Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 07:21:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "Paul T. Root" <proot@horton.iaces.com> To: dan@dpcsys.com (Dan Busarow) Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 1 step forward 2 steps back Message-ID: <199705291221.HAA19744@horton.iaces.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.95.970528130756.11703F-100000@cedb> from Dan Busarow at "May 28, 97 01:12:37 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a previous message, Dan Busarow said: > On Wed, 28 May 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Excuse me? > > Using ee as the default editor. Ie, vipw runs ee. It's pretty > disconcerting. I think you should dump ee, but a "I don't know > vi. Give me a dummy editor" option in the install would be OK too. > It's not so much that it's hard to add setenv EDITOR vi to root's > .cshrc as it is the surprise factor cause you see this while > still in the install. I disagree. I think it's reasonable that the "dummy editor" is the proper default. Think about it. Who is more capable of changing the default editor, a newbie or someone experienced? The suprise factor for an experienced Unix/vi user is trivial compared to someone coming from Windows because he or she heard that FreeBSD was really cool, and they dislike Windows. If you don't know enough to put setenv EDITOR /usr/bin/vi or export EDITOR=/usr/bin/vi in your .cshrc or .profile, then your not experienced, and maybe should use ee. Sicking vi on a newbie is a cruel joke that isn't needed anymore. Paul. -- There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. Oscar Wilde
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705291221.HAA19744>