>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
sb> The basic question as Martin has raised it to me in
sb> conversation over the phone, is why do all the defaults suck?
One reason, I think, is that it's tedious to work on checking them all
and get them consistent (first) and appealing (better). Another is
that not all values are available on all machines (default font is
Courier; I happen to like Lucidatypewriter myself, but the init file
explicitly says too few machines have it, but all have Courier).
But that's the wrong question, I think. Because all the defaults are
preferred by somebody! Otherwise "last patch" would have already won.
There isn't a consensus on the definition of "suck."
So the first question is "do we need a definition of 'suck'?" I think
we do; the more consistent the XEmacs interface is, the more appealing
it will be (other things being equal).
The second question is, "who is the generic 'Jane User' who decides
what 'suck' means?" I dunno.
sb> I *know* I'm going to hate the consensus, but if there are
sb> fewer people who hate the defaults the result will be
sb> positive.
Why do you think there's going to be a consensus?
My expectation is that there are going to be several candidates for
"Jane User". If they are (individually) coherent enough, and
reasonably few, maybe we should look into "defaults themes". Not just
faces (as has already been proposed), but zemacs-regions and the
yet-to-be-named-or-implemented disabling of push-mark. So you'd have
"Happy-Happy-Windows" for that gentle transition from MS Edit and
"Kyles-Tocatta-and-Fugue" for those who prefer that every keystroke be
an occasion for an in-depth excursion into Info.
How about an xemacs-dotemacs write-only mailing list? :-)
If there are only two, then we can have a massive flamewar over which
is going to be hard-coded as defaults and which is going to be
enshrined as sample.emacs. But I think that unlikely. I think I've
identified at least three likely camps already: Kyle's,
Happy-Happy-Windows (a caricature of the reasonable position that
"anything that encourages more people to try XEmacs is good"), and the
Hrvoje-Steve-Didier "`beginning of-buffer' doing `push-mark' just
ain't logical" group. Assuming that the third camp doesn't break
apart when we start discussing say zmacs-regions....
If that fragmentation proceeds ad infinitum, then yes, you'll hate the
compromise. But you wouldn't be able to call it "consensus."
sb> `xemacs -vanilla' stinks. If there is anyone who can stand
sb> editing in an `xemacs -vanilla' environment for any time
If the alternative is pico or a Motif textarea? `xemacs -vanilla'
ain't so bad for editing. ;-)
A quick check of my own .emacs shows very little that isn't package-,
site-, or user- specific initializations (by which I mean stuff that
doesn't have a sensible default besides `nil', like `vm-spool-files').
Not many customizations of XEmacs itself, although some packages (eg,
supercite) are extensively customized.
--
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +1 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."