From: na2@doc.ic.ac.uk (Nicholas Ambrose) Subject: Re: Lack of Imagination (was Re: Wordprocessor ... ) Date: 1 Jun 1993 15:26:04 +0100
In article <1993May31.151914.69690@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, dlj0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DAVID L. JOHNSON) writes:
|> In article <1993May28.151429.4459@wixer.bga.com>, rhodesia@wixer.bga.com (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
|> >
|> >Perhaps this is a sign of the direction Linux is taking, but in
|> >my opinion, you people should start thinking for yourselves and
|> >implementing something whizzy and solid (like Linux) rather than
|> >something slow which requires emacs or anything "object oriented".
|> >Using emacs is a complete intellectual copout. Do you really
|> >think that you could devise an easy-to-use killer app for Linux
|> >when the first page of the instructions read "first, get and
|> >compile emacs19..."?
|> >
|> I agree. It reminds me of the first time I helped a friend change a clutch.
|> the first line of *those* instructions were: ``Remove transmission''...
|>
|> >It's also possible to do much, much better than the Word Perfect
|> >interface. Perhaps a few well-done pie menus with accelerator
|> >keys. All you have to do is think.
|> >
|> I don't agree so much here. The idea seems to be to entice people. How better
|> than to have a clone of the standard word-processor? Besides, it (WP) now has
|> pull-down menus, which would seem reasonable. As would real WP file exporting
Well, surely all you need is a small config file, that holds all the key
bindings, then people could create their own key-maps etc and would not have
to stick with what was given. ie one file could use Word PErfect bindings, another Emacs, or they could be completely personalised ! also, you could allow
customisation of any windows, which should let any user set things up exactly
how they like it !
Nick
-- "If you have to hate, hate gently"