🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr9.171225.663@odin.corp.sgi.com> portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes:
>In article <HOWCOME.91Apr8165325@media-lab.media.mit.edu>, Hakon Lie 
>writes:
>>   there. I realize that Epsilon may run counter to rms' policies, but
>>   I'm prepared to take the moral consequences of actually *buying*
>>   something GNU-like.
>>
>>It's a waste of money, the GNU products are in most cases superior to
>>the commercial versions. If they aren't -- someone (maybe you) will
>>make them better..
>
>I don't understand what you're talking about.  Unless you have a
>386 or better, you are never going to get GNU Emacs to run on your
>laptop.  Other than that, Epsilon has far, far more features and
>far more extensibility than every public-domain editor available.
>The simple fact that memory + disk size is the only limit on the
>length of files it can edit should put it leagues ahead of Freemacs.
>Its only disadvantage compared to its competition is that it isn't
>free.

    I will never understand people who are willing to put up with
inferior tools because they're cheap.  Your editor is your #1 tool - who
cares how much it costs? Bad editors cost you more money in time and
frustration than you could *ever* save on the purchase price. 

    I would pay $1000 for Epsilon, and I wish the damn thing were
available for all machines (like my non-intel-processor-based UNIX
systems) because it beats the hell out of not only every other editor
I've tried, but out of emacs too (IMNSHO).

    The GNU software's great - we use gcc, gdb, bison, less, etc.  for
all of our (non pc-compatible) work.  But it's not free (although it is
cheap).  But when it comes to an editor, I think Epsilon's the best.


-- 
 _
Kevin D. Quitt         demott!kdq   kdq@demott.com
DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St.   Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266
VOICE (818) 988-4975   FAX (818) 997-1190  MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.