OSNews

I think user friendliness depends on what sort of user you want to appeal to.
But, generally, I think you're right; that'll help the most users.

I've actually never had a problem with the way emacs does it:
ctl+space #starts marking
up/down/pageup/pagedown/ctl+home/ctl+end
ctl+w/alt+w #cut/copy
move
ctl+y #paste

Or.
ctl+k 5 times
move
ctl+y

Then there's the mouse. That wonderful tool that is actually useful .

I've never had a problem with the way vi does it. yank yank put!

Agreed.
While vi and emacs are powerful, unfortunately they are quite hard to learn..

Also the lack of coherency between the application is a problem, for the shortcuts..
And unfortunately on Linux this coherency is not very good, sometimes even basic copy/paste doesn't work with app which use different toolkits.

While vi and emacs are powerful, unfortunately they are quite hard to learn

Like Word actually. I'll even go as far as to say at least Emacs is easier to learn, you even have a tutorial with it. But the thing is, vi or Emacs are not the right tool fr the job, if you are just someone who want to edit some text.
I say that because now both vim (admitedly not vi) and emacs have graphical modes. So you can use them like notepad. But of course you won't be efficient with them working that way.
That's exactly how I see most people use Word and Excel (me included) : using basic (10 %) functionality of it (that would be more like 1 % in Emacs case).

Also the lack of coherency between the application is a problem, for the shortcuts

Actually it's not. If you know Emacs, you're knowledgeable enough to know that you can change all editors command in Gnome (and I think in KDE too) to Emacs mode if that pleases you.

And unfortunately on Linux this coherency is not very good, sometimes even basic copy/paste doesn't work with app which use different toolkits

The coherency have gone a long way since 1999, and now it is very coherent (even more than Windows on Gnome/KDE), but some external apps still don't behave. Like on Windows, that's not the fault of Linux.

While vi and emacs are powerful, unfortunately they are quite hard to learn.

Then use Kedit, Kwrite or Kate (or Gedit if you prefer Gnome apps).

And unfortunately on Linux this coherency is not very good, sometimes even basic copy/paste doesn't work with app which use different toolkits.

That's increasingly untrue. Most Gtk/Qt apps now share the same clipboard. Drag'n'drop also work between many Gtk/Qt applications.

Granted it might take 10x as many keystrokes in Notebad to copy text, but, its logical.

First, I I believe that user friendlines is _also_ about how fast I can do the task. Not only about how fast I can learn/find out _how_ to do it.

Coming back to your quote, what is logical about ctrl-x and ctrl-v? It only appears logical, because the majority of users know it. I'd suggest that ctrl-p (p as paste), or ctrl-i (insert) would make more sense than ctrl-v.

Looking from the opposite side, vi's command _do_ make sense. It's just that people don't know, what the abbreviations stand for. Such as y is for yank, d for delete. g for go, p for paste. You might have trouble remembering "y", but remembering "yank" should be easier....

Ctrl and P for paste?

Just how big are your hands?

Ctrl and v handy for fast one handed operation, although as you say it dosn't make much sense.

His simplistic diagram showing two different routes from point A to point B shows a lack of thinking things through. Just because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line doesn't mean that the easiest or fastest path between two points is a straight line. People rarely go from one point straight to another in the real world. Even flight paths are curved because the world isn't flat. Obstacles often exist that keep us from taking what would seem to be the most direct route very easily.

The same can be true of software, and indeed a steep learning curve can definitely be a barrier to entry. The best programs are those that retain power, functionality, and ease of use. Programs that allow for a task to be accomplished in more than one way can enable a newbie to at least get the task done (even if it's not the most efficient way of doing things) while enabling a power user to use a deeper understanding of the program to accomplish the same task efficiently.

Removing functionality for the sake of ease of use is wrong, but forsaking ease of use in the name of functionality is also wrong. That can be like placing a roadblock on a mountain path because only experience rock climbers should be allowed to get to the top.