From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:59:23 +0100 Message-ID: References: <877gact76s.fsf@gnu.org> <34c8c13b-c5c6-4e5a-9248-b09d5d1936da@default> <87eh4hkq6c.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <52D9E005.6030509@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3bb00ff5119f04f035daa2 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390014040 27746 80.91.229.3 (18 Jan 2014 03:00:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Per_Starb=C3=A4ck?= , "Richard M. Stallman" , David Kastrup , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 18 04:00:44 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W4M9L-0005SD-Rf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 04:00:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40996 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4M9L-0002RM-Ic for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:00:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43681) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4M8q-0001pP-9S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:00:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4M8p-0000yp-5R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:00:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]:39274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W4M8j-0000sU-OQ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:00:06 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w62so5148722wes.24 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:00:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=8tKb1qWHe87svX2tE5d5g1J8W+jus4RN4mMad6RH/WM=; b=TRms3g3BrX7U05x+z4As45ARpmBbCxRxz/CEb1FH+mL+fBQ0Dxph7HTzJ8q+2OPFD4 fWz0qjDZGTNv/kvJpF3ST/79Y407CYbP2R6TjgEpfD0BUZ9NVnBaX/v9GEhKGAz05DDs dyd/XUzz3IbWl/D+awYATSoAw3miYlS0ufPpjEFACCTXgfcSv8aUjZ3O6qE+mFFCAw/N RZMiHoXQl5qtQCwEkB7T8Co1nPJACZnZosv2hAObxLu22zgKfCYqwXxoDW6K69LMUxRc jxt+zNnoB/RuFsfipFF+kRJQh2ciuciPQw6SLZZei6p6MrNc67hsQNmQLkUoGUdLJyA9 b1JQ== X-Received: by 10.180.108.130 with SMTP id hk2mr1167922wib.16.1390014004267; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:00:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.194.216.227 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:59:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52D9E005.6030509@dancol.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c03::233 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:168647 Archived-At: --e89a8f3bb00ff5119f04f035daa2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Daniel Colascione wrote= : > On 01/17/2014 05:47 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Glenn Morris > > wrote: >> >> Per Starb=C3=A4ck wrote: >> >> > I have always thought of GNU Emacs as *the* editor in GNU, that >> is the >> > default editor. Do you think a GNU system ideally instead should >> have >> > some other ("simple") editor as the default editor? >> >> If GNU has a default editor, I guess it is the default GNOME one, >> gedit. >> It advertises itself as "aiming at simplicity and ease of use". >> >> >> Why was gedit developed? It looks advanced to me. (I have never used >> it.) Why was not Emacs used as a basis for gedit? >> > > What does C-s do in Emacs? What do most novice users expect C-s to do? In > order to use Emacs as a base for gedit, Emacs would have had to have been > warped beyond all recognition. Emacs is a great environment, but let's no= t > pretend that it's what users migrating from proprietary desktop operating > systems should face when trying to edit a simple cookie recipe for > themselves should have to face. > Wouldn't you still have recognized the elisp? ;-) I would have been much more comfortable with Emacs as the basis for gedit. Emacs was made to be customize-able, but somehow it still failed to form the basis for gedit. Is not that a bit unfortunate? (Maybe not, but what about the future of Emacs then?) --e89a8f3bb00ff5119f04f035daa2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:
On 01/17/2014 05:47 PM, Le= nnart Borgman wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org=
<mailto:rgm@gnu.org>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Per Starb=C3=A4ck wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I have always thought of GNU Emacs as *the* editor= in GNU, that
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 is the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> default editor. Do you think a GNU system ideally = instead should have
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> some other ("simple") editor as the defa= ult editor?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 If GNU has a default editor, I guess it is the default GNOME = one, gedit.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 It advertises itself as "aiming at simplicity and ease o= f use".


Why was gedit developed? It looks advanced to me. (I have never used
it.) Why was not Emacs used as a basis for gedit?

What does C-s do in Emacs? What do most novice users expect C-s to do? In o= rder to use Emacs as a base for gedit, Emacs would have had to have been wa= rped beyond all recognition. Emacs is a great environment, but let's no= t pretend that it's what users migrating from proprietary desktop opera= ting systems should face when trying to edit a simple cookie recipe for the= mselves should have to face.


Wouldn't you still have recognized the elisp= ? ;-)

I would have been much more comfortable with Emacs as the basi= s for gedit. Emacs was made to be customize-able, but somehow it still fail= ed to form the basis for gedit. Is not that a bit unfortunate? (Maybe not, = but what about the future of Emacs then?)=C2=A0
--e89a8f3bb00ff5119f04f035daa2--