On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I wish I could paste images and markup text in Leo with >> the same ease that I use MS Word or Onenote. A good goal, but it will be difficult in the presence of external files. >> At present most of my work is trifurcated...I find myself constantly >> repeating things in one of these environments that I've already done >> (part of) in another. Yes. That's why there is the drive to do everything in a single environment, Emacs, Leo, Blender, whatever. > Recently I was > explaining/showing Leo to a pair of friends. The idea of clones is a really > powerful and quick to catch one. If they have a more familiar interface > oriented towards non-technical users surely both would start to use it. What kind of interface do you have in mind? >> Maybe someday there will be a grand unification leo-like environment, >> stranger things have happened...I wish .leo fi)les could just *be* programs, >> but most people would find such a scheme unacceptable. That would be my ideal too. As you say, it would be a hard sell. Furthermore, as you suggest below, collaborating on .leo files would have to be dead easy. >> The FOSSIL source code management tool has done some impressive things >> in this regard: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki I'll look into it. > For me the idea of a file based approach a la "everything is a file" of Unix > is becoming more and more insufficient. I agree completely. That's one of Leo's hidden benefits. I almost never open files--I just create @file nodes. Furthermore, Leo breaks down file boundaries in a useful and convenient way. > The more I approach Smalltalk and its "everything is a object" philosophy, > the more I see this insufficiency. OO operating systems have failed repeatedly, so we are stuck with files as a sort of lowest common denominator. However, Leo helps hide the file-ish nature. > Flat files or metafiles about them (a la Leo) don't deal properly with some > kind of abstraction about storage, version control and so on. I agree. > I think that the interaction of Fossil + Leo could > solve the idea of having external files in a single "Leo document" that > would be really a fossil sqlite repository with all the external files in > it, but syncronizable with the outside world. This kind of instantiated > image of files in a moment of time in Fossil + Leo, would be like the > instantiated image of objects in a moment of time of Smalltalk. Very interesting. > I don't know > for sure for anyone else, but I think that the more Leo users use Leo, the > more they would like to "live inside" Leo (that is my case, anyway) and I > believe that this would be possible, only if Leo incorporates a default, > minimalist a portable discourse about storage and version control. Fossil is > for me, that kind of discourse to talk with. Thanks for all these comments. They do indeed point in a new direction, one that is worth exploring. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
