Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 15:03:47 +1000 (EST) From: Pat Caldon <patc@felix.antiquity.arts.su.edu.au> To: jfieber@indiana.edu (John Fieber) Cc: Andreas@felix.antiquity.arts.su.edu.au, Klemm@felix.antiquity.arts.su.edu.au, <andreas@knobel.gun.de>, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: /stand/ee Message-ID: <199605220503.PAA01699@felix.antiquity.arts.su.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.93.960520210951.1831A-100000@Fieber-John.campusview.indiana.edu> from "John Fieber" at May 20, 96 10:27:09 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> consequently not justified. I have yet to meet file in /etc that > where vi or emacs has proven to be discernably more capable or > efficient than pico. I'd point to being able to delete vast quantities of guff on the basis of a regular expression as useful. > Every time this editor war comes up, I see a bazillion posts from > diehard vi users that conflate the concept of a "standard" > editor with the concept of the "one true editor". The two > concepts are mutually exclusive. A practical solution is perhaps to have a sysconfig option (or similar) with "System Default Editor". Have this set up in the _install_ procedure and have it set EDITOR approprately, as well as aliasing "edit" or whatever the naeive user picks to ee or pico (god forbid vi). Provide both ee and ex (or vi if there is room) in /stand. An appropriate list of editors would be: microemacs vi ee pico joe (lots of DOS users know and love WordStar). This will of course require more maintenace effort and will swell /stand to be too big; OTOH it will bring peace to this mailing list, which well justifies the cost. pat.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605220503.PAA01699>