> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential > > > convenience". > > > > vi has the advantage of being backward compatible into the early '80s. > > > > The only unix editors which vie with vi for standardness are ed (the > > unix standard), and emacs (backwards compatible into the early '70s). > ^^^^^ > Now _THAT'S_ a great idea... A boot disk with emacs... Hmmm... Size... > Darn... :)
Yeah, that is too bad... Isn't ease of use more important than standardness when it comes to an editor to be used for a rescue situation? I think that I would try doing an alternative set of boot disks to see how folx liked them. Is it possible to make mc use vi? On the rescue disk, size is at least neck and neck with ease of use. What is it people see in vi in terms of _using_ it? My opinion FWIW is that vi's presentation rivals that of dselect in general, with vi inching dselect out for not forcing one to follow a set path without saying what that set path should be. So, why do the vi users like _using_ vi? (Someone already said "it's standard"... can I get real reasons now? :) -Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
