Has anyone mentioned Qedit by Semware? That would be a port from dos, not windows. An excellent cursor-based text editor with simple keystroke macros, without the learning curve of vi or emacs

I am not sure this is the QEdit you mean: https://qedit.soft112.com/

If it does not suit you, there is joe (jstar) which has a variety of key binding options.

jlinkels

When I first saw this I almost replied along the lines of "But that's broken and annoying and changes all the time, why?!"
Then I calmed down about my experiences with it and realised that, at times, I'm still having issues with device to driver matching on one of my laptops, for example.
However, I really don't see that a graphical device driver would help. The availbility of drivers is the actual problem and the interface doesn't change that. A few lines in the console will either get that driver installed or it will not and no GUI will change that. Plus, what is thje point of Linux if it simply emulates Windows?

It's to make Linux easy for new users coming from Windows. A G.U.I. version will make it easy for everyone because it's intuitive.

i see that, initially, but in what situation?
Every situation I have seen with a driver problem in Linux is a drivber problem *i- they're not there or need a lot of messing with.
Plus, how does it make Linux better to allow people who can't read a few instructions and type a few words to install it?

A gui is only intuitive when you've gotten used to that particular one, and there are people who have more trouble with a gui than text (such as strongly aural learners).

Leaving aside the wisdom of making it "easy" for new users coming from windows by giving them something that's counter intuitive to the system to which they're migrating. "Easy" at the start can "easily" make it "difficult" as they learn.

I have trouble with understand Gibberish.

As monosyllabically as I can, then:
(1.1) a gui is only intuitive if it follows previously established practice and different operating systems can have different practices;

(1.2) there are people who find understanding text easier than understanding graphics*.

(2.1) the previous paragraph doesn't address whether or not it is wise for new Linux users to continue with the "Windows way" of doing things when they may be different to the "Linux ways";

(2.2) making Linux more Windows-like for beginners will only delay the point at which they need to "unlearn" their windows habits, generally to when they need to learn more advanced Linux administration.

HTH

*See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_learning. Note that the sections "Recommended techniques" and "Lack of evidence" are relevant to the use of learning styles in a classroom; we are discussing whether or not a gui is always more efficient than a CLI.

2 members found this post helpful.

That's nonsense.

^^^ It's not.

1 members found this post helpful.

Interesting thing about Windows that one of the most closed source pieces of software has literally become the playground for infiltration of spyware, viruses, trojans and worms. They promoted a GUI as the next evolution in computer usage. Truth of the matter is, their interface is just anther paradigm to a CLI. It does however take more effort to write a GUI if you take into account setting up the scaffolding. X OTOH has always been an extension to the term. In Windows they did the reverse and brought Power Shell as an extension to the GUI. LMAO.

Thank you very much, ll

1 members found this post helpful.

historically that is not true.
up to version 3.1 iirc (win95 was the first one to do away with this; whether they really did, or just hid it better, idk) windows had to be started from the command line - just like X:
i guess the command line interface just atrophied from then on, and when Linux started overtaking them in some sectors, they decided to put some effort in (oh and i'm making this up as i go; i'm quite proud to say that nowadays i know next to nothing about windows 1st hand).

which of course proves that there's a good reason to do things on the command line - personally, i'm somewhat 50/50.
maybe what i like most about linux is that there's graphical programs that still allow one to use the keyboard exclusively.

also, gui or gui? - i remember the borland compiler from the 90s. it had a GUI, with everything you expect: a menu bar, dropdown menus, etc. it was called Guided User Interface then.
Having a GPU & driver is not the essential part.

What's not true?
You seem clueless about the way Windows works. Firstly there were two sorts of Windows: Win3.1/95 and NT. You've mixed the two up.
Windows 3.1/95/98/ME ran in something called Enhanced Mode under DOS. NT boots the kernel directly onto the hardware using what they call the HAL.
By Windows I am referring to present day Windows (aka NT forerunner).

That's not true my ass.

Not being a programme writer, I look at Linux and Microsoft Windows as two different worlds. Both over the years I've learned they control the way the computer screen looks differently. One can see that MS Windows programmes are generally shown in folders as .exe and in Linux .bin is the order of the day.

Programme installation is handled totally different, as Linux users know well. Whether you use a ubuntu type distribution or red hat type when installing the installer drags in the necessary extra dependency files it needs. Windows handles installation totally differently, whether 32 bit or 64 bit, installation is usually to Program Files folder on a drive called C maybe some files put in users and the name of the owner.

Looking at Linux, drives are not known as C or D but maybe SDA or SDB. Files according to the Programme writers are often installed into a System folder named opt and what is known as the privately named Home folder of the user.

Structurally the nuts and bolts are totally different. Windows uses a registry with what is known as keys. These keys are used to control the behaviour of Windows and programmes installed. Linux uses written command lines in various library folders.

I always explain to friends one operates a Linux system within as though he was sat in a safe. To alter, install or remove something in the system your personal Login Password is required, then you know you're in what is known sat in the inner safe, a safe within a safe.

I've found that Linux starts up faster than MS Windows.

There are other main differences, and I most likely would have to write 50 pages to list them.