Re: bi -- should have been: vi vs emacs

["David B. Teague" <teague@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU>]

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
[ a bunch of correct things about emacs and vi]

An anecdote regarding vi and emacs use:

We had a whole department who were using vi under System V.2 on 
3b2/400s back in the middle 80s. I installed microEmacs (whatever was
current at the time). By the middle of the next month there was not
a single faculty member and few students who were still using vi.

MicroEmacs commands are similar in flavor to (big) emacs. Once we had a
decent Linux system running, everyone used (big) emacs. The only
reversions to vi were folk who had already leared vi somewhere else and
were committed to it.

I know both vi and emacs fairly well, and *much* prefer emacs' damned
peculiarities to vi's equally damned pecularities.

So much for vi being in any sense a casual user's editor.

This is a religeous war, and I apologise for continuing the discussion.

--David
emacs, the one true editor!
vi, because it takes too much time to type emacs!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
           LINUX: the FREE 32 bit OS for [345]86 PC's available NOW!
David B Teague | User interface copyrights & software patents make 
teague@wcu.edu | programing a dangerous business. Ask me or lpf@lpf.org

spy counter-intelligence wild porno sex gold bullion Soviet Bosnia clipper


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .