Gedit, I like that different elements of source code and HTML are in different colors and that it has tabs. I use Gedit most often since I switched to GNOME 3.

1 members found this post helpful.

Absolutely Yes! And the possibility to add your own scripts.

Back in the KDE3 days, I would have voted for kedit. I *LOVED* that editor. Now there's nothing I really care too much for so use Kate as kwrite seems to screw up things like when I need to edit lilo.conf, etc.

woot Vim rocks

1 members found this post helpful.

guess i'm old school love vi...

2 members found this post helpful.

Edit: original\VHS-cover-pic did not show on other PC.

The thing about Vim is how much it can be sweetly customized to take care of your everyday needs. It's a hackers editor for sure. It took me years to get it tweaked just so, but I haven't messed with my fancy config files in a few years. They're always the first thing to get copied into $HOME dir. Gedit is fer n00bs

Where else can you see this: get editor of the year.

The world is good.

PS. I also hate vim. It's one of those things.

Lol.... Can't resist. vim is for n00bs. Just use Emacs

Talking about customization and hacker's editor...

Note: I used vi/m for decades before switching to Emacs and my only regret is that I didn't do so sooner. Of course the fact that vi/m is installed by default on pretty much every *nix server out there makes a really good case for knowing vi/m if you're a sysadmin. For everyday personal use, however, I am finding I prefer emacs.

Peace--

I cannot figure out emacs. The key codes are non-intuitive

On the other hand I could literally figure out the basics of using VIM in less than 1 hour

Interesting. I find the key bindings of Emacs much more intuitive than vi/m. Of course since Emacs can do pretty much anything there are a lot more of them, but the basics are pretty intuitive. Indeed, studies done decades back w/naive computer users concluded the subjects were able to get things done (edit text, think admin assistant before PC's were on every desk) in Emacs more quickly than vi (vim didn't exist yet), as the the modal nature of vi was difficult for the average person in the study to get to grips with. I sure don't miss having to hit ESC all the time (but admittedly I should have been smarter back in those days and rebound it to my caps lock key).

Moving on to intermediate and advanced use, however, Emacs probably does have a steeper curve. Part of the price you pay for all that power and flexibility. Good to know something about e/lisp as well, whereas vi/m configuration doesn't require any specific programming language knowledge (but you're still going to have to spend time with the docs). Moreover, since Emacs can do pretty much anything, I can leverage those key bindings across functionalities, e.g. mail, irc, etc. Conversely, while vi/m lack some functionalities of Emacs, their ubiquity has resulted in their bindings being leveraged in many 2nd party apps, e.g. irssi, mutt, etc. So it's all good!

I'm trying to remain objective here but also realize that I'm teetering on the edge of a religious war so will leave it at that. Curious, however, if you ever spent an hour with the Emacs tutorial (C-h t)??

You are not alone.

Vi/Vim seemed natural and intuitive when I first used them long ago, whereas several attempts to learn emacs (admittedly none recently) never "stuck". Every time I tried to learn emacs I always came away feeling as if I were missing something obvious, but I never figured out what it was.

To each his/her own.

Yep. But I have to chuckle a bit because it comes off as vi/m afficianodos needing to get the last word here. You, nor I, didn't learn vi/m instantly. We spent time with it. I'd been meaning to get to some minimal level of competency with Emacs for many, many years but time being what it is seemed to never get around to it.

Then I ran across Orgmode and it provided a compelling argument to get serious about learning Emacs. Yet still somehow another year went by w/o me ever actually doing so until one day I decided that I needed to learn Emacs the same way I learned vi; by using it. So I uninstalled vim, spent a couple hours with the tutorial, and used Emacs. I don't think mastering the basics of either are much different on the learning curve. Going beyond that in either is going to take effort.

So the thing here is that I've spent a lot of time with both (much, much more time with vi long before vim existed) and am now liking Emacs better. To each their own, to be true. But all I'm saying here is that you might just want to give Emacs an honest test drive before you come to your conclusion because I'm not really buying the keybinding argument. Especially since Emacs can be configured to use vim like bindings. I mean, given all the years I spent with vi, I figured a week/month w/Emacs wasn't too big a deal. And now, present day, I regret that I didn't do so much earlier in my career. I'm not trying to get into a religious war here. I am merely suggesting making informed choices

Hey, how come nobody voted for MSNotepad?

About the only thing I can say at this point is that vi lives in /bin and exists on even the most rudimentary rescue disks. It's a good thing to get to know.

***

To be honest, I've never been able to figure out what *exactly* emacs is. Is it an editor? Some wonderful swiss army knife of whimsical features?

Do *one* thing, and do it well. It's the Linux way, at least that's what I was taught.

2 members found this post helpful.

No offense but it seems like you are the one that wants the last word in
I'd like to point out Vim is a lot better than straight VI. I can tolerate VI but VIM is less temperamental and more user friendly.
And why make the effort to switch if vi(m) does everything I need in an editor, and I am familiar with it?

:wq

1 members found this post helpful.

How comes ed is not listed?