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
