Re: An 'ae' testimony
In message <[🔎] 19990523035832.A12149@cibalia.gkvk.hr>, Josip Rodin writes:
> On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:13:29AM +1000, Craig Sanders 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.
>
> > > You have to have a broader view (is that the expression?) in this
> > > case, since it is not only yours boot disk, but everyone elses.
> >
> > i think it is you who needs the broader view. the world is not composed
> > entirely of newbies seeking escape from dos/windows. in fact, it's fair
> > to say that complete newbies aren't our target market, we make a high
> > quality distribution perfectly suited to experienced unix users. even
> > so, we support them by including a simple editor (ae) on the rescue
> > disk...why should we do less for our target market?
>
> No, I don't think that including ae was done becuse of the
> user-friendliness - ae, as any usual unix text editor, is something that
> complete newbies don't like. If we cared about newbies, we would get a
> MS-DOS edit clone or even start up the X just after booting (I don't exactly
> know how, but you get the point).
I like to second that. Newbies are likely to be overtaxed by the very
situation, where a _rescue_ disk is necessary. They're starting to whine
and yell and call for help from a friend or contractor anyway.
>
> > debian has been criticised in the past for failing to include vi on the
> > rescue floppy. we copped a lot of flack for not having one as it is a
> > tool which any experienced unix user can reasonably expect to find on a
> > rescue floppy.....
>
> 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.
Guenther
Reply to: