John Abreau said: >I'm sort of in between. I've been using vi since 1983, and emacs since >1996. >I tend to use emacs mostly for coding and scripting, as most of the stuff >I'd do in vi is second nature at this point, whereas I still have to >think about how to do a lot of things in emacs.
I learned vi in DOS using elvis. Or Stevie. After learning emacs w/ Freemacs. About '89 or so. I learned alot of unix stuff on DOS (awk, C, lex/yacc). minix wasn't that much better then DOS at that time. > >On the other hand, I despise Vim. Sure, it's got extra features over and >above "real" vi, but after 19 years of using vi, I find the differences I had users getting tripped up on vi quirks on Solaris. Someone had installed elvis as /usr/local/bin/vi and they had that before /usr/bin and /usr/ucb in thier path. >In the past I'd always end up tracking down the source to nvi and building >that to replace vim. The past couple years, however, Redhat has been >shipping >nvi with their distribution. Nvi is actually the "real" vi; as I >understand >it, it's basically the original BSD vi codebase with the AT&T-tainted bits >scraped off. I wondering how AT&T bits got in. Vi was pure BSD that Bill Joy developed. All the Bell Lab guys liked ed. When Rob Pike developed the sam gui-ized editor he made sure you could drop to command mode and do ed like vi/ex. -- ------- Tom Buskey _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
