Agreed that there probably is a simple to use console text editor already written. If not I or somebody else could modify something like Nano or Picco in short order. That's not the problem. That's easy enough to accomplish. Me I gave up C coding back when Win 95 came out. I never liked C/C++ primarily because of the nagging semi-colens. I got contract after contract that wanted VB and my C skills fell into disuse. Except for occasional DLLs I had to write using C++ to augment VB I worked in the languages that paid. Prior to that in my DOS days I did extensive programming in Pascal, QB, Asm, C and Xbase and dabbled in other languages like Fortran. I am actually developing a writer's editor for Linux as I'm unhappy with existing choices on any platform for authoring novels. This editor is GUI based however and again like VI is massive overkill for editing cfg files. Once I have the basics working I plan to release it open source and hope to attract a couple other coders to the project. I also hope to form a project for musical collaboration software as Nix OS's are not represented and there is a real need to release something open source in this area. Neither of these projects are important for Linux adoption however.

What I am doing is challenging the way it's always been done. I personally use Kedit for most things and know enough VI to make simple edits. If it takes more than a simple edit I open it up in a GUI editor or SSH the file to a local machine. It's easier and faster for me to do that than try to do any extensive editing in VI. Sure if I learned VI I could accomplish it quickly, the thing is I have no desire to do so, nor does it really make sense to do so. VI is not going to win converts to Linux nor is it going to ever win the hearts of most converts to Linux. There will still be some who love VI and use it daily for many years to come including a small percentage of new converts to Linux. I'm not saying pull it out of distros, I'm saying we need a new text editor that is quick and easy to use with little or no learning curve.

I've never been a fan of Notepad. Not sure how that is relivent. Nor is there a keyboard standard with Linux apps which hurts it's adoption as everybody has to learn new short cuts with every app. Some of it is just the specialization of the app of course. The Gimp for example will have keyboard shortcuts for things that dont' exist in a text editor or a game or a multitude of other apps. However if the various image editing software authors got together and standardized the core shortcut keys it would make learning Linux a whole lot simpler.

My premise is simple about the keyboard shortcuts. People already know the CDE keyboard shortcuts. Whether they are old school nix or new converts to Linux, everybody has been exposed to them through using Borland APIs, many KDE apps use those standards, some Gnome apps, some console apps, windoze apps almost all use them and so on. The abberation is many Linux apps. It'd debatable whether it's the most intuitive or not. What isn't is that it would shorten the learning curve if Linux had first a standard set of keyboard shortcuts for common tasks. Second if it was one that people already knew, in other words CDE. That is one of the reasons I usually put people I help convert to Linux initially on KDE as most KDE apps use the CDE shortcut keys. As such new users find themselves productive faster and have less of a learning curve. The most critical thing about converting somebody to Linux is the first month or so. They have to be able to do stuff or they'll just go back to windoze. Folks who use Gnome rarely stick with Linux. The complaints I hear back primarily are about the learning curve. The jumble of UIs they face as Gnome apps mixed with old school X apps give the user a bewildering set of keyboard short cuts and interfaces. You never know where things are in the menus, functionality is not quite what you expect. There are good Gnome apps that use the CDE interface and I recommend many of those to new users. There are also essential Gnome apps where there is no good equiv KDE app and again I recommend those. There are also KDE apps which odd keyboard shortcuts but generally I advise new users to avoid those. Face it Firefox uses pretty much the standard menus and keystrokes. Open office the same. Those are the entry points to Open Source and Nix. Why not learn from those apps and make it easier for people to convert to Linux.

Before you go after me on my Gnome comments, after they get used to Linux I do recomend they try not just Gnome but also other window managers. Some find Gnome what they prefer after they learn Linux. I've had almost %100 failure rate with those who start with Gnome right off the bat and the complaints are almost always the same. The inconsistancy with the UI. They hate having to relearn everything. With KDE they don't. They learn the philosophy, the apps work almost exactly how they would expect them too but better beecause they are Linux apps which are more robust, often have features not found on Windoze equivs etc. KDE is simply more consistant which lowers the learning curve which in turn makes them productive faster, once productive folks usually love Linux.

In short new converts have a ton to learn as it is. Linux is not windoze. It has a different philosophy, different on very basic levels from file permissions to how you install software to the huge amount of choice/configurability you have with Linux that doesn't exist in windoze. Users are already confused by distros, adopting things like the home dir and such. Why torture them with every app having it's own set of menu styles and keystroke combinations?

Somebody accused me of wanting it how *I* like it. Actually no, CDE is not my first choice, it's not what I used when I had a choice of keyboard shorcuts back in the day when most apps supported multiples. Borland IDEs were what I was most comfortable with and many of the differences between old school Borland and CDE were keystrokes I thought made more sense. I have been using PCs since the late 80s and have learned countless sets of keyboard shortcuts to the point my mind rebels at learning yet another I'll have to forget in 5 years. I've learned and gotten comfortable with many different operating systems. Used countless IDEs/UIs for various tasks. My personal favorite file manager is Krusader, however I don't feel that should be the default because most Linux converts are more used to something like the Konquerer or Gnome equiv for file management. I don't try to set them up for failure by increasing the learning curve. After they get used to Linux I'll recommend they try Krusader but most prefer the windoze style file management. I am not trying to force my favorites on anybody but resent when others do not show the same courtesy. I am advocating standards that help Linux but do not detract from the power and individuality that Linux represents. You might like or hate VI. Doesn't matter. What you can't dispute is that it has a very poor adoption rate among former windoze users, many like myself who are fluent in Linux and have been using it for years. I cannot think of a single other frequently used app which shares the VI shortcut system. Many of the most annoying aspects of VI are byproducts of the day when you could not reliably send keystrokes like arrow keys over the network. Arrow keys are the default navigation key in almost every other app on almost every platform.

So it's really the geekness badge of honor that I'm battling against not just with the VI arguement but a few other things. A sort of right of passage thing old school Nix folks like to pass on. If VI didn't exist on a remote machine you are only going to work on for a short time would you really miss it? If you were the admin it'd be easy enough to install VI. Realistically how often do you do complex edits on such machines? Why would you want too? If I'm writing/modding a perl script I'll do that on my local machine in an editor that has syntax highlighting, test and debug it on my local machine if reasonably possible then SCP it to the destination machine. If I'm editing a SQL script same thing. Why would I want to do that remotely %90 of the time? Just by having a copy on my local machine I have a backup. If it's important it needs to be checked into a source repository anyway right? The need for the complexities of VI are really not there for most people. Some folks that's an easier and better way for them. Good, keep it around just as I find Krusader easier and better for many tasks than other options. Other times I find the console window to be better and often I use a combination of console and Krusader for complex file management tasks. What is needed is an alternate that has no learning curve or little learning curve as possible. Geekness can be achieved by doing something other than learning archaic interfaces. I could probably still edit a file in Edlin, this makes me special how? I probably still remember how to walk memory in Masm. Again that does what for me today?

Folks this is not a personal thing. As I point out above, many of my preferences have nothing to do with the standards I am advocating. I am speaking out about things that I see hurting Linux adoption. I already know how to use various editors and have found ways around annoyances but it slowed my adoption. I first dabbled in Linux around 95. Had working Linux machines I used for various tasks a year or two later. Except for recording I've used nothing but Linux at home since 2000 and made my living primarily as a Linux Admin for the last 8 years or so. I don't need a text editor for my personal use. If I was the only one who found VI so vile I'd just write my own and use that. That's not my point. I spend a huge amount of time getting people to try Linux, helping new Linux users get started. VI is easily the single thing I get the most complaints about and one of the biggest things hurting Linux adoption. It's feedback I get from new users. It's also the hardest thing to get around. I've solved the whole UI problem in X by getting them to use KDE first then branch out and try other Window managers as they get more comfortable with Linux. K3b took care of the burning problem. I've found good apps for every other task except a console editor that doesn't leave new Linux users lost and with a bad impression of Linux. I'm out there on the trenches helping folks adopt Linux. A few of which may even read this thread as I highly recommend logging onto these forums as part of getting started. Attacking me personally because I say something you might not like gets us nowhere. I am being as objective as possible. I have a whole suite of apps that I love and find to be the best for what I do. Some of them are not for novice Linux users. Some are things that only a few users like myself will find useful including the writer's editor I'm working on. There is absolutely no reason to make that part of a standard distro as it's not going to be better for writing a proposal than a word processor. It's not going to be all that great for writing code or editing configuration files. Writers might make up %1 of the Linux user base. So when finished that editor is going to be something that sits on a repository for folks that need it to disvoer and install just like thousands of other great apps that appeal to niche users.

It is standards I'm talking about that improve Linux adoption. It's trivial for vet Linux users to find and use another app if the standard is not what they want/need. New users will soon make the majority of Linux users if Linux is to survive long term except as a niche OS. We need a set of tools and UI standards that will make that conversion as easy as possible. Remember the more widespread Linux use is the better all Linux user's lives become. We get better support with apps, don;t have to spend hours figuring out how to emulate or reverse engineering windoze only software. We get driver support from vendors, we won't have to wait months for the latest Flash version for Linux to come out, in the mean time either not view stupid Flash only websites or use Wine to visit that website. The sooner Linux penetrates the desktop in significant numbers the sooner M$ loses it's abilty to delay innovations and stall hardware adoption. It also hits us in the wallet. The sooner Linux is adopted mainstream on desktops the sooner we quit paying cents on every dollar for money wasted on M$'s incompatabilities and insane hardware requirements. That's money back in our pockets that we otherwise have to pay for products and in taxes because of M$'s incompantence and greed.

The major flaw with your argument is that Vi/Nano/Kedit are not Linux. They are all separate projects which are used under Linux. If you want to effect change, you need to work with the projects to do this. Probably not the answer you are after, but the only realistic one on offer.

joe, nano, emacs, whatever... there's plenty of garbage out there if you're not man enough for vi(m). jk. I like vi though, even though it does take quite a bit of time to learn to use proficiently.

Life and Death? Get real! Linux does *not* depend on sales revenue...this is not a "amass user base so we don't go out of business" situation. Linux is here because programmers put time into making a system they like and then give it away for free. Sure, there are companies involved, and money gets moved around no doubt...but Linux is not dependent on such things for survival...it depends on *interest* of programmers, and last I looked the interest of the programmers had not waned.

The only arguement I've heard for increasing user base that makes any bit of sense is that big hardware companies pay attention to systems that have a large userbase. Ok, I'll give you that...more users = better hardware support. But to say Linux "desperately needs to improve it's desktop penetration before M$ pulls it's head out" is rubbish. Perhaps Linux desperately needs to improve before *you* like it, but Linux is in no danger of going "away"/"out of business"/"to sleep with the fishes" until open source programmers world wide wake up one day and go "ya know, this Linux thing...I'm just not feeling it anymore".

That day, I feel, is never going to come...at least not until something just as free, flexible, and powerful comes along to takes Linux's place.

I agree, there is no life and death struggle, it is nonsense. The only thing that might come close is a court battle vs M$, but usually M$ is the one in the life and death struggle, even with all their money, the courts are usually fair enough to rule against them as in the SCO case. So, even this, the greatest threat, is a minor threat.

Also, try to be a bit more realistic, how does the inclusion of a different text editor in distros that already have kedit, kate, gedit, save GNU/Linux from certain doom. Please ...

http://www.geany.org/

Artie

As ErV already stated, vi does not need any ctrl- or alt- sequences. This is a feature and it comes from a time, when keyboards were not as standardized as today. vi basically works everywhere equally and there are still situations, where you might need that, e.g. in recovery shells, if no locale settings, keyboard layout, code pages etc. are loaded. That's why it is still used.

Having said that, you can easily change your default editor, which is distribution dependent (either an env variable or symlink to /usr/bin/editor). Most distributions don't have vi set as default afaik. It is, however, installed by default to be included in initrd images, for use in recovery shells.

I've said it time and time again that I'll use whatever operating system, closed source or open source, that fits my needs best. If Microsoft manages to create a version of Windows that has all the tools, utilities, compilers, etc... that I require, *and* it could meet the price tag that I pay for Linux, *and* it could meet my "don't do anything behind my back or try to dumb this down to where I have no clue what's going on" requirements, I'd use Windows.

Unfortunately, Windows tends to a) cost more than OpenBSD/Gentoo/LFS/FreeBSD/etc... b) does stuff behind my back without my explicit permission, c) dumbs everything down to where I have no visibility into what's going on, and d) lacks the tools I want in an OS. Chances of this changing in the near future: 0%. That, then, is the chance of me using Windows regularly.

Until such time that the chance of me using Windows regularly goes above 0%, I'll stick to Linux/BSD...and so will most of the Linux/BSD communities, including the developers who make it all possible.

That's why I don't see Linux in a "life and death" struggle, and all of Microsoft's whining and legal threats and flat-out FUD won't change that fact.

Geany is one nice one, and it is more than just a text editor, it is a small scale IDE (Integrated Development Environment). It is not universally available, but it is widely available, small in size, and an excellent GUI based option.

Leafpad is a really small GUI based text editor, much in the spirit of notepad, worth a look for something really simple.

Nano is a popular console based text editor. If it is not to your liking, what about Joe, or ee (Easy Editor)?

Also, here is one that is not widely known, but in spite of the name, it is quite easy to use:

Barry's Emacs is easy to use and accessable yet powerful.

You can start using Barry's Emacs as a notepad replacement. Then, at your own speed use more advanced features.

Its user interface uses the familiar Windows style user interface, key bindings, menus, toolbar and dialogs. Barry's Emacs is integrated with the Windows explorer. (Barry's Emacs can also be used on Linux systems, so it is available for multiple platforms).

Here are others worth a look:

JED is a freely available text editor for Unix, VMS, MSDOS, OS/2, BeOS, QNX, and win9X/NT platforms. Although it is a powerful editor designed for use by programmers, its drop-down menu facility make it one of the friendliest text editors around. Hence it is ideal for composing simple email messages as well as editing complex programs in a variety of computer languages.

ne (for "nice editor") is a console text editor for POSIX computer operating systems such as Linux or Mac OS X. It uses termcap library, or a library such as ncurses which provides that interface. There is also a Cygwin version. It was developed by Sebastiano Vigna of the University of Milan, Italy

ne is intended to provide an alternative to vi that will be more familiar to modern users and still be portable across all POSIX-compliant operating systems. It uses common keyboard shortcuts such as Ctrl-Q to quit and Ctrl-O to open a file instead of the multi-mode command structure of vi. It has full support for UTF-8, regular expressions and is binary clean.

Hopefully those are enough alternatives to consider - there certainly are numerous others that could be considered as well.

To address the various posts.

Linux except for the kernel is comprised of a zillion different projects. That relates to this topic how? If you mean that the keystrokes in VI should be changed I never suggested that nor see a purpose in modifying VI. Only in replacing it as the standard text editor. Leave it in distos but we need something more.

As for life and death twice now chip and MB manufacturers have come close to adopting DRI features that would all but lock Linux off of that hardware. Linux because of it's low desktop adoption rate doesn't get even an afterthought when it comes to what hardware manufacturers do and M$ knows this and has purposely attempted to get features introduced which have in the past made life difficult for Linux users but could potentially make it impossible. If Linux has enough penetration in the desktop world where %90 of computers wind up, then Linux users would be a consideration in any new designs and features. Those of you old enough to remember how close the Clipper chip came into being. The Clipper chip could have set Linux back a couple years since by design it was supposed to be difficult to break and with Microsoft being a major party in it you could count on anti-Linux sentiment. Who knows when M$ will bribe the right people again such as their attempts along with IBM to get an official monopoly providing computers as a utility that people had no choice. That's an idea Microsoft and IBM are still trying to squeeze in the cracks. M$ isn't likely to beat Linux with quality but if they solve enough problems people will be less likely to move to Linux. Right now Vista has provided a golden opportunity that we as a community are squandering.

Just to make it worse most Linux users rather than speak up when we are slighted just go around the problem or avoid the software/website. So Linux looks insignificant to many companies. One of the reasons I love Linux so much is I spend my time doing stuff WITH my computer not TOO it. The better support Linux has the less time I have to spend doing things too my computer so I can do things with it.

*That* hardware. Need I remind you that Linux runs on more than x86/amd64?

And Microsoft has much less pull than you think...some years ago Microsoft pushed for a BIOS modification to only allow their "trusted code" to work with the BIOS (mainly on x86), and the BIOS manufacturers replied "ehh, I don't think so". Not bribes nor legal pressure/etc... made the BIOS manufacturers crack, so what makes you think lockout tactics will fly now?

Here's a link to the LinuxBIOS (now called "coreboot") that was started to ensure BIOS lockouts wouldn't stop Linux (started before the BIOS manufacturers made their official reply):

http://www.coreboot.org

Edit - To be fair, you are talking about *hardware* issues, so I'll address that directly (BIOS isn't hardware). I for one would like to see a unified standard adopted by Intel and AMD BOTH that locks Linux off the desktop. One would go for such a standard, and the other would *not* because they'd sell more chips competing on different grounds. Competition is a b$%^&, you know?

Just curious...did your friends choose to use VI, or did you suggest it to them? If the former, perhaps Linux distros should make the easy editor of choice *painfully* obvious on boot up (or better yet, you should have advised them against using VI), if the latter then you really have no grounds to argue.

I do not see connection between this and vi as standard editor.
You are thinking in the wrong direction.
Changing default console editor has nothing to do with "desktop penetration". To improve linux market share, you will need exclusive and popular technologies (this can be anything), available on linux only (with opensource ideology this will be a problem, though). Also there should be demand for those technologies, hype, and large scale linux advertising campaign.
Or you can hope that ongoing financial crisis will turn people away from high-priced operating systems.
"vi as standard editor" is completely irrelevant.
I think all this is fairly obvious.

Just imagine that you are a head of laaaarge corporation trying to dominate world or market using linux and think what would you do in this situation. Also think about following: How many people tried linux? Why some didn't continue to use it? How many people didn't like linux because of vi? Is there a proof that vi is worst linux program that scares away every person trying to use linux?

The problem is that you think that vi is some kind of "killer feature" - i.e. if you improve that, something good will happen to linux world. The truth is that many people don't know it exists. Many users will never need vi, many will never even attempt to launch it. not all people use computers to edit texts, you know.

Besides, why do you think vi is default editor? It isn't. It is simply available, but no one forces anyone to use it.

Erv read up the whole thread. I've repeated myself enough already. Nobody has been able to refute the fact that VI has very low adoption rates among newer users or that it is difficult to learn. To be honest that should be enough to change the standard by itself.

We should probably split the Linux penetration as to the threat to Linux to a separate thread. The only reason it relates to this thread is that people refuse to adopt a new standard, perhaps in fear that VI will be dropped from distros, I don't know, they do not make their logic clear on this. By attacking my arguement that Linux needs to increase desktop penetration they still have not addressed the two facts I have brought up.

As for painfully obvious. Sorry Pico and Nanno are not user friendly nor an aid to desktop adoption. I'll be happy to modify the code myself to get a user friendly text editor. All it would take is changing a few key combinations and modernizing the look and feel a little. Just so they don't look like something out of the 80s. More of a pschological thing but when folks see something so primitive looking as Picco or Nanno they think it's hard. Change the look just a little and the psychological impact is gone.

Changing the standard text editor helps Linux. It doesn't take VI away from it's fans. People act like I'm trying to ban VI. They also don't understand lots of people are just not going to learn VI no matter how much they try to force it down our throats. I'm baffled why anybody wants it to remain the standard. I could see folks getting mad if I suggested it be removed from standard distros. I'm not suggesting that. I am trying to make it easier for folks that's all.

To Rocket357 - Only one new user of the hundreds I've helped and or introduced to Linux ever bothered learning VI and used it except as a last resort. A few fell in love with Emacs, the rest use GUI editors exclusively. I know a few that just won't open a console window at all because VI has traumatized them that much about the console. More than once people have rebooted their machines trying to figure out how to get out of VI. That was at least educational as I described ps and GUI equivs and the fact that Linux machines almost never need rebooting except when the kernel is modded. Reminds me a bit of what killed Word Perfect. Others have destroyed the files they were trying to edit to the point I had to email them a copy of the file so they could start over. New users + VI = Big hassles simple as that.

If you read up I spent an entire paragraph on how Linux adoption relates to the console editor. It is often the first app a user sees as they SSH in remotely to a Linux hosting machine and it has left such a bad taste in many people's mouths that you hear VI mentioned specifically and with great vile in mixed OS topic areas where Windoze users describe VI and think that VI is how all of Linux is. It is an insane hassle trying to walk a user through VI usage over the phone or in chat. It makes users dependent, not in control of their own system/server as they have to rely on somebody like me to walk them not through the changes to the cfg file but through the syntax of VI just so they can make a 10 second change. I've literally spent half an hour walking a user through a 1 char change because of the VI interface. Great PR for Linux wouldn't you say? Made me look really foolish saying how easy Linux is to use.

I'll start a new thread with the desktop penetration issue. Belongs it it's own separate thread now.

When was VI adopted as the defacto standard? What you seem to overlook is that VI is there *in addition to* other editors. Just because the developers who write the code wish to include VI does not mean it's the end-all standard. ErV has pointed this out already. VI != standard.

I never doubted that VI + new users = one big mess. VI is an acquired taste...one that you get addicted to once you see the beauty of the logical order of keystrokes. For some, exposure to meth-amphetamines is an instant addiction, for others it's a massive turn-off. For the rest (who avoid it at all costs), it's irrelevant. VI can be that drug...editing effortlessly and faster than any other text editor on the planet...but you don't test people like rats on meth-amphetamines just to watch them puke! Likewise, you don't direct new users to VI when other "user-friendly"-er editors are available, even if the editors look like something out of the movie "Hackers". I'm sorry, in that instance you need to step back and re-evaluate and let the user determine if VI is right for them or not. Otherwise you're just conducting a sick experiment that is doomed to failure...and as the "Linux admin" that is stepping new users through using Linux it is your responsibility to direct them to or from VI...and you should know what other editors are available. The user has no clue and at that point is dependent on you to assist them. Direct them to nano...it might appear cryptic, but it's better than having them reboot to exit an application.

If that's not possible, you can install X and forward X connections over ssh and let them use whatever GUI editor they deem fit. Does that make sense? No...but neither does directing new users to VI and then complaining when they freak out.

Edit - of all the Linux distributions I've used, I've yet to find one that offers VI exclusively on a default install. Perhaps I've overlooked something, but not even the hard-nosed RTFM-slinging developers at OpenBSD put *just* vi in place on a default install (ee is included as well, and the documentation points to it in an obvious place). That is the problem I see with your logic...not that new users hate VI, but that you seem to direct them there regardless of other available editors. If I've missed a distro that does NOT include a console editor save VI, please let me know.

And I fail to see how a *console* editor affects *desktop* adoption. Why are your users ssh'ing into their machines if it's *Desktop* Linux?

vi wasnt even installed on my Debian Sid system, nano was the default console editor. Nano is very easy to use, the commands are even listed at the bottom.

The entire thread is just one more Linux needs to be like windows thread.

Linux is all about freedom if you do not like one app use a different one. Chances are there are dozens of choices. In 5 yrs of running Debian I have had to use nano exactly one time when my xorg.conf got messed up. Never used vi, but I do use cream.