Subject: Re: install could use some static binaries
To: Jason Thorpe <>
From: Chris G Demetriou <>
List: port-i386
Date: 08/07/1996 19:31:05
> On Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:35:52 -0700 (PDT) 
>  Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>  > Having to kill an install script and restarting it, in order to change
>  > editors from a non-present vi to ed is not going to make anyone any
>  > friends.  Specially if it invovles rebooting from slow console media
>  > like tk50s or tu58s. Ugh.
> [ snippet from ]
> # Set the EDITOR environment variable
> if [ -x /usr/bin/vi ]; then
> 	EDITOR=/usr/bin/vi
> elif [ -x /bin/ed ]; then
> 	EDITOR=/bin/ed
> else
> 	echo "Can't find an editor!" 1>&2
> 	exit 1
> fi

I hate to say it, but anything called "CoolInstall" had best do better
than providing only 'vi' and 'ed' as editors...

I remember my first experience with 'vi' (one of my first experiences
with UNIX)...  It took me about 15 minutes of trying things to break
down and ask somebody how to get out of the damned editor.  Soon after
that, I was lucky enough to find a vi quick reference sheet...

The first time i ended up in 'ed', i typed ":q" a few times and, true
to form, it gave its wonderful diagnostic message.  Finally I got
rid of the ":" and it worked.

If you want an install sequence to be "Cool" for novice users:

	(1) You won't put them in an editor if you can at all
	    avoid it, and

	(2) If you must put them into an editor, it should be
	    much, much more user-friendly than vi or ed
	    (or even emacs).  Something like 'pine,' that puts
	    put instructions on the screen to tell you exactly
	    what keys you can use, would be a more appropriate

I can't really think of a good reason to put people into an editor in
the install process, however...