RE: SEUL: Text editors.

[Donovan Rebbechi <elflord@pegasus.rutgers.edu>]

> <sigh> If this is to be Single End User Linux, I am for it. If it is to be
> Stupid End User Linux, count me out.  SEUL must also be something that I as a
> relatively experianced Unix user would be willing to use.  If you want ti to be

yes, but the default configuration should be optimised for a beginner not
a guru. To keep it expert friendly, it must be configurable. 

> extremely intuitive, we should emulate the Macintosh, not Windows.  FOr a
> person never having used a computer before, they can learn a Mac a lot faster
> than they can learn Windows. Just because Windows does something a certain way
> does not mean that it is the best way or even right.  Emulating Microsoft to
> the greatest extent possible is NOT a priority in my mind lest we end up
> looking like a cheap copy of Windows.
 
I never said that we should "emulate microsoft". But we shouldn't try to
force unfamiliar conventions on our users unless they really gain
something. I don't see how Olwm conventions are that much more efficient.
The most efficient way to do these cut and paste operations is to forget
about the mouse and use the keybindings.

BTW, I bet that most users could learn the basic emacs bindings in the
time that it takes them to get comfortable with OLWM's mouse interface.
Given the choice, I'd have them learn emacs.

> > Makes enough sense, especially if it's applied consistently to the whole
> > user interface. But again, it's only going to confuse our users. If I
> > found it mildly confusing, they'll be very confused.
> 
> Well, for a second or two, once they understand it, the other way seems silly.

Not really. Not to me, it doesn't. Remember, the pulldown menus are just
there so that the users aren't required to know the keybindings, which are
ultimately the fastest way to do things.

> No, I am using CDE on the current desktop ... 

which is very OLWM-like ... in it's conventions (right-button centric)

> that is for reasons having more
> to do with work than anything else.  I usually use FVWM2.
 
FVWM2 (as well as Afterstep ) is a good example of what I think our
users could handle. Familiar enough not to be totally confusing, but adds
power and functionality (virtual desk space) . To me, fvwm95 always seemed
to be trying too hard to look like win95. KDE also did something good by
labelling the buttons to change desks ( It's not obvious to the beginner
how the pager and the virtual desk space work. They just wonder why their
windows keep vanishing at random intervals... )

> The style of the editor is not so much the point as the size.  The default text
> editor must exist on the rescue floppy.
> 

OK. MEdit and Xenon are both about 150k ( and don't require XView or any
other extras ). This includes the docs that come with them. This is about
half the size of vim (291 k )

BTW, I'd suggest that we don't need a gui editor on the rescue
floppy. Especially since ee and pico are very small ( < 70 k ) compared to
the gui alternatives.

-- Donovan