Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?)

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> wrote:

On 01/17/2014 05:47 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote:

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Glenn Morris <address@hidden

<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:

    Per Starbäck wrote:

     > I have always thought of GNU Emacs as *the* editor in GNU, that
    is the
     > default editor. Do you think a GNU system ideally instead should have
     > some other ("simple") editor as the default editor?

    If GNU has a default editor, I guess it is the default GNOME one, gedit.
    It advertises itself as "aiming at simplicity and ease of use".


Why was gedit developed? It looks advanced to me. (I have never used
it.) Why was not Emacs used as a basis for gedit?

What does C-s do in Emacs? What do most novice users expect C-s to do? In order to use Emacs as a base for gedit, Emacs would have had to have been warped beyond all recognition. Emacs is a great environment, but let's not pretend that it's what users migrating from proprietary desktop operating systems should face when trying to edit a simple cookie recipe for themselves should have to face.

Wouldn't you still have recognized the elisp? ;-)

I would have been much more comfortable with Emacs as the basis for gedit. Emacs was made to be customize-able, but somehow it still failed to form the basis for gedit. Is not that a bit unfortunate? (Maybe not, but what about the future of Emacs then?)