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/
