Re: [PATCH] Add Notepad++ And Some Corrections

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Shlomi Fish <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem is that you only mention UltraEdit and Textpad which are both
> neither open-source nor gratis.

I don't agree that commercial software is a problem. I'm not trying to
express a political point in the FAQ (nor was the original author).
There is a long list of editors, so "only" is misleading. As I said
previously, I'm not going to bloat the text by mentioning every editor
in every place.


> If you wish, you can mention Notepad++ instead of UltraEdit or Textpad (or
> both). But we should still mention an open-source *and* gratis alternative,
> because we are both advocates of FOSS, and should expect some of the readers
> to not be able to shell out the money for an editor that costs money.

I'm not an advocate of FOSS. I write some FOSS, I think it's good, but
I pay for my operating system and my text editors, as well as a lot of
other software I use everyday. I expect that people should pay for the
tools they use to support the people who created them. But, I am not
using the FAQ as a political tool for either side. There is a long
list of editors in the FAQ and people can choose whichever they like.
I'm not going to exclude either side or change the FAQ merely because
the editors mentioned at any point don't agree with someone's
political motivations.

> I've been working with UltraEdit on my Perl pupil's Windows XP laptop, and the
> experience has been nothing short of frustrating.

That is your experience, but I've heard opposite stories as well. An
editor is a personal choice.  That someone doesn't like an editor has
no bearing on what other people will like.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the argument.

-- 
brian d foy <[email protected]>
http://www.pair.com/~comdog/