🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DCM2z5.9Ex@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
Arun Gupta <gupta@mrspock.mt.att.com> wrote:
 >In article <danpop.807226875@rscernix>, Dan Pop <Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
 >>
 >>I did all this switching on the Unix side.  Sorry to disappoint you,
 >>but I never read any documentation for elm and pine.  They're menu driven,
 >>you know?  My Unix tutorial book has a chapter about vi which contains
 >>everything I needed to know about it and emacs is menu driven.  An 
 >
 >One of the following must be true :
 >	1. You need very little from vi.
 >	2. You had a very good UNIX tutorial book
 >	3. You are unaware of about a million features of vi.
 >
 >>application doesn't need a GUI in order to be easy to use.  This explains
 >>why the ASCII terminals haven't been killed yet by the PC's, Mac's,
 >>workstations and X terminals.  BTW, their worst "enemy" here is the
 >>X terminal.
 >
 >IMO, ASCII terminals haven't been killed yet at least in part, because they
 >consume the least bandwidth of the various display solutions, and bandwidth
 >is still very expensive.

YOu are also forgetting that they are dirt cheap---practically disposable--and
are dead easy to program.  They are also compact, reliable and secure as
well.  You don't need to load them with software---hence no licensing
and configuration headaches---and you'd damn near have to pay thieves to
take one...