Re: text editors

[Gian Uberto Lauri <saint@eng.it>]

>>>>> "d" == deloptes  <deloptes@gmail.com> writes:

d> Pierre Fourès wrote:
>>> So there are many nifty things in Emacs. But the real killer is
>>> the integration of all those nifty things.
>>> 
>> 
>> Wow, this gave me the desire to give a real serious try to Emacs !

d> Don't sell your soul to the devil (jokingly) :D

Sorry, the editor of the devil is vi (six in roman): vi vi vi!

Emacs is the Only Editor!

In article <rj4tqpb06r.fsf@babbage.dina.kvl.dk>, 
in response to an infidel, Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:	

PA> On the other hand, an argument can be made that Emacs *is* an os.  
PA> You can't get much closer to the os than that.

  Although I agree with you on the fundamental idea, I am afraid that
this sentence diminishes The One Editor, and disposes of one of its
fundamental mysteries; were we all not to know your usually perfect
orthodoxy, cries of blasphemy would be heard.

  Emacs (let His name be honoured forever) is not only an OS; it is an
OS *and* a programming language (The One Programming Language -- see
alt.religion.lisp) *and* a set of editors, the programming language
being the personnification of the link between the editors and the
OS.  Whether Emacs is One in Three or Three in One remains an open
theological question.

  Let the benediction of Emacs always be upon your head,

(😊 - inserted by name)

-- 
 /\           ___                                    Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____               African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico            meaning "I can
\/                 coltivatore diretto di software       not install
     già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...                Debian"

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO