Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
list-help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
list-post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Michael Ring <m DOT ring AT ndh DOT net>
To: cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Cc: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: RFD: Include an easy editor in the cygwin-standard-distribution
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 18:23:39 +0200
Message-ID: <l2nfjs4sq8n0drncjj0gaqbnnbmbp1v323@4ax.com>
References: <20000602142925 DOT 14204 DOT qmail AT web112 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <20000602113447 DOT E1020 AT cygnus DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20000602113447.E1020@cygnus.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id MAA02606

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:34:47 -0400, you wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 07:29:25AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>> The best I have found till now is ee, the little brother of aee; 
>>> 
>>
>>Hmm...  I agree with your reasoning, but maybe not the package.  Let's discuss
>>the highlights of a/ee.  I noticed that it's function key based which means I
>>have to move my hands from the keyboard, ugh.
>>

The main point for me is the ease of use. If you hit escape, a menu
pops up which gives you options like save file exit and so on.

No need to learn things like ESC : wg or CTRL S CTRL Q

I did think about something that is self documenting, something like
notepad for cygwin. Perhaps I am completely wrong about the average
user-skill's of cygwin-users but here in germany cygwin is distributed
on CD in a beginner's journal on linux. Not only pro's will be using
it in the future.
 
>>I suggest, the ed package for one, and if there is a small version of vi, not
>>vim, we include those.  Anyone know of a vi package that is close the the
>>original UNIX versions?

Hmmm.. my personal vote would be vim, perhaps it is not always pure vi
but the best version of vi I ever used. (And I'm using it every day)

>
>Why not use vim?  I'm willing to include this.  I just need a maintainer.
>
>cgf

If it must be vim we could use Chuck Wilson's version because it is
very independant of other packages; I would personally prefer the full
version with gnome support but that can always be distributed as an
addon to cygwin.

I can take care for vim if noone has objections, but I would still
like to raise the question again:

Do we really want that? For me and lot's of others vi is it, but what
about someone getting his feet wet with cygwin for the first time?

Editing a file (or explaining how to) can get complicated with vim or
emacs; why make it more complicated than neccessary?

Greetings,

Michael Ring