Lee Revell wrote: too true ... i've gotten the idea from this thread that emacs is a really powerful editor, that can do many a thing ... however, i'm too busy figuring out how to install/configure programs to actually learn how to use it. i mean, there should be *some* parts of linux that are "plug-n-play" ... especially a text editor!!!! now, if you've been using linux for years and years, chances are that you will be an expert in emacs ... however, a huge majority of people are coming to linux only *now* - after the establishment of the will to usability on the linux desktop with KDE, GNOME etc. so, with a graphical environment that is now *very* similar on first glance to windows, *a lot* of new users will expect that the applications they want to use will "just work". there is nothing wrong with this, indeed it is the sort of expectation that is currently being pushed in the wider community. shayne

Lee Revell wrote: except for a few bash and text editing key commands, i don't even bother ... there's no way in hell i'd remember them. i had trouble remembering my name yesterday when someone asked me. dementia, here i am. shayne

Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes: It's sad no one has implemented link numbering in graphical web browsers. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact [sip|iax]: e e jid:b0ef@ n n

On Tue, 26 Jul, 2005 at 09:57AM +0200, Esben Stien spake thus: They haven't? Oh, bugger. Better stop using it then. -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)

Most people did never see that you can use Windows completely without a mouse. I once have been on a machine withour a mouse and I could do everything with key shortcuts. Best regards ce

Shayne O'Connor wrote: There are 'plug and play' text editors, like gedit or nano, and they are excellent for dealing with config files and README docs. But emacs is more than just a text editor, it's essentially a text-based IDE and can do some very powerful things that the smaller editors can't. But for the price of a higher learning curve. Emacs is is still highly respected even on non-Unix platforms -- many Java IDEs like JBuilder or Eclipse will let you configure your editor keybindings to the emacs style. And this is the point we keep coming back to -- for some things, the simpler 'click and use' software is just what is needed. For other things, a deeper understanding and bigger learning curve will lead to more powerful capabilities that the former can't provide. -- Brett -- Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night http://www.chapelperilous.net http://www.alhazred.com http://www.revelmoon.com

On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 17:38, Shayne O'Connor wrote: Xemacs and Gnu Emacs are both definitely plug-n-play (God I hate that term). They have little buttons and pull-down menus for all of the things you want to do. Once you learn Emacs you can fly with the shortcuts. Xemacs is actually as much an IDE as it is an editor. If they're new you certainly don't want them using vi ;-) Maybe vim. There is nothing wrong with having more intuitive interfaces. No one here has suggested that at all. But, in this case, if you want more intuitive interfaces in Ardour, JAMin, Rosegarden, or whatever, you have a few choices. You can either roll up your sleeves and get in there and make mods yourself (send patches back to the maintainers); you can send money to the maintainers and ask for features; or you can whine about it constantly. Option number three is always the easiest and it occasionally gets something done ;-) Valid suggestions like "Shouldn't this shortcut be Ctrl-X-Ctrl-S instead of Ctrl-X-Alt-S" will probably be discussed and may get something done but only after discussion on the lists. General scatter gun criticism will generally just get you ignored or flamed. I try not to tell Paul how to do things ;-) I did bitch about the new color scheme last time but that was something *I* (or possibly Doug McClain ;-) could do something about. Paul didn't have to do anything. So, my suggestion to anyone who thinks that Ardour's interface should be completely redone to match whatever Windoze app they like is to slow down, regroup, suggest specific changes that you think might help, and if the developers are too busy either get into it yourself or send money to Paul. -- Jan "Evil Twin" Depner The Fuzzy Dice http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:53:22 +0200 Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> wrote: The old joke is that Richard Stallman had only one system call at the heart of GNU/Hurd: start_emacs() -- ====================================================================== Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa

luis jure wrote: emacs has viper! erik

On Mon, 25 Jul, 2005 at 04:19PM -0400, Lee Revell spake thus: I agree with all this, but not when applied to everything, all of the time. A user friendly distro for new users would be great. Everything working as expected (that is, as Windows does) and no suprises or too many choices. But I think that that's just one small place for Linux. How many mail readers need to be written that work like a Windows app? What's wrong with ones that work like a Unix app? Newbies don't have to use them. I'll stick with emacs and mutt. They can use the mozilla thing (that I can't remember the name of, sorry) for reading mail. Everyone is happy. And I think the same thing applies to audio. Audacity works out of the box. If you want something more powerful, that isn't constrained by what the rest of the world demands because they want everything, right now and it has to be easy to use, then you have ardour. And nobody seems to complain about the total lack of adherence to de-facto interface standards that expensive apps like XSI, Maya, et al. all have in common. In fact, that seems to be pretty much the *only* thing they have in common - they are all different. But why should we complain? They work well. Get used to the interface (and come on, it's hardly rocket science) and there are rewards - you can work quickly, access more features easily, do things in new ways. So, like I say. I'm all for "ease of use" but not if it gets in the way of actually being useful. James -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)