Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edit is now open source

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 191 posts

Re: Edit is now open source

#121

Post by zerr »

JdeBP wrote: post #100
zerr wrote: post #55

Is there anything in EDIT.EXE for MS-DOS that inherently hinders porting to x64? I wish they have implemented the same color theme as well.

There is no EDIT.EXE. If you have an EDIT.EXE you probably need to check for malware. (-: It was EDIT.COM, and in the days of long ago that was just a way of invoking QBASIC with the /EDIT command-line option. At which point the project becomes one of porting an old MS-DOS full programming IDE to 64-bit Windows, just for its text editor part. Also, much of MS-DOS was written in 16-bit 8086 assembly language; so porti…

Sure about that? So in 32bit Windows where we still have EDIT, do we also have QBASIC?

Re: Edit is now open source

#122

Post by arghwhat »

eviks wrote: post #107
arghwhat wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just feels like scope creep. Notepad would also be neat with some better keybinding support, plugins, lsp, ... - but then it wouldn't be notepad, and theres countless not notepads out there. Tools like nano (well, pico) exist to provide a reliable and always available minimum feature set. If you expand it, then you end up with something that is neither the minimum nor capable enough to sensibly compete with full…

No, it would still be notepad, but a higher quality one where especially users who don’t know better wouldn’t have to suffer as much from bad/lacking functionality

More features ≠ higher quality.

Re: Edit is now open source

#123

Post by arghwhat »

TZubiri wrote: post #95
arghwhat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can use nano over wsl if you want No, not when ssh'ing to a server to manage it. Pulling in a Linux VM to get a simple text editor also makes no sense. There is also nothing to integrate - it's a basic text editor for a terminal with no fancy features. It either edits text or it doesn't.

you gotta make sure that hotkeys get passed in every keyboard configuration. Ctrl, CTRL Shift, Ctrl Caps, Alt, how do tabs work? Etc.. That something looks simple but is actually difficult is an error we all make

This is a console application, it does not manage the keyboard directly and there is nothing windows specific here.

All existing editors do these things well already, nothing that required writing yet another editor.

Re: Edit is now open source

#124

Post by arghwhat »

divbzero wrote: post #111
arghwhat wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just feels like scope creep. Notepad would also be neat with some better keybinding support, plugins, lsp, ... - but then it wouldn't be notepad, and theres countless not notepads out there. Tools like nano (well, pico) exist to provide a reliable and always available minimum feature set. If you expand it, then you end up with something that is neither the minimum nor capable enough to sensibly compete with full…

Well, Notepad is introducing AI support which already feels like scope creep to me… https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enhance-your-wri...

... Yikes.

Re: Edit is now open source

#125

Post by arghwhat »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #29
arghwhat wrote: post #3

Yay for finally having a default text editor that works over ssh. Managing windows servers over ssh is a bit of a pain without. They could just have packaged nano, but oh well.

Ah, that makes sense then; I was really confused at first because I couldn't figure out why Windows would want a built-in text-mode editor. I suppose if folks are seriously using SSH to access Windows machines ... then I have other questions about why not RDP, but if that's a real thing people are doing then adding a built-in editor for them makes sense.

SSH is ubiquitous, lightweight, and now works for all machines equally.

SSH is integrated with everything and can be used to manage, transfer files/mount remote folders, forward ports in either direction, or proxy any network traffic through the remote end for debugging/access. You can open a remote folder directly in vscode, Zed or similar over SSH.

RDP to a standard Windows server (this was previously called "core" - having a desktop environment is a non-default add-on now) is silly as you're RDP'ing to solely see a cmd.exe window that asks you to use console-based configuration (sconfig.exe).

RDP to a windows server with "Desktop Experience" is silly because it is comparatively sluggish, streaming a (likely unaccelerated) video feed of heavier GUI applications vs. sending just a few text strings back and forth during editing.

Not to mention that containerized windows has no graphical stack and requires a text-centric workflow.

Re: Edit is now open source

#126

Post by arghwhat »

luma wrote: post #52
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that makes sense then; I was really confused at first because I couldn't figure out why Windows would want a built-in text-mode editor. I suppose if folks are seriously using SSH to access Windows machines ... then I have other questions about why not RDP, but if that's a real thing people are doing then adding a built-in editor for them makes sense.

This might be the most obvious use case: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administrat... I'm a powershell bigot and spend most of my windows admin life in a terminal (or vscode) so my take is to simply use psremoting but ssh is there if you need.

I prefer SSH because it fits into a standard workflow with far larger ecosystem (my file manager and editors can browse SSH directly, traffic can easily be routed over SSH in either direction), and is already what I'd use for the majority of servers and machines.

psremoting would be limited specifically to remote PowerShell on windows, which is comparatively limited. Even if I was purely a Windows admin I'd consider the SSH approach more powerful.

Re: Edit is now open source

#127

Post by dmos62 »

eviks wrote: post #118
dmos62 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, what a disheartening comment. Did GP not explain why they did what they did? This is an open-source project, the author expressed joy in working on it, and you have the heart to tell him off. This is far below what I expect of HN.

Did the comment not explain what the issue with that explanation is? But maybe if you didn't misrepresent the situation so much you wouldn't lose your heart. This is not some tiny personal open source project where fun can be the only valid reason, but "will ship as part of Windows 11!", so millions of devices in a professional OS. Are your expectations so poorly calibrated that you have none in both cases? Why are t…

What led you to say that the author did not have users' interests at heart? What led you to imply that there's something wrong with reimplementing something or having fun or whatever it is you disliked you so much? What leads you think that a person working on something delivered with Windows 11 deserves less respect than a person working on a less used system? Or, do you consider what you said neutral, well argued criticism?

Re: Edit is now open source

#128

Post by nikbackm »

zerr wrote: post #121
JdeBP wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no EDIT.EXE. If you have an EDIT.EXE you probably need to check for malware. (-: It was EDIT.COM, and in the days of long ago that was just a way of invoking QBASIC with the /EDIT command-line option. At which point the project becomes one of porting an old MS-DOS full programming IDE to 64-bit Windows, just for its text editor part. Also, much of MS-DOS was written in 16-bit 8086 assembly language; so porti…

Sure about that? So in 32bit Windows where we still have EDIT, do we also have QBASIC?

Who knows?

Can't imagine anyone here using 32bit Windows and limiting themselves to 4GB of RAM.

Are there even any cheap laptops sold with that little nowadays?

Re: Edit is now open source

#129

Post by eviks »

dmos62 wrote: post #127
eviks wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the comment not explain what the issue with that explanation is? But maybe if you didn't misrepresent the situation so much you wouldn't lose your heart. This is not some tiny personal open source project where fun can be the only valid reason, but "will ship as part of Windows 11!", so millions of devices in a professional OS. Are your expectations so poorly calibrated that you have none in both cases? Why are t…

What led you to say that the author did not have users' interests at heart? What led you to imply that there's something wrong with reimplementing something or having fun or whatever it is you disliked you so much? What leads you think that a person working on something delivered with Windows 11 deserves less respect than a person working on a less used system? Or, do you consider what you said neutral, well argued c…

What led you to continue to misrepresent... everything?

Why did you make up a point about a person deserving respect and pass it as my thought? Could you not come up with a more coherent difference between those two situations yourself?

Why are you asking a question about the motivation if you don't even understand "whatever" it is I disliked?

Why did you make up the implication that rejects having fun?

Why are you making it personal in the first place?

How can criticism be neutral when it's... critical?

What kind of well argued thing do you expect in a... single sentence to even ask such a question?

Again, why is there such a huge mismatch in your expectations re. a comment and a professional app?

Re: Edit is now open source

#130

Post by JdeBP »

zerr wrote: post #121
JdeBP wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no EDIT.EXE. If you have an EDIT.EXE you probably need to check for malware. (-: It was EDIT.COM, and in the days of long ago that was just a way of invoking QBASIC with the /EDIT command-line option. At which point the project becomes one of porting an old MS-DOS full programming IDE to 64-bit Windows, just for its text editor part. Also, much of MS-DOS was written in 16-bit 8086 assembly language; so porti…

Sure about that? So in 32bit Windows where we still have EDIT, do we also have QBASIC?

Yes. In those days of long ago, I saw the .COM extension with my own eyes and ran QBASIC /EDIT directly just for kicks.

Once upon a time, this knowledge was one of those non-secret secrets that made it onto the letters pages of the computer magazines and into every "MS-DOS secrets" book out there. (-:

And yes, Windows NT 4 had the MS-DOS QBASIC.

Post reply on HN