Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:21:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Ross Lippert <ripper@eskimo.com> To: freebsd-config@freebsd.org Subject: [schweikh@schweikhardt.net: Re: misc/40843: ee should be default editor of root] Message-ID: <200208121421.HAA11370@eskimo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an excerpt from a discussion I was having over what I think is an inconsistent use of ee and with which my correspondent disagrees. The thread began when I noticed that while ee is used in the install to edit config files, the default editor after installation is vi. While many of the editor-using routines (vipw, send-pr, etc) use vi, they will use ee if EDITOR=ee. This seems to me to be a gentler default for the newbie, and I was wondering if it should not be a good idea to have it be the default on a fresh install. Of course, an alternative is just to edit the .profile file for any newbie to make this the setting as one of the first things done on a fresh install. My correspondent does have some points re: POLA and just what newbies should know, but I'm interested in other opinions on this issue. -r ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:29:22 +0200 From: Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@schweikhardt.net> To: Ross Lippert <ripper@eskimo.com> Cc: schweikh@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/40843: ee should be default editor of root References: <200208121152.g7CBqP5g002607@freefall.freebsd.org> <200208121255.FAA05787@eskimo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200208121255.FAA05787@eskimo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Ross, On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:55:33AM -0700, Ross Lippert wrote: # # Then what was the point of ee? I assume it was used for the *install* to reduce the chance of newbies messing up their config files right before they logged in the first time. And because there was apparently a need for an "easy editor" to avoid the dreaded "What?! I need to know vi to *install* FreeBSD? Are you insane?" and variations thereof. # When ee came out, I was very pleased # that FreeBSD was moving in a direction in which I could teach someone # how to use it without having to teach vi along with it. It looked to # me like a good idea at the time to minimize the necessary overhead in # getting to know the system for the first time, and I expected the # change to propagate to all apps which invoked an editor, but it has # been a long while and nothing has come of it. Can you tell me why my # PR should not then be turned into "ee should be discarded since it is # not the default". # # When doing a sysinstall, ee is used to edit config files like # inetd.conf, and yet, once the install is done, if the user does vipw # or send-pr, they get plunked into vi. This is horribly inconsistent. I'd consider it inconsistent to be plunked into ee when the command has vi in its name... # It is not that I want to start an editor war, but if an editor war # will lead to consistency, then an editor war there must be. I think # one or the other is just fine, with a slight pref for ee for the sake # of newbies, but a mixed system is not. Personally I consider your consistency argument not convincing. I view the installation (as opposed to operation) of a FreeBSD system so different, that I can't follow your reasoning. Even more so as there is an easy way for someone with a preference for the foo editor to make it his default. Is it too arrogant if I think that someone who doesn't know how to change the EDITOR variable should not edit system config files? The FreeBSD installation caters somewhat to the newbie, but it's certainly not our goal to make the running system as newbie friendly as possible. # Either ee is sincerely adopted as THE default editor of FreeBSD, or we # should stop kidding ourselves and tell any newbie that we consider vi # to be an essential part of their BSD education (before ee existed, # learning vi was part of my FreeBSD education). I do not consider # either of these options unacceptable, but neither of them is being # followed consistently. # It is less burdensome to have EDITOR=ee and have the expert user # switch it than demand that the newbie learn this. It places almost no # burden on the expert, but an explanation of environment variables and # their effects is a substantial burden on the newbie. I suggest you lobby for your idea on the appropriate mailing list. You might gain support there (I'm just one of many developers and have only stated my opinion, so my statement is not final). freebsd-config Development of FreeBSD installation and configuration tools freebsd-install Installation development seem appropriate lists. If you find enough support, I can reopen this PR. # >vi has been the default editor for so many programs and so many years # >that it would be a POLA violation to change this for a BSD system that's # >up and running. # What is POLA? I do not recognize the acronym. See the FAQ, 16.17. What does POLA mean? Principle of Least Astonishment. It means that as FreeBSD evolves, changes visible to the user should be kept as unsurprising as possible. For example, arbitrarily rearranging system startup variables in /etc/defaults/rc.conf violates POLA. Developers consider POLA when contemplating user-visible system changes. Regards, Jens - -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) ------- End of forwarded message ------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-config" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208121421.HAA11370>