Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> I was prepaired to "go with the flow", until I saw Richard Lowe's mail.
> It appears that defaults of "gmacs", "vi" and "none" are equally prevalent
> in other systems. If we want to help the newbee, being consistant across
> systems is the best way to accomplish that. Since "gmacs", "vi" and "none"
> are about equally prevelent, I guess we can't do that. The Pro's I see
> for each choice are:
>
> none: Pushes no style and matches 33% of the data we have.
>
> vi: Matches the "momentum leader" (Ubuntu), matches historical
> Solaris and matches 33% of the data we have.
>
> gmacs: Matches 33% of the data we have.
The real sleeper style in Richard's email is "MS Windows". As used by
the current Solaris GNOME desktop, Mozilla and Firebird. If we really
cared about being consistent, we would find a way to add that style to
ksh93 and/or add the vi/emacs styles into GNOME so that users would not
have to deal with several different styles.
Anything else is just poor statistics and opinion. Religion and
Politics. It was hard to build, so it should be hard to use...
Where is the Architecture in this discussion? The mechanism of setting
a default is in scope, but the actual value that is set there (none, vi,
*emacs, *windoz) is IMHO more of a community/business decision.
Since
-John (a vi addict who misses emacs mode on the GNOME desktop)
I can't resist a paraphrase of Richard's and Joe's analysis:
vi is better than g/emacs, and Nothing is better than vi
