kutils/KEdit

[mwoehlke]

Dominik Haumann wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 July 2006 16:53, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Dominik Haumann wrote:
>>> On Monday 24 July 2006 17:09, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>> Dominik Haumann wrote:
>>>>> On Friday 21 July 2006 16:33, Robert Knight wrote:
>>>>>> On a side note, what is the difference between KWrite and Kate?  Or
>>>>>> in other words, when would I want to use KWrite instead of Kate?
>>>>> Yes, I also remember the idea of removing kwrite in favour of kate.
>>>>> Don't know what came out of discussions, though.
>>>> Isn't KWrite more light-weight (basically just a window frame wrapped
>>>> around a KATE-part)?
>>>>
>>>> Personally I never cared for KATE (the application); it seems like a
>>>> KDevelop-wannabe, whereas I'm usually looking for 'just a text
>>>> editor'. I use KWrite (and KDevelop, which is using KATE-part) all the
>>>> time. The only time I ever used KATE was on a computer that didn't
>>>> have KDevelop.
>>>>
>>>> Given that it *is* basically nothing but a KATE-part container, is
>>>> there really much overhead in maintaining KWrite?
>>> Maintaining never was a problem iirc ;) But we often had the
>>> discussions about three text editors in the K-menu, whereas one would
>>> already be enough.
>> Three? Funny, I can only find KWrite. :-)
>>
>> My vote is still to keep KWrite (and hey, even Windoze has both Notepad
>> and Wordpad); I prefer having a lean-and-mean editor. Kate-app always
>> seemed like it had too many bells and whistles to be the Linux 'notepad'.
>>
>> What's the third, though?
> 
> KEdit

Ah, KEdit, which I never cared for for the opposite reason; it's *too* 
dumb :-). Maybe I'm confused; if you're just talking about moving around 
icons, I've no problems with that. Nor do I (personally) have any 
problems nuking KEdit entirely. I'd still like to hope for KWrite to 
stay in whatever source package gives you KATE-part, though; it seems a 
little silly to do otherwise considering what KWrite is.

-- 
Matthew
DOS Attack: See America Online -- my college room mate