*vi*->e3

*vi*->e3

[Tommy McCabe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 513 bytes --]

I propose we replace the umpteen vi versions in
elkscmd with e3, which has already been ported, is
smaller and lighter, and has five different
keybindings (yes, including vi's and emacs's). The
main website: http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/ (Yes, it's
written in English). The attachment is the ELKS
version of e3 plus Makefile. It is written in assembly
and requires nasm to build.


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

[-- Attachment #2: e3elks.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-tgz, Size: 17671 bytes --]

Re: *vi*->e3

[Miguel Bolanos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

Greetings,

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 12:51, Tommy McCabe wrote:
> I propose we replace the umpteen vi versions in
> elkscmd with e3, which has already been ported, is
> smaller and lighter, and has five different
> keybindings (yes, including vi's and emacs's). The
> main website: http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/ (Yes, it's
> written in English). The attachment is the ELKS
> version of e3 plus Makefile. It is written in assembly
> and requires nasm to build.
> 

I'm not very sure about this... we could include it, but replacing vi..
i honestly would like to hear others opinions before moving forward with
this.

Mike

> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/
-- 
--------------------miguel bolanos, systems administrator, linuxlabs
... ........ ..... ....                 230 peachtree st nw ste 2701
the original linux labs                          atlanta.ga.us 30303
       -since 1995                          http://www.linuxlabs.com
                                office 404.577.7747 fax 404.577.7743
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: *vi*->e3

[Jody]

Replace vi with e3 if you can force e3 to behave just like vi when it
starts, because I used SmallLinux and it invokes e3 when I type vi and I
couldn't edit ANYTHING.  Pissed me off.  It must start as if it is vi and
behave as if it is vi if we are to replace vi with it.  I'm sure others
will agree.  I don't CARE about emacs keybindings because I don't USE
emacs.  I don't want some oddball editor with controls I don't know, I want
something that I can use out of the box.
I personally liked the editor "nano" that was in older Debian releases,
because it had its [control-X] key combinations for commands listed briefly
at the bottom while you used it, it was full-screen, and it behaved like a
"sane" full-screen editor rather than being a creep like vi, where I have
to type :a to add to the end of a line and :i to insert...why can't I just
type and use cursor keys to move around?  Maybe it's not "the traditional
UNIX way of doing it" but it sure helps to not have to accidentally type :i
when I "meant" :a and similar...
I have always hated vi anyway.  The only reason I use CRUX's vi is because
it's vim and vim lets me type :i and then break all the vi typing rules :)
I can use vi though, so if we're talking about replacing it with something
smaller, AT LEAST MAKE SURE IT WORKS THE SAME WHEN INVOKED.  I don't want
to have to figure out a new editor, and indeed we would like a very small
learning curve between ELKS <-> Linux day-to-day console work.
I used to use MS-DOS EDIT back in DOS 5.0, but you sure as heck NEVER saw
me using EDLIN for ANYTHING AT ALL.  Line editors are old and outdated.
Full-screen editors with menus or control-X combinations that are
explicitly outlined at the bottom are much easier and friendly and sane,
especially to people who haven't used UNIX or ELKS before.

Courtesy of the Highly Opinionated vi-hating Jody, who still uses Windows
despite the fact that Linux is better.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Bolanos" <mike@linuxlabs.com>
To: "Tommy McCabe" <rocketjet314@yahoo.com>
Cc: <linux-8086@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: *vi*->e3

Re: *vi*->e3

[Tommy McCabe]

--- Jody <jbruchon@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Replace vi with e3 if you can force e3 to behave
> just like vi when it
> starts, because I used SmallLinux and it invokes e3
> when I type vi and I
> couldn't edit ANYTHING.  Pissed me off.  It must
> start as if it is vi and
> behave as if it is vi if we are to replace vi with
> it.  I'm sure others
> will agree.  I don't CARE about emacs keybindings
> because I don't USE
> emacs.  I don't want some oddball editor with
> controls I don't know, I want
> something that I can use out of the box.
> I personally liked the editor "nano" that was in
> older Debian releases,
> because it had its [control-X] key combinations for
> commands listed briefly
> at the bottom while you used it, it was full-screen,
> and it behaved like a
> "sane" full-screen editor rather than being a creep
> like vi, where I have
> to type :a to add to the end of a line and :i to
> insert...why can't I just
> type and use cursor keys to move around?  Maybe it's
> not "the traditional
> UNIX way of doing it" but it sure helps to not have
> to accidentally type :i
> when I "meant" :a and similar...
> I have always hated vi anyway.  The only reason I
> use CRUX's vi is because
> it's vim and vim lets me type :i and then break all
> the vi typing rules :)
> I can use vi though, so if we're talking about
> replacing it with something
> smaller, AT LEAST MAKE SURE IT WORKS THE SAME WHEN
> INVOKED.  I don't want
> to have to figure out a new editor, and indeed we
> would like a very small
> learning curve between ELKS <-> Linux day-to-day
> console work.
> I used to use MS-DOS EDIT back in DOS 5.0, but you
> sure as heck NEVER saw
> me using EDLIN for ANYTHING AT ALL.  Line editors
> are old and outdated.
> Full-screen editors with menus or control-X
> combinations that are
> explicitly outlined at the bottom are much easier
> and friendly and sane,
> especially to people who haven't used UNIX or ELKS
> before.
> 
> Courtesy of the Highly Opinionated vi-hating Jody,
> who still uses Windows
> despite the fact that Linux is better.

I don't know why it didn't start with vi keybindings,
SmallLinux is several years old anyway. The key
bindings are, vi (a lot of people use this), emacs (a
lot of people use this to), pico (nano is a clone),
wordstar and nedit (never heard of those).

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miguel Bolanos" <mike@linuxlabs.com>
> To: "Tommy McCabe" <rocketjet314@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <linux-8086@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:25 AM
> Subject: Re: *vi*->e3
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> "unsubscribe linux-8086" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at 
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

Re: *vi*->e3

[Albrecht Kleine]

Hi,

> On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 12:51, Tommy McCabe wrote:
> > I propose we replace the umpteen vi versions in
> > elkscmd with e3, which has already been ported, is
> > smaller and lighter, and has five different
> > keybindings (yes, including vi's and emacs's). The
> > main website: http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/ (Yes, it's
> > written in English). The attachment is the ELKS
> > version of e3 plus Makefile. It is written in assembly
> > and requires nasm to build.

> I'm not very sure about this... we could include it, but replacing vi..
> i honestly would like to hear others opinions before moving forward with
> this.

My name is Albrecht Kleine, the author of e3.
I would suggest to ship the ELKS version e3 additionally,
but not replacing vi.

The reason is as follows: the elks port does _NOT_ include
vi's and emacs's key bindings, but 'wordstar' in a fullscreen way.

This stuff was forked in an early stage from e3/Linux 
into 16 bit for ELKS and DOS.  Later I did not continue,
because I never got much feedback. any my only reason to do 
this port was only to play with ELKS on an old 8086 PC.

OTOH, it is really nice to read you considering 
to include e3 into elks_cmd, so that would be a reason
to later improve this 16 bit stuff.

BTW, after suspending developement for nearly 12 months
currently I am working on a new version ready for UTF-8 coding
on 32 bit Linux and *BSD.
UTF-8 is a big thing at least here in Europe ...
....but IMHO not for ELKS.

Cheers,
Albrecht

Re: *vi*->e3

[Miguel Bolanos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2324 bytes --]

Greetings.

On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 11:45, Albrecht Kleine wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 12:51, Tommy McCabe wrote:
> > > I propose we replace the umpteen vi versions in
> > > elkscmd with e3, which has already been ported, is
> > > smaller and lighter, and has five different
> > > keybindings (yes, including vi's and emacs's). The
> > > main website: http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/ (Yes, it's
> > > written in English). The attachment is the ELKS
> > > version of e3 plus Makefile. It is written in assembly
> > > and requires nasm to build.
> 
> > I'm not very sure about this... we could include it, but replacing vi..
> > i honestly would like to hear others opinions before moving forward with
> > this.
> 
> My name is Albrecht Kleine, the author of e3.
> I would suggest to ship the ELKS version e3 additionally,
> but not replacing vi.

Oh... hehe nice to Meet you Albrecht :), its nice to see you reading
this list :)

> 
> The reason is as follows: the elks port does _NOT_ include
> vi's and emacs's key bindings, but 'wordstar' in a fullscreen way.
> 

So its decided.. we won't replace vi, but yes we will port e3 :)

> This stuff was forked in an early stage from e3/Linux 
> into 16 bit for ELKS and DOS.  Later I did not continue,
> because I never got much feedback. any my only reason to do 
> this port was only to play with ELKS on an old 8086 PC.
> 

Well elks have been certainly progressing a lot lately after a very long
period of inactivity, so you can be sure that feedback will come,
specially now that we will include e3 :)

> OTOH, it is really nice to read you considering 
> to include e3 into elks_cmd, so that would be a reason
> to later improve this 16 bit stuff.
> 

Good. We really hope that you can continue ur work on 16bit too, as it
will of great benefit for elks.

[...]

best wishes

Mike

-- 
--------------------miguel bolanos, systems administrator, linuxlabs
... ........ ..... ....                 230 peachtree st nw ste 2701
the original linux labs                          atlanta.ga.us 30303
       -since 1995                          http://www.linuxlabs.com
                                office 404.577.7747 fax 404.577.7743
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: *vi*->e3

[Miguel Bolanos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]

Greetings,

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 12:51, Tommy McCabe wrote:
> I propose we replace the umpteen vi versions in
> elkscmd with e3, which has already been ported, is
> smaller and lighter, and has five different
> keybindings (yes, including vi's and emacs's). The
> main website: http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/ (Yes, it's
> written in English). The attachment is the ELKS
> version of e3 plus Makefile. It is written in assembly
> and requires nasm to build.
> 

OK so after all the feedback received it is fact that e3 will NOT
replace vi as you requested, BUT we now have e3 on elkscmd.

best wishes.

Mike

> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/
-- 
--------------------miguel bolanos, systems administrator, linuxlabs
... ........ ..... ....                 230 peachtree st nw ste 2701
the original linux labs                          atlanta.ga.us 30303
       -since 1995                          http://www.linuxlabs.com
                                office 404.577.7747 fax 404.577.7743
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]