Subj : UNIX, vi, Stallman, etc
To : Bierhunter
From : Angus Netfoot
Date : Fri Apr 16 1999 12:48 am
RE: Baja
BY: Bierhunter to Angus Netfoot on Thu Apr 15 1999 06:43 pm
> AN> Of course, a UNIX command-shell wouldn't be authentic unless someone wr
> AN> a 'vi' editor to use in place of SyncEdit. Which isn't such a crazy id
> AN> after all, since 'vi' was designed to run over a serial connection, and
> AN> since there must be at least a thousand open-source implementations if
> AN> 'vi' out there. But I guess some ninny would demand a port of 'emacs'
> AN> too....
>
> pico might not be so bad a choice, either, and might be a little easier
> for those who are curious, but have little to no *nix experience. I
> know *I* still avoid vi if at all possible.
Listen: 'vi' is, without a doubt, the second worst text-editor in the world.
(The worst ever is 'ed', which 'vi' was written to replace.) The thing about
'vi' is, you can almost guarantee to find it on any UNIX boxen you might ever
find yourself faced with, and no matter how primitive the 7-bit 110 baud serial
connection you might have, 'vi' will work. So you HAVE to know how to use it
at least minimally. And once you know, well since you know it isn't so hard.
> As to emacs, I only have
> this to say. "Get thee behind me, foul demon!" I believe that emacs
> lends creedence to the belief that Richard Stallman is, in fact, a stark
> raving loony.
What he is is a twisted, bitter soul who for 25 years has struggled for and
failed to achieve what Linus has. (Linus even has a pretty wife who was six
times karate champion of Finland!) Stallman's now trying to grab some of the
fame by insisting that because they used the GNU compiler to develop the Linux
kernel, that it should be called the GNU/Linux operating system. Fool.
---
� Synchronet � telnet://talamasca-bbs.com
http://www.talamasca-bbs.com
