🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct30.135509.13887@b8.b8.ingr.com> smw@wikki.b17c.ingr.com writes:
>In article <Bwwt3r.B83@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, krisk@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Kris Klindworth) writes:

> 19 of the last 25 posts here have the word VI in the subject line.
>The word EMACS doesn't appear at all.

My point exactly.  I'll admit that some of my desire is selfish--I
don't know but the tiniest bit about VI, and am not interested in
increasing my knowledge about that right now.  It's like EDLIN (but
vastly more powerful)--you know it's going to be there, so know enough
to bootstrap yourself another editor...:-)

Having said that, I don't think that VI is "just a text editor" (no
offense Kris).  It's obvious from some of the topics being discussed in
this group that VI is *very* powerful (there's stuff that I don't have
the slightest idea how to do in Emacs), even if its sole intent is
to _edit_.

So splitting off the VI discussion (which I think is a huge majority of the
posts in this group) I think it'd help people be able to be selective.
People who are interested know exactly where to go, and people who aren't
know where to avoid.  I really think the signal-to-noise ration would
be lower for everyone...