In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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