I just did a new install on a spare laptop. I chose the "Software Development" option.
Emacs did not get installed.
Also, although neither mysql-devel, nor postgresql-devel, nor even libtool-ltdl-devel got installed, I ended up with a huge number of -devel packages, many of whom, from my viewpoint would like have an audience much smaller than emacs' potential audience.
Although an argument could be made about mysql and postgresql, I suppose, leaving emacs off is rather depressing, if that accurately represents the contemporary general opinions.
On 11/28/2009 02:12 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I just did a new install on a spare laptop. I chose the "Software Development" option.
Emacs did not get installed.
Also, although neither mysql-devel, nor postgresql-devel, nor even libtool-ltdl-devel got installed, I ended up with a huge number of -devel packages, many of whom, from my viewpoint would like have an audience much smaller than emacs' potential audience.
Although an argument could be made about mysql and postgresql, I suppose, leaving emacs off is rather depressing, if that accurately represents the contemporary general opinions.
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Rahul
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org:
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
On 11/28/2009 02:32 AM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
First of all, I don't think we have enough data to determine which editor is being used by developers. How did you come up with the roughly 50/50 estimate? I am sure we need a editor for development but I might be using Eclipse or even Anjuta? IMO, it can be listed as a optional package in the group and not more than that.
Rahul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/28/2009 02:32 AM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
First of all, I don't think we have enough data to determine which editor is being used by developers. How did you come up with the roughly 50/50 estimate? I am sure we need a editor for development but I might be using Eclipse or even Anjuta? IMO, it can be listed as a optional package in the group and not more than that.
Um...
emacs is more than just an editor. Advanced users of emacs use emacs as a shell from which they
- edit the source - invoke the compile/make process from WITHIN emacs - run the application from WITHIN emacs - if the application crashes, then the debugger comes up WITHIN emacs, and allows them to debug the application, look at the source code, etc. All from within emacs.
While I readily admit that most emacs users probably don't use these advanced features of emacs, I would argue that emacs DOES belong in the development group. Those that leave it out of that group are simply unaware of what emcas can and does do...
All the best,
- -Greg
Rahul
- -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Please also check the log file at "/dev/null" for additional information. (from /var/log/Xorg.setup.log)
| Greg Hosler ghosler@redhat.com | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
2009/11/29 Gregory Hosler ghosler@redhat.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/28/2009 02:32 AM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
First of all, I don't think we have enough data to determine which editor is being used by developers. How did you come up with the roughly 50/50 estimate? I am sure we need a editor for development but I might be using Eclipse or even Anjuta? IMO, it can be listed as a optional package in the group and not more than that.
Um...
emacs is more than just an editor. Advanced users of emacs use emacs as a shell from which they
- edit the source - invoke the compile/make process from WITHIN emacs - run the application from WITHIN emacs - if the application crashes, then the debugger comes up WITHIN emacs, and allows them to debug the application, look at the source code, etc. All from within emacs.
While I readily admit that most emacs users probably don't use these advanced features of emacs, I would argue that emacs DOES belong in the development group. Those that leave it out of that group are simply unaware of what emcas can and does do...
From my point of view, a development tool is something like make, or a compiler. Just because your editor can interface with it, that doesn't make it defacto a development tool.
From that perspective, emacs should not be in a development category. It should be in a "Kitchen Sink" category.
The real truth is that this is just semantics, and i'd rather see labelling and tags over predefined groups. But show me a real usability study that shows that this group division is causing trouble to users and that they are having trouble getting their work done. Then show me that the one time effort of installing a package on a fresh system is so important compared to daily activity that we really need to bother with this. Then we can discuss which category emacs should be in. Our personal intuitions won't give us the right answer.
-Yaakov
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/28/2009 02:32 AM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
First of all, I don't think we have enough data to determine which editor is being used by developers. How did you come up with the roughly 50/50 estimate? I am sure we need a editor for development but I might be using Eclipse or even Anjuta? IMO, it can be listed as a optional package in the group and not more than that.
Um...
emacs is more than just an editor. Advanced users of emacs use emacs as a shell from which they
- edit the source
- invoke the compile/make process from WITHIN emacs
- run the application from WITHIN emacs
- if the application crashes, then the debugger comes up WITHIN emacs, and allows them to debug the application, look at the source code, etc. All from within emacs.
While I readily admit that most emacs users probably don't use these advanced features of emacs, I would argue that emacs DOES belong in the development group. Those that leave it out of that group are simply unaware of what emcas can and does do...
I completely agree with you ONLY if you agree that kdevelop, qt-creator, anjuta, eclipse, netbeans, monodevelop and etc. should be added to the group because all of them can do what you have described. It will be a funny group - usable for everyone ??? I doubt it.
Alex
All the best,
-Greg
Debayan Banerjee writes:
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org:
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the
Actually, they chose vim over emacs.
distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
Hello there,
For what it matters, vim and emacs are installed by default with FEL. http://spins.fedoraproject.org/fel/
I'm looking for contributors who can help me improve user experience (on fedora) with emacs for hardware design. Thereby I would appreciate if you can help me maintain the following packages which will be set default for FEL Livedvd 13: * spice-mode https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/75 * irsim-mode (draft spec file provided) https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/50
I'll do the package reviews, if someone steps in.
Also, I'm looking for someone who can communicate directly with upstream to update both * vhdl-mode * verilog-mode coming with upstream sources.
This ticket tracks the progress with upstream : https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/76. Please do fill it if progress is made.
This blog post explains how one can use emacs in a production environment for hardware design. I'm hoping that the above tasks can further improve user experience out of the box. http://chitlesh.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/fel-emacs-verilog-mode-dinotrace/
Kind regards, Chitlesh
Debayan Banerjee wrote:
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
Both vim and Emacs are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Kevin Kofler
I would argue otherwise, considering the flexibility of both vim and Emacs. Personally, I like Emacs, and I have a hard time dealing with vi and its derivatives. But, this really isn't the place to start YET ANOTHER Emacs vs. vi[m] vs. {INSERT YOUR PREFERRED EDITOR} flamewar.
Argue that on IRC, that's always more fun... ;)
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.atwrote:
Debayan Banerjee wrote:
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
Both vim and Emacs are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Kevin Kofler
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Both vim and Emacs are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Hmm, at this point I would have thought nano would be the editor with one of the lowest learning curve in those very pleasant moments when an inexperienced admin needs to edit a system config file manually from runlevel 1 or similar heart stopping panicy "recovery" situations. Do we have nano in by default or just vi?
I mean vi is fine and all.. so is emacs... both are pretty useful development tools with there own style. but both can be frustrating to use out of the gate and your in a situation where you really really need to fix something _now_. Nano isn't particularly powerful, but its pretty clear how to edit and to save and to exit from looking at the default interface...without much head scratching or heartburn.
-jef
On 11/28/2009 10:23 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Debayan Banerjee wrote:
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
Both vim and Emacs are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Kevin Kofler
On the contrary, they're both quite easy to use. They're just hard to learn. This is intentional. If you're smart enough to use a real man's editor then you're smart enough to send patches to other real men who are writing real men's software. We don't actually want just /anyone/ writing code, do we? (well, Java people do, but its impossible to do anything useful in Java anyway. That's why you need a gigantic resource-intensive IDE to do everything for you).
--CJD
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:26 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 11/28/2009 10:23 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Debayan Banerjee wrote:
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
Both vim and Emacs are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Kevin Kofler
On the contrary, they're both quite easy to use. They're just hard to learn. This is intentional. If you're smart enough to use a real man's editor then you're smart enough to send patches to other real men who are writing real men's software. We don't actually want just /anyone/ writing code, do we? (well, Java people do, but its impossible to do anything useful in Java anyway. That's why you need a gigantic resource-intensive IDE to do everything for you).
--CJD
I guess all the female hackers are just SOL?
On 11/30/2009 11:49 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:26 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 11/28/2009 10:23 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Debayan Banerjee wrote:
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess both vim and emacs should be available.
Both vim and Emacs are obsolescent and hard to use. Kate FTW!
Kevin Kofler
On the contrary, they're both quite easy to use. They're just hard to learn. This is intentional. If you're smart enough to use a real man's editor then you're smart enough to send patches to other real men who are writing real men's software. We don't actually want just /anyone/ writing code, do we? (well, Java people do, but its impossible to do anything useful in Java anyway. That's why you need a gigantic resource-intensive IDE to do everything for you).
--CJD
I guess all the female hackers are just SOL?
I consider "real men" to be a gender-neutral complement. I know women who gladly receive it and exchange it amongst themselves.
Not to say that that doesn't necessitate clarification.
--CJD
Hi,
On 11/30/2009 11:49 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I guess all the female hackers are just SOL?
I consider "real men" to be a gender-neutral complement. I know women who gladly receive it and exchange it amongst themselves.
Since we're offering Casey money to do things¹ today:
I will send you a check for $5 if you admit that "real men" is _in no way_ a gender-neutral compliment.
- Chris.
¹: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/125130
I consider "real men" to be a gender-neutral complement. I know women who gladly receive it and exchange it amongst themselves.
Since we're offering Casey money to do things¹ today: I will send you a check for $5 if you admit that "real men" is _in no way_ a gender-neutral compliment.
since he had used "many of whom" instead of "many of which" when referring to packages, I guess English is not his mother language and in his native language "real men" could be gender-neutral.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Chris Ball cjb@laptop.org wrote:
Hi,
> On 11/30/2009 11:49 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> I guess all the female hackers are just SOL?
> I consider "real men" to be a gender-neutral complement. I know > women who gladly receive it and exchange it amongst themselves.
Since we're offering Casey money to do things¹ today:
I will send you a check for $5 if you admit that "real men" is _in no way_ a gender-neutral compliment.
- Chris.
¹: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/125130
Chris Ball cjb@laptop.org One Laptop Per Child
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 12/01/2009 02:59 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
I consider "real men" to be a gender-neutral complement. I know women who gladly receive it and exchange it amongst themselves.
Since we're offering Casey money to do things¹ today: I will send you a check for $5 if you admit that "real men" is _in no way_ a gender-neutral compliment.
since he had used "many of whom" instead of "many of which" when referring to packages, I guess English is not his mother language and in his native language "real men" could be gender-neutral.
"Real men" is always sexist.
Rahul
On 11/30/2009 04:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 12/01/2009 02:59 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
I consider "real men" to be a gender-neutral complement. I know women who gladly receive it and exchange it amongst themselves.
Since we're offering Casey money to do things¹ today: I will send you a check for $5 if you admit that "real men" is _in no way_ a gender-neutral compliment.
since he had used "many of whom" instead of "many of which" when referring to packages, I guess English is not his mother language and in his native language "real men" could be gender-neutral.
"Real men" is always sexist.
Rahul
Wrong. In the hierarchy of subtexts, irony always trumps prejudice.
--CJD
2009/11/30 Casey Dahlin cdahlin@redhat.com:
(well, Java people do, but its impossible to do anything useful in Java anyway. That's why you need a gigantic resource-intensive IDE to do everything for you).
You're right, I'm converted! Using a clever IDE is so not worth the millions of pounds they pay us to write this Java nonsense. ;-)
Lots of love, An Eclipse user.
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 11/28/2009 02:12 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I just did a new install on a spare laptop. I chose the "Software Development" option.
Emacs did not get installed.
Also, although neither mysql-devel, nor postgresql-devel, nor even libtool-ltdl-devel got installed, I ended up with a huge number of -devel packages, many of whom, from my viewpoint would like have an audience much smaller than emacs' potential audience.
Although an argument could be made about mysql and postgresql, I suppose, leaving emacs off is rather depressing, if that accurately represents the contemporary general opinions.
Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is certainly not needed for software development.
Ok, that's a valid question. So let's see what got installed:
$ rpm -q --queryformat '%{NAME} %{GROUP}\n' -a | fgrep Applications/Editors | sort emacs Applications/Editors emacs-common Applications/Editors gedit Applications/Editors nano Applications/Editors vim-common Applications/Editors vim-enhanced Applications/Editors vim-minimal Applications/Editors
I installed emacs myself. So, all I got was gedit, nano, and vi.
I am quite comfortable with either emacs or vi, for different editing needs. I am sure you can also do software development with nano. But that's quite a stretch.
Let's say I want to do software development. I make an appropriate selection when intalling Fedora 12. What editor am I expected to use?
With emacs, I get major modes for C++, Java, Perl, Python, XML, and a bunch of other things. That's quite a mouthful. The others, in this list, don't offer much more than notepad in Windows.
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:06 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Let's say I want to do software development. I make an appropriate selection when intalling Fedora 12. What editor am I expected to use?
The development group in comps does not list any editor by default. Those come from the Editors group. It does however list a number of optional emacs packages one could pick from when fine tuning the group selection.
For better or worse, the default editor in the editors group is vim-enhanced.
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:48 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:06 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Let's say I want to do software development. I make an appropriate selection when intalling Fedora 12. What editor am I expected to use?
The development group in comps does not list any editor by default. Those come from the Editors group. It does however list a number of optional emacs packages one could pick from when fine tuning the group selection.
For better or worse, the default editor in the editors group is vim-enhanced.
This probably has something to do with the fact that a variety of programs default to invoking vi if VISUAL is not set.
I'm an emacs user who's nearly completely useless in vi. But, really... it just doesn't matter if emacs isn't installed by default. If you want it, you know how to get it. And let's be frank: emacs is not something that a user who is unaware of it might stumble into and suddenly find himself blindingly productive. (Nor, for that matter, is vi.)
I can't seem to invoke emacs even when I have it installed. Every time I do, it says the command isn't found. I had to go and find it and add a symlink to the $HOME/bin folder so that it would work... I know that shouldn't be happening...
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Braden McDaniel braden@endoframe.comwrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 14:48 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:06 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Let's say I want to do software development. I make an appropriate
selection
when intalling Fedora 12. What editor am I expected to use?
The development group in comps does not list any editor by default. Those come from the Editors group. It does however list a number of optional emacs packages one could pick from when fine tuning the group selection.
For better or worse, the default editor in the editors group is vim-enhanced.
This probably has something to do with the fact that a variety of programs default to invoking vi if VISUAL is not set.
I'm an emacs user who's nearly completely useless in vi. But, really... it just doesn't matter if emacs isn't installed by default. If you want it, you know how to get it. And let's be frank: emacs is not something that a user who is unaware of it might stumble into and suddenly find himself blindingly productive. (Nor, for that matter, is vi.)
-- Braden McDaniel braden@endoframe.com
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
I'm an emacs user who's nearly completely useless in vi. But, really... it just doesn't matter if emacs isn't installed by default. If you want it, you know how to get it. And let's be frank: emacs is not something that a user who is unaware of it might stumble into and suddenly find himself blindingly productive. (Nor, for that matter, is vi.)
I agree. My problem is not that emacs is missing in development stack. My problem is when there is something wrong with the computer and I have to boot in the rescue mode, I can't rescue anything because emacs is not there. I wrote on a piece of paper how I would save and exit in vi, or exit without saving in vi, but that paper is gone now. I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
The other day at work, I had to tweak some stuff in one of our servers, but I found that another person at work removed emacs from the machine because "it takes too much space". There I realized that Emacs has always been the scapegoat.
When did Fedora stop installing emacs by default? Fedora Core 3?
Orcan
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com said:
I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
In vim, hit F1.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Chris Adams cmadams@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com said:
I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
In vim, hit F1.
Gives me GNOME Terminal Manual :(
But you can always run vimtutor
2009/11/28 Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Chris Adams cmadams@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com said:
I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
In vim, hit F1.
It's :help
2009/11/28 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
I'm an emacs user who's nearly completely useless in vi. But, really... it just doesn't matter if emacs isn't installed by default. If you want it, you know how to get it. And let's be frank: emacs is not something that a user who is unaware of it might stumble into and suddenly find himself blindingly productive. (Nor, for that matter, is vi.)
I agree. My problem is not that emacs is missing in development stack. My problem is when there is something wrong with the computer and I have to boot in the rescue mode, I can't rescue anything because emacs is not there. I wrote on a piece of paper how I would save and exit in vi, or exit without saving in vi, but that paper is gone now. I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
The other day at work, I had to tweak some stuff in one of our servers, but I found that another person at work removed emacs from the machine because "it takes too much space". There I realized that Emacs has always been the scapegoat.
When did Fedora stop installing emacs by default? Fedora Core 3?
As a sysadmin, this is completely the wrong mentality.
Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS do not ship with emacs out of the box. If you have to rescue a system, you need to know how to use the tools present. You do not question this, because no matter how much control over your own environment, you never know when someone is offering you a big wad of cash to fix their network.
The same applies to your own network. You need to document which editors should be present on which machines and who has the skills to use any particular editor.
Finally, if you want to call yourself a sysadmin, it's not good enough to be comfortable in your preferred editor, but to know the ins and outs of the entire system. You must know how to use emacs *and* vi. You must know how to use find and grep. You should know how to use awk and xargs. There's ways of doing the same in emacs and vi, but you neve know when you might come across a system with corrupt binaries.
But this has less to do with what should be shipped as a default editor for programmers.
-Yaakov
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 23:49 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
I'm an emacs user who's nearly completely useless in vi. But, really... it just doesn't matter if emacs isn't installed by default. If you want it, you know how to get it. And let's be frank: emacs is not something that a user who is unaware of it might stumble into and suddenly find himself blindingly productive. (Nor, for that matter, is vi.)
I agree. My problem is not that emacs is missing in development stack. My problem is when there is something wrong with the computer and I have to boot in the rescue mode, I can't rescue anything because emacs is not there. I wrote on a piece of paper how I would save and exit in vi, or exit without saving in vi, but that paper is gone now. I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
I'd recommend you use nano instead (which is, I believe, installed by default for just this purpose). It has the main keyboard shortcuts permanently displayed on screen, so you can't lose 'em. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 23:49 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
I'm an emacs user who's nearly completely useless in vi. But, really... it just doesn't matter if emacs isn't installed by default. If you want it, you know how to get it. And let's be frank: emacs is not something that a user who is unaware of it might stumble into and suddenly find himself blindingly productive. (Nor, for that matter, is vi.)
I agree. My problem is not that emacs is missing in development stack. My problem is when there is something wrong with the computer and I have to boot in the rescue mode, I can't rescue anything because emacs is not there. I wrote on a piece of paper how I would save and exit in vi, or exit without saving in vi, but that paper is gone now. I wish vi had some tutorial the way emacs does, so one don't get lost in it.
I'd recommend you use nano instead (which is, I believe, installed by default for just this purpose). It has the main keyboard shortcuts permanently displayed on screen, so you can't lose 'em. :)
I think there's a shortcut to go into "advanced" mode without those displayed. However, it's probably some finger acrobatic (like all its other shortcuts C-_ to go to line number? wtf?) unlikely to be accidentally pressed, so all should be good for normal usage.
- --Ben