenAndTed.com/
| | Soft...@KenAndTed.com
CH3 |
________________________|_________________________________________